Secret No More: Revealing Windows XP Mode for Windows 7 - <AUTHOR> http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/04/24/secret-no-more-revealing-windows-xp-mode-for-windows-7/

<comment><USER2> It's a good move for Microsoft but kind of a sad statement on the computer industry in general.

Let me preface this by saying I make the purchasing decisions for my agency so I'm as guilty as anyone. But the reality is we're all kind of lazy. Developers don't want to rewrite their programs, IT admins don't want to learn Linux and all in all people just want to tow the line. But with x64 processors becoming mainstream and Microsoft pressuring hardware makers not to offer XP drivers we as an industry all have to upgrade to something.

That will essentially be the basis for Windows 7's sales and that's why this feature is both a good idea and a depressing statement on us all.

<comment><USER3> IMHO the problem is not that developers don't want to rewrite their programs, it's that they don't want to _maintain_ them, and don't want to _learn_.

There's no problem with letting old software stop running at some point, provided said period is long enough. The problem with Windows and its back- compat is that it supports more than legacy apps - many developers release _brand new applications_ that still rely on long-deprecated API and technologies. This complicates back-compatibility, since removing API will now kill new apps instead of just the decade-old ones it's meant to target.

Developers need to get a lot less lazy - if the API says "deprecated", do NOT use it. Do _not_ use undocumented calls... If people started programming instead of layering on hacks, this wouldn't be a large problem.

<comment><USER4> simple solution: microsoft releases as scan utility that counts the number of unique deprecated calls. The higher the count, the more costly the software maintenance, and the less preferable it is. so, all companies can independently evaluate a piece of software and developers can't hide their shoddiness.

<comment><USER3> Companies often do - I've worked for shops that _knew_ a rewrite was a good idea, and that hacking layers of old API onto their product was a bad idea in the long run.

But management isn't always focused on the long run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder about DirectX / video-intensive compatibility.

<comment><USER6> VMWare workstation plays video perfectly in WinXP VM, I don't see a reason why MS couldn't do the same.

<comment><USER7> VirtualBox doesn't. =/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Linux and OSX have had a number of ways to pull this off for ages. I don't really consider the idea the MS is doing this on their own stack a big surprise.

What still surprises me is that it took the Open Source community to provide full DOS execution on modern systems by means of DOSBox (which basically emulates a DOS era x86 system) instead of the hack-it-up route MS took for Win95 and pretty much abandoned on the road to XP.

Contrast that with other companies (say, IBM and SUN) which have binary compatibility going back to the early 80s and beyond..

<comment><USER9> Windows XP still supports 16-bit Windows 3.x applications. Sun's backward compatibility guarantee goes back to SPARC7 (circa 1987) which was already 32-bit. Windows 3.0 was 16-bit and was released in 1990. I don't know about IBM but I imagine the situation is similar. Linus didn't even start Linux until 1991. Desktop Mac OS X was released in 2001. Microsoft's compatibility achievement there is much more impressive to me.

AFAICT, the primary reason for this compatibility mode is to run IE6 side-by- side with IE8, so that corporations don't have to upgrade their web apps all at once. Neither Linux nor Mac OS X offers that feature for _free_ ; you can virtualize XP in Linux and Mac OS X but you don't get a free XP license with them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I can only imagine the bloat of running a complete copy of XP under 7 for app compatibility. The blue box worked for Apple, though.

<comment><USER11> Virtualization technology is surprisingly efficient. Besides, XP is likely much less resource-intensive than Windows 7.

<comment><USER10> But what's the definition of efficient? Will XP use less RAM in a VM than it would on hardware?

<comment><USER12> I imagine it won't use much at all: it's a special copy of XP, in a specially- written VM, running on a single platform. They can likely get memory management, and other crazy things, to fall through to the host OS.

I hope, though, that they're not trying to make XP applications as secure and trustworthy as W7 applications by wrapping them in a slow software condom; that, instead, they're just trying to ensure backwards-compatibility to the utmost extent possible. If something could crash XP, it should be able to crash W7 transparently through VXP—that's the level of entanglement where you start to see real performance. The users who need the old applications, that ran on XP but don't run on Vista, know what the bugs are; they'd rather have the _same_ bugs, with the same symptoms, than _new_ bugs. They know what they're getting into when they install something in XP-virtualization mode, so we don't have to _improve_ the experience beyond what it was like in XP just for them. That's what releasing a W7 version is for.

<comment><USER13> "If something could crash XP, it should be able to crash W7 transparently through VXP"

Pretty sure users are going to be willing to give up a degree of entanglement to both be able to run their XP apps _and_ have a system that doesn't crash. That alone would be an incentive to upgrade to W7.

Classic on OS X worked the same way, too: a Classic app could take down the entire Classic environment, but OS X would safely charge on apace. This was definitely something that helped drive people to upgrade.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> FTA: _Now, they can claim almost complete Windows XP compatibility, or almost 100 percent compatibility with all currently running Windows applications._

It'll be interesting to see what software that currently runs on XP fall outside of the "compatible" line.

</comment><comment><USER15> Is it sandboxed? Or does it have free-ish reign of the user's resources? Meaning indefinite patching of XP, assuming that there'll be a substantial enough target for XPM-specific malware?

(ps IE6 4EVA! Really, now.)

</comment><comment><USER16> Rather than virtualization, I'd prefer to see something like WINE. You would think that Microsoft would be able to write translation layer without the overhead of a virtual machine.

</comment><comment><USER17> this is potentially huge over the long run, as the article implies, but to state it more clearly, it frees future versions of windows from a significant degree of the legacy burden borne by the line up to version 7. not only does this give microsoft more flexibility with windows, it gives them a plausible roadmap for a transition to midori, or whatever is eventually declared the platform of the future.</comment>


Ask HN: At what speed do you watch educational videos? - <AUTHOR> When learning a new technical skill, I'm noticing that the time I spend watching videos instead of reading books is growing. But I almost always consume videos at a speed of 1.25x or 1.5x or sometimes even more. I don't think I lose anything by doing this, in fact, I feel I can learn quicker this way, especially if the video is of high quality (I could be wrong). I rather pause a video when I need to think about something than playing it at the original speed. I find that curious and wonder what this means for how we communicate and learn.<p>Are you doing this also? <comment><USER2> My preferred mode is book, especially for hard concepts.

I uusually view videos at 1.0x . I find them hard to learn from as my mind keeps wandering. I tried with 2.0x , it still didn't work for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> I do it at the maximum speed whenever possible, around 2x. I can just pause and rewind whenever.

Personally not a fan of videos to learn. I usually learn faster from books because of speed reading. Speeding up videos makes them tolerable for me.

</comment><comment><USER4> I sometimes download them and play them with VLC at 90% speed so my note- taking and diagramming can keep up. Either that or I just pause repeatedly. If it is review, I'll play at 1.5 or 2x though.

I wish online video platforms had a 90% option because it would make it more enjoyable for my wife to watch history videos with me.

</comment><comment><USER5> 1.5x to 2x, with pauses whenever I get confused. I think it's just because talking intelligibly is slower than thinking.

</comment><comment><USER6> 2x usually. Rewatch at 1.0x or 1.5x if I didn't get something.

</comment><comment><USER7> iirc 1.5x. 2x was too much for me.

</comment><comment><USER8> 1.5 x

</comment><comment><USER9> 1.5x usually</comment>


Ruma, a Matrix homeserver written in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://www.ruma.io/ <comment><USER5> Author of Ruma here. I can answer any questions people have. Ruma is in very early stages of development, if it's not clear from the website, so it can't actually be used for its intended purpose yet, but we're getting there. :}

<comment><USER6> How does end-to-end encryption compares to tox? Tox uses TOXID - <USER2> hexadecimal numbers as encryption key and DHT to find peers. Once you connect to a friend you know their IP, all messages, AV and file transfers are encrypted. I find a lot of documentation about it is missing. Would like to know which tox or matrix will be better for my next project. Tox also doesn't expose any metadata.

<comment><USER5> End-to-end encryption is still in the draft phase in terms of the Matrix specification—there hasn't yet been a published version of the spec that includes it. Synapse, the reference homeserver implementation, and Vector, the premiere web client, are still developing the implementation and will be deploying it sometime soon, likely followed by a new version of the spec that formalizes it.

The documents I know of that provide details about it are here:

* [https://matrix.org/jira/browse/SPEC-162](https://matrix.org/jira/browse/SPEC-162) (the tracking issue for the feature in Matrix's issue tracker)

* [https://matrix.org/git/olm](https://matrix.org/git/olm) (C implementation of the protocol formerly known as axolotl v2 developed for use in Matrix)

* [https://matrix.org/speculator/spec/drafts%2Fe2e/client_serve...](https://matrix.org/speculator/spec/drafts%2Fe2e/client_server/unstable.html#end-to-end-encryption) (draft of the spec for E2E)

<comment><USER6> Thanks, I will try to find some time and join your team and help with development. I lost hopes in tox despite being much more mature than matrix.

<comment><USER7> Depends on your definition of mature. The security was mature, but the UX was always garbage and there was never consensus in the ecosystem and huge swathes of critical features (like usable dns) have never been wholly adopted.

Matrix is lacking its E2E encryption but already has everything else. You can use Vector today to replace Hangouts or Skype completely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Slightly off-topic, but, as far as Rust goes, I've completely given up on it after realizing (after much study) that it is unsuitable for event-driven (callback-based) design. In short, its idea of ownership, borrowing and references is incompatible with "lower" objects knowing about their "parents" and invoking callbacks to them.

I know there are ways to get around but I don't see any which is sufficiently good for me (e.g. low boilerplate, scalable/composable, no compromise of performance). Some details are in my question on StackOverflow[1].

One particular example that C and C++ allow is to have an object "self- destruct" itself in a callback (e.g. after a TCP disconnect, EventLoop callbacks Socket callbacks MyClient which directly destroys MyClient including Socket). Yes it is indeed valid to call a (virtual) function on a class and for that class to proceed to delete itself [2]. This is very nice because it removes need to have special cleanup code all around and/or half-dead states. In Rust, this seems impossible by design (i.e. would need unsafe, and it's unclear if the compiler itself allows it anyway).

[1] [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/36952894/event-driven- des...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/36952894/event-driven-design-with- callbacks-in-rust)

[2] [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3150942/c-delete- this](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3150942/c-delete-this)

<comment><USER9> That's inaccurate.

You can do what you describe as long as you use Rust's reference counting support (Rc and Arc), which includes weak references that can be used for parent pointers, plus RefCell and Mutex for mutation.

To have an object "self-destruct", have it remove all reference counted pointers to itself.

You can pass an &Rc<Self> (or &Rc<RefCell<Self>> or &Arc<Mutex<Self>>) as the self parameter if you want to let an object create references to itself. If you want an object to be able to drop itself immediately in that case, use an Rc<Self> instead of an &Rc<Self>, and call drop(self) in the method (this also work if you are not using reference counting and just pass Self, of course).

You should try to not do this kind of thing though, because it adds overhead and the compiler cannot statically check that you are not leaking reference counted cycles or deadlocking on mutexes or refcells (which is not a Rust limitation, it's just impossible without having the programmer write a machine-checkable proof).

If you do it in C++ the compiler also cannot check whether you are referencing freed memory or incorrectly concurrently modifying the same object.

<comment><USER10> I think Rc<RefCell<T>> falls into the "high boilerplate workarounds" category that ambrop7 mentioned they were trying to avoid.

<comment><USER11> Rc<RefCell<T>> is not high boilerplate at all, and it's a super common Rust pattern. If you think this is too much boilerplate then I'm really not sure what you were expecting. It's just composition of reference counting memory management and mutability, a great example of modular design. What more did you want?

<comment><USER8> Rc is dynamic memory allocation, which means every element of your application will end up in its dynamic memory block. This is inefficient and highly undesirable for resource-restricted / embedded applications.

<comment><USER11> Right, you shouldn't reflexively use Rc everywhere. That seems like a completely different topic, though: what I was responding to was the assertion that composition of Rc and RefCell was "boilerplate".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I haven't had a chance to work on a real-world problem with Rust (I mostly use Python, but have started learning Rust for fun), so this is genuine curiosity speaking: is this ([https://github.com/ruma/ruma/blob/master/src/main.rs#L60](https://github.com/ruma/ruma/blob/master/src/main.rs#L60)) idiomatic Rust? If I understand correctly, lines 63-76 are using chaining because Rust doesn't support optional / named parameters? And lines 78 - <USER3> are basically just "run server if no error"? Seems like an awful lot of code for what it does... Could it be make nicer or is such level of verbosity something normal in Rust?

EDIT: again, not trying to put anybody down, I would just like to learn if this code is representative of bigger Rust apps.

<comment><USER13> Is it that verbose, though? I have a hard time seeing how it could be made any shorter in other languages, without sacrificing functionality.

EDIT: I think what gives the code its length here is the explicit error handling. If you do the same in Python you'll end up with the same amount of code. In Rust, you could unwrap() everything and lose nice error messages and probably slash the LOC in half.

<comment><USER14> With the built-in error handling macro, you can generally do:

        let value = try!(fn_that_may_error());

Rather than having to muck around with explicit matching on Ok vs Err.

The try! macro would make the linked function much less verbose... Except that what try! does is bubble the error further up the stack by returning an Err if the called function returns an Err — and since this is the main function, there's nowhere up the stack to go (main() has a return type of "Unit," which is Rust's version of void or null; for functions that pass errors up the stack you'd have a return type of Result<ReturnType, ErrorType>, which allows errors to be returned), so try! can't work.

I agree that some of that error handling in 79-101 is pretty awkward looking, but luckily it's not super representative of idiomatic Rust: usually you can make Rust much more concise by using try!, with the exception of the main() function which can't use try! and has to actually handle the error.

<comment><USER15> I'd prefer to use `expect` in this case, or if I wanted to present a non-scary error message, write a custom macro to print the error and exit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> That's nice, but is Matrix going anywhere? There are so many of these federated social systems now (Diaspora, Urbit, Gnu Social etc.) with few users. (And they don't interoperate with each other, which is a lack.)

Maybe we just need some federated system that's a directory only. All it does is help you find people and resources, after which they speak end to end.

<comment><USER17> It's worth noting that Matrix is the only federated system which sets out from the outset to bridge together all the others (hence the name Matrix). Whilst we don't have bridges to diaspora/urbit/gnu social yet, it's only a matter of time. PRs welcome!

In terms of the community size - looking at just the Matrix.org homeserver, there are around 300K messages a day, 250K users (of which about 200K are bridged), and 30K rooms. Meanwhile there are at least 500 openly federated homeserver installations we can see from the Matrix.org homeserver.

Synapse is relatively mature as a homeserver (although it still has performance challenges; it is very cool to see Ruma progressing!) - <USER4> Vector as a flagship web/ios/android client is in late public beta and very usable too - eapecially with end-to-end encryption on the horizon.

I may be biased (being project lead for Matrix), but I'd say that it's going somewhere :)

<comment><USER18> This sounds promising.

Is anyone already using Matrix as an event server/queue for interactive environments and/or sensor networks (similar to the Stanford Event Heap [1])?

What is the minimum latency for Synapse/Ruma?

[1] [https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/eheap/](https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/eheap/)

<comment><USER17> We've done some stuff with sensor networks - eg our FOSDEM 2015 demo was hooking up cars via OBD2 ports to stream their engineering telemetry into Matrix for visualisation/analytics etc: [https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/deviot04/](https://archive.fosdem.org/2015/schedule/event/deviot04/)

However, this is still fairly PoC. Our latency is deliberately high at the moment (given all events are persisted on all participating servers, and signed etc) - typically around the 100-300ms mark depending on server performance involved. If you want lower latency stuff (eg VoIP or MIDI) the architecture is that you use Matrix to be a signalling layer to negotiate the realtime protocol (eg RTP).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Would you say the Matrix specification is intended to compete more with messaging (Slack, Skype, etc), email, or both? What do you think people would use this for, and what's the value proposition?

<comment><USER17> Matrix itself is a fairly flexible building block for decentralised communication of any kind where you care about decentralising the conversation history. You can use it for messaging, VoIP, IoT data - and once threading lands it'll be good for email and forums too.

Right now most of the clients are geared up for the messaging and VoIP use cases.

The value prop is to provide a meta-network which connects together all the existing communication silos, so users can talk to folks on other platforms (eg Slack, IRC) without caring what service or client they are using. Ideally someone on Slack could end up talking to someone on IRC, bridged via a decentralised Matrix room, without even realising they are using Matrix. Alternatively you could use a native Matrix client like Vector.im or the Matrix API to get at the data. The key thing is that no single silo ends up owning or controlling the data - it is replicated over all the participants, who thus own the conversation equally.

The end goal is to let users select which communication apps and services they want to trust with their data (including running their own, if they so desire), rather than the communication and contacts being fragmented over hundreds of different apps.

<comment><USER20> On forums, here's how I'd like to have it work:

[https://roamingaroundatrandom.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/a-dec...](https://roamingaroundatrandom.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/a-decentralized- hash-chained-discussion-system/)

It isn't very technically detailed, but it should be clear enough. Your system sounds like a good match for what I imagine. The TL;DR: The messages are in focus, not the servers. Content-addressing using hashes, threads managed through messages referencing prior messages directly by their hashes. When creating forums, servers are just (optionally) defined to simplify routing / delivery.

One could build discussion servers on top of the matrix home server, and discussion clients to match.

<comment><USER17> Heh, this is awesome and pretty much precisely what we have in mind with Matrix. All that is missing is threading and editable message support, which we are working on shortly. Help would be very very much appreciated, especially in building bridges to forums!!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Looking for Matrix vs Jabber. Is there any comparison document?

Also I was just trying to implement our own Telegram Server to take advantage of Free Telegram Clients available.

Can anyone compare Telegram with Matrix. (Except the Federated part).

<comment><USER5> Jabber (XMPP) has two fundamental differences from Matrix, as I see it: XMPP is a spec for a system for exchanging messages. It has very small, granular "extensions," most of which are optional. Matrix is a spec for a system that stores arbitrary data ("events") and a way to synchronize and resolve conflict across federated servers. It doesn't have extension specifications like XMPP does, and includes a much more complete set of features in its core, to ensure that all client implementations have compatible features. This is a problem in XMPP, where many features can't be used effectively because the servers cannot assume that all clients understand many of the extensions.

More detail in Matrix's FAQ: [https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is- the-differen...](https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the- difference-between-matrix-and-xmpp)

<comment><USER7> Also, it uses HTTP + Json rather than TCP + XML. Which is an instant win.

<comment><USER22> XMPP doesn't have to use raw TCP. BOSH exists for years: [https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0124.html](https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0124.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Nice little project, really clean code - super easy to understand after reading some of the Matrix spec.

</comment><comment><USER24> how does matrix compare to the wave protocol

<comment><USER17> They are related to some extent. The big differences were that Wave was built on XMPP, driven largely by and for Google, and put higher emphasis on collaborative editing and threading and less on bridging. Matrix is non-profit opensource and focuses on defragmentation and bridging from the outset. Matrix also provides many more clients than were ever available for the Wave protocol, some of which have subjectively better UX.

If Wave had bridged with protocols like email or IM, provided a clearer UX for newbies, and nurtured an open community and network rather than focusing primarily on Google's use cases, Matrix probably wouldn't be needed today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> So how usable is this atm? Can it be used with vector yet to setup a fully working homeserver?

<comment><USER5> No. It's in very, very early stages of development and is not usable for its stated purpose yet. All the attention on HN is appreciated but unfortunately premature in terms of being able to promote it as a working program.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Awesome! I was selecting a Matrix implementation but not anymore I think. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER27> Matrix (the protocol) seems very interesting, I wasn't aware of it.

</comment><comment><USER28> What is `Matrix homeserver'?

<comment><USER29> Literally the first paragraph answers this.

<comment><USER30> Oui. "Matrix is an open specification for an online communication protocol. It includes all the features you'd expect from a modern chat platform"

<comment><USER31> But what is a "homeserver"?

<comment><USER5> For a lot more detail, including a better explanation of homeservers, take a look at the Introduction to Matrix guide in the documentation: [https://www.ruma.io/docs/matrix/](https://www.ruma.io/docs/matrix/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Somehow, I was expecting a virtual world simulator before opening up the link.

</comment><comment><USER33> Relevant XKCD: [https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png)

Neat project though.

<comment><USER5> I didn't downvote your comment, but I do want to provide a response for anyone else reading:

This comic gets linked quite a lot when discussing new systems, and I and many others see it as a fairly low-effort jab. I'd venture a guess that anyone reading HN has seen this comic before, and the creators of systems like Matrix are certainly not oblivious to it as common criticism.

While there is danger of becoming yet another variation that doesn't "win" or solve problems in a meaningful way, the folks developing systems like Matrix think they can do more to help by approaching these problems in a new way than they can by throwing up their hands and living with the problems, and I think that effort deserves respect.

It'd be more constructive to do some reading about the protocol, become more familiar with it, and share more specific criticisms that concern you than to drop a link to the comic everyone has seen before.

<comment><USER34> The problem is that Matrix is positioned right in the middle of the train wreck of unfulfilled promises left behind by Google Wave, XMPP and (for those of enough to remember it) Chandler[0].

It's something that a lot of people (including myself) really, really want to succeed, but all previous trials failed (even when only E-mail was around; now we have the data silos by Twitter and Facebook that are additional obstacles).

Even after almost a decade, the well is still poisoned for everyone from Google's botched Wave rollout; if even Google (with the tremendous leverage of Gmail) was unable to pivot communication is this direction, who will?

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_(software)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_\(software\))

<comment><USER5> I definitely understand the skepticism. If you search my HN comment history, you'll even find me saying that I'm skeptical that Matrix will achieve widespread success, too. But I still think the way to overcome that is to keep trying. The main edge that Matrix has over previous systems like Google Wave and XMPP is that it's been designed from the start to be bridged to other systems, rather than trying to fight them for mindshare. This means that Matrix can grow and be useful even if people don't "switch" from their existing systems to Matrix. That aspect of Matrix does make me hopeful and optimistic about its future.

<comment><USER35> Wasn't that exactly the idea of XMPP as well? (e.g. gateways to ICQ etc.)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMPP#Connecting_to_other_proto...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMPP#Connecting_to_other_protocols)

<comment><USER36> Yeah, but XMPP never really did that. It just had the potential.

In the same way, yes, you CAN link IRC to Slack and XMPP, but how many people have?

<comment><USER37> Then me using ICQ and MSN transports with XMPP 10 years ago was just a fantasy and all the transports installable for ejabberd do not exist ? It's all just potential ?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The ARM1 processor's flags, reverse engineered - <AUTHOR> http://www.righto.com/2016/02/the-arm1-processors-flags-reverse.html <comment><USER2> _But why complement the bus? The reason is that it 's easier with CMOS to pull a line low than to pull a line high._

The other reason, and why some signals are active-low instead of active-high, is that it saves transistors (and is slightly faster) - due to how gates are constructed, a NAND or NOR is the "natural" construction, and AND or OR gates are actually NAND/NOR with an extra inverter on the output. A CMOS NAND-2 or NOR-2 requires 4 transistors, whereas an AND-2 or OR-2 requires 6.

<comment><USER3> That's a good point. One wild thing about MOS is that it's also "natural" to create gates such as AND-NOR or AND-OR-NAND or other even crazier combinations, as long as the last step is inversion. Right now I'm looking at a Z-80 gate that is three triple-input ANDs, all NORed together, and this is a single gate. Also, a pair of OR-NAND gates is a convenient way to make a latch. This may be more than anyone wants to know about gates :-)

<comment><USER2> _Right now I 'm looking at a Z-80 gate that is three triple-input ANDs, all NORed together, and this is a single gate._

An "AOI333", like this?

               Vdd
                |
                +-|
                  |--+
                +<|  |
                |    |
                +----+---> out
                |
           +----+----+
           |    |    |
         +-+  +-+  +-+
        -+   -+   -+
         +>+  +>+  +>+
           |    |    |
         +-+  +-+  +-+
        -+   -+   -+
         +>+  +>+  +>+
           |    |    |
         +-+  +-+  +-+
        -+   -+   -+
         +>+  +>+  +>+
           |    |    |
           +----+----+
                |
               Vss

It's a good example of how even at the hardware level, abstraction can hide optimisation --- someone who didn't know about these compound gates would just design with the regular ones, using far more transistors than necessary. That (NMOS) gate has a total of 10 transistors, while the equivalent with individual gates would take 22 (6 for each AND -- 3 pulldown + 1 pullup for a NAND, followed by another 2 for an inverter, feeding into a 4-transistor NOR-3), more than double.

Given how "loose" its layout is compared to the Z80, I guess the ARM1 doesn't have very many compound gates either? I wonder if they could've gotten an even lower-power and faster ARM1 if they did manually optimise the layout.

<comment><USER3> Amazing job with the ASCII gate layout :-) Here's a link to the real layout: [https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vsyhirk5hFU/VrgVJMXZDyI/A...](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vsyhirk5hFU/VrgVJMXZDyI/AAAAAAAAy6g/Ydvjg1r59PY/s800-Ic42/z80-gate- labeled.png) Note how insanely optimized the hand layout of the Z-80 is.

The ARM1 has some compound gates. but I haven't come across anything more complex than OR-NAND. It's mostly built from standard cells. The layout is kind of awful compared to the 6502 or Z-80, but the ARM designers were going for ease of design rather than optimization. Since the ARM1 had so few transistors for its time, they didn't need to worry about space on the die and were more concerned with making the design easy to debug. One of the other guys looking at the ARM1 found "wires to nowhere" from fixes to the chip: [http://daveshacks.blogspot.com/2016/01/inside-armv1-read- bus...](http://daveshacks.blogspot.com/2016/01/inside-armv1-read-bus-b-alu- output-bus.html)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


On (lack of) correlation between technical brilliance and social agility - <AUTHOR> http://www.quora.com/As-an-investor-what-do-you-do-when-pitched-by-an-entrepreneur-with-a-great-idea-but-who-is-also-really-annoying

<comment><USER2> Perhaps social interactions are just not rewarding for some really smart people, by definition almost everyone they meet will be significantly less intelligent than themselves.

Anyway, that's my excuse :)</comment>


Show HN: Help Wanted: Test Docker CE for Raspberry Pi - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/alexellis/docker-arm/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Asave-docker <comment><AUTHOR> Docker binaries for Raspberry Pi took a brief pause at 17.05 (May) - <USER2> 17.06 and should continue in 17.07. At the same time Raspberry Pi foundation have switched over to Stretch complicating matters.

The issues linked are to help test 17.07 (including Swarm) on Raspbian Stretch.

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool!!

I've been wanting to play with Docker and just downloaded the new Stretch image a couple days ago.

Thank you!!!</comment>


Learning How to Exert Self-Control - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/learning-self-control.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=fb-nytimes&bicmst=1409232722000&bicmet=1419773522000&smtyp=aut&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&_r=0 <comment><USER2> _Whether you eat the marshmallow at age 5 isn't your destiny. Self-control can be taught.

The secret of self-control, he says, is to train the prefrontal cortex to kick in first.

To do this, use specific if-then plans, like "If it's before noon, I won't check email" or "If I feel angry, I will count backward from 10." Done repeatedly, this buys a few seconds to at least consider your options.

Self-control alone doesn't guarantee success. People also need a "burning goal" that gives them a reason to activate these skills, he says._

<comment><USER3> That's just a part of self control, and the easier if you ask me. I have no problem doing nothing, no problem to freeze and avoid undesirable reactions.

Getting myself to start something difficult, form a habit, this kind of thing is hard.

<comment><USER4> The book The Power of Habit (2012) has been highly recommended to me on this very topic.

<comment><USER3> Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _The children who succeed turn their backs on the cookie, push it away, pretend it's something nonedible like a piece of wood, or invent a song. Instead of staring down the cookie, they transform it into something with less of a throbbing pull on them. Adults can use similar methods of distraction and distancing ... When a waiter offers chocolate mousse, imagine that a cockroach has just crawled across it._

It sounds a lot like something we often call "cognitive dissonance" in other contexts. It's easy to imagine that this sort of self-deception is an important foundational part of a lot of belief systems and zealotry of all stripes. The more you try to change a believer's mind with facts, the harder they concentrate on the imaginary cockroach that just crawled across the mousse. It could help explain why people who are very effective at changing the world around them are often also profoundly irrational believers in _something_ , completely resistant to facts; the same basic disciplinary mechanism underlies both zeal and self-discipline.

<comment><USER6> I think that's what happened with sex and Catholicism (the cockroach method).

<comment><USER7> You're only partly right. It's what happened with sex and quite a number of religions. It's also why many Americans (especially in the military) refer to Muslims as "hajis". In that context it's easier to kill something that doesn't appear human.

Cognitive dissonance is very, very effective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder when we will see technologies that help engage the prefrontal cortex while reduxing the influence of the limbic system. Focusatwill.com might be one of them (seems essentially to be about playing 'hardcore' dance music to increase beta waves).

Another thing mentioned is stress. That is a big problem contributing to self- control.

Honestly during times when I am not being constructive it seems that my prefrontal cortex is not even really active.. The types of thinking that I do when I am working just aren't happening.

Actually it seems to me a bit like resting a muscle or letting a car cool down that is overheated. Sometimes I just need to actually start the engine of that part of my brain that handles goals and higher level thinking. Other aspects of health like general energy levels affect it.

<comment><USER9> Check out Pavlok.com

<comment><USER10> How do you handle a goal like "don't eat ice cream"? I'm having difficulty imagining a trigger that would automatically shock you in that case.

<comment><USER11> Read about factory farming, read about mammalian biology, and have an anti- interest interest in the suffering of sentient beings, and ice cream is impulsively repulsive.

<comment><USER10> That's not a bad answer (even of non-vegetarians....I'm paleo, but avoid factory farming in my meat. So this would help me if I staill ate ice cream)

But, you've missed the larger question, which was: how do you make triggers for acts _similar to_ eating ice cream, which don't occur on screen or have any location based trigger?

<comment><USER9> tooth sensor that knows when sugar passes through it

<comment><USER10> you put the ice cream on the bracelet?

<comment><USER12> I bet perceived sugar and olfactory responses are measurable by EEG...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Have we all agreed that higher SAT scores, advanced degrees, less coke, and more money are all things that we want? Am I missing something? Other than coping with stress, I'm not sure I want any of the other qualities.

<comment><USER14> To get those things you need willpower and the research was about measuring willpower.

If you want different things that's your choice but for most good things in life you need willpower. You can't do what the guy from "Into the wild" did without willpower.

<comment><USER15> Not such a good example ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _tl;dr_ to distract constructively; to distract in ways that are in themselves satisfying

</comment><comment><USER17> The marshmallow experiment results are not as clearcut as the article implies: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/13/t...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/13/the- marshmallow-test-revisited/)

<comment><USER18> I think that is a dishonest refutation. Sure you can construct a situation where trust is the driving mechanic, by lying to them shortly before making promises. But that doesn't mean it was the deciding factor in the original experiment.

A better way to demonstrate that would be to measure trust and see to what extent it explains delaying gratification.

<comment><USER19> If you're interested the book "The Truth About Trust" goes into that in great detail and even includes the trust relationship with your future self which is very relevant to the original article. I thoroughly enjoyed it...

[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18114085-the-truth- about-...](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18114085-the-truth-about-trust)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Back in college, one of my girlfriends broke up with me...the most heart breaking of all my breakups. It took a mental toll on me for weeks. At one point, my roommate gave me an advice.

Every time I think of her, picture her taking a crap on the toilet...yeah it worked and eventually I stopped thinking of her in a positive manner. I continue to pass on this advice!

<comment><USER21> Haha, I had a similar experience when I lived in Central America. I came in crying to dinner with my host family because my girlfriend Alejandra had broken up with me. The mom of the family said, no problem, just memorize this poem: "Alejandra era una rosa, y Alejandra era un clavel, pero ahora es un cerrote envuelto en un papel!" (Alejandra was a rose, and Alejandra was a carnation, but now she's a piece of shit wrapped up in toilet paper!). Definitely made me feel better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> While Walter Mischel is enormously accomplished, the ideas described in the article re: self-control appear to be simpler than observation of people struggling with behavioral control reveals.

I'm not familiar with Mischel's work, though he's admirably produced a lot of it, no doubt reading some of it would teach me things worth knowing. I'm not assuming the article is truly representative of the breadth of such a prolific mind. My ideas on the subject reflect what I've seen and learned so far.

To say we are driven by limbic system emotion in one way and goal-driven prefrontal cortex (PFC) opposing it would be minimizing the magnificent complexity of our construction. Thing is, control of our own behavior is limited and the nature of such control hardly understood by neuroscience, leaving us in no position to confidently prescribe methods of self-control in general.

It should not be surprising that kids performing better on a test that measures exactly what is successful in school and the corporate world will be more successful than kids scoring poorly. Academic achievement requires a talent for anti-hedonism, and those not as gifted in this trait will likely not do as well.

OTOH the persistent stubbornness ("grit") required for some kinds of success isn't synonymous with pleasure denial as seems to be implied. Determined persistence has a strong emotional component, individuals with such traits take pleasure in their accomplishments even if others don't understand it at all. They also react strongly to attempts to deflect them from their path.

Emotional salience is intrinsic to strongly bound goals, one must have the desire, the drive in order to sustain the effort to achieve. The emotion is not suppressed but harnessed in service of the mission. To the goal-seeker, foregoing other pleasures "normal" people covet is not a sacrifice, it is simply unimportant and not missed.

In this paradigm, imagine the kid who's more eager to finish building the tower of blocks than interested in the taste of candy.

History shows us many people built like that: Paul Erlich (chemotherapy), Thomas Edison, Harold Edgerton, among so many others.

The saying "knowledge is power" applies, fully knowing what we feel and having the "grit" to feel it, connected to logical problem-solving is a very potent tool.

Maybe that's what the article about Mr. Mischel was really trying to say.

<comment><USER23> If you are in creative flow, the urge to splurge literally goes away. Whatever it is - coding, writing, sport, painting - doing something obsessively takes attention away from one's boring ego driven needs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> All of the methods used by the doctor to avoid triggers and delay gratification are exactly those used in NLP

</comment><comment><USER25> I find the creativity and focus tones to be helpful for focus.[http://iso- tones.com/index.php/tones/miscellaneous](http://iso- tones.com/index.php/tones/miscellaneous)

</comment><comment><USER26> Pamela Druckerman is a fraud. I lived in Paris, France, for years, and I would not consider that society as a model of good parenting.

</comment><comment><USER27> I wonder if there were any kids who immediately took the one cookie and then went on to other things.</comment>


Safer smart contracts through type-driven development in idris [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/234939/234939.pdf <comment><USER2> I am excited for this. I haven't read it all yet, but what I have has been interesting, and I look forward to reading the rest.

Maybe this will be what I will use to get myself to finally learn idris.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is really interesting work. Dependent types are fascinating but they seem so resolutely stuck in academia; evidence of applications to real-world problems is rare.</comment>


Newbie Twitter users not sticking around - <AUTHOR> http://consumerist.com/5248462/if-you-use-twitter-this-month-you-probably-wont-be-back-next-month

<comment><USER2> A Consumerist rehash of a story that has already been discussed to death on HN, for instance here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=583942>

</comment><comment><USER3> It's interesting... for a while, the tech tabloids loved Twitter because it was a great source of fake gossipy headlines.

But now... it feels like the tide's turning and the big tabloid blogs are turning against Twitter. Maybe some editors aren't too happy at the fact that their breathless "OMG TWITTER IN TALKS TO BE BOUGHT BY..." stories never pan out and have exposed their own credibility problems?

</comment><comment><USER4> API accesses are important. Did it get answered definitively how Nielsen accounted for that?

I'd like to run a test to see when the last tweet was from N users. It would be easy to extract a basic cohort analysis from that.</comment>


Ask HN: How to monetize a list of more than 10000 software companies? - <AUTHOR> As the title says I've scraped through the internet a list of more than 10000 software companies emails.
I'd like to create a SaaS product that targets them, but the niches that I imagine are too crowded i.e. Project Management, CRM, etc...
Is there any easy product that a single dev shop can build to help software companies?
Any other way of monetizing the list is welcome.
Thanks in advance <comment><USER2> with an easy payment gateway and a rating system, you might offer a marketplace ( reverse auction, style ) for products and services... different companies might benefit from complementary specialties.

<comment><AUTHOR> I imagine like a closed membership site for businesses? That could be a really good idea, thanks!</comment></comment>


Organizing Files (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://www.onlamp.com/lpt/a/6377 <comment><USER2> I love these kinds of old blog posts.

I admire the approach and dedication, but it feels a bit redundant. Aside from the future dated directories, some creative use of the find command could achieve a lot of this.

The problem really reminds me of inheritance vs. composition. Like inheritance, file hierarchy encourages narrow classification and makes shared traits difficult to manage. Tagging for file organization seems like a much more elegant solution, letting an article or files categorization be a sum of its basic properties. Services like Pocket have adopted that approach for a reason I think.

I haven't looked, but I'd love to see a tag based file system tool. One could easily imagine having a nested tree of tags where one would be able to navigate down to a file via multiple directory paths.

Edit: Evidently, this is called a semantic file system: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_file_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_file_system) and Tagsistant looks a lot like what I was imagining: [http://www.tagsistant.net/](http://www.tagsistant.net/)

<comment><USER3> TMSU ([http://tmsu.org/](http://tmsu.org/)) and git-annex ([https://git- annex.branchable.com/](https://git-annex.branchable.com/)) also allow for different tag-based filing methods. OS X has had native file tagging for at least a version or two now as well, though it's less helpful with many tags.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Something I'm finding handy, at least for one specific purpose, is emacs org mode. I have a big file, papers.org. It looks like this:

        * Computer science       :computer_science:
        ** [[~/org/papers/Category_Theory_Applied_to_Functional_Programming__cain-screen.pdf][Category Theory Applied to Functional Programming]]
           :PROPERTIES:
           :original-source: http://www1.eafit.edu.co/asr/pubs/cain-screen.pdf
           :END:
        ** [[file:papers/bitcoin.pdf][Bitcoin]]    :bitcoin:
        Original paper.

All the papers go into ~/org/papers/. I find stuff with text search and tags.

This, combined with org mode task management, is actually making me pretty good at queueing and reading new papers.

<comment><USER5> For managing papers I use Zotero. It has some nifty features, like recognizing the paper that you import and fill out all the metadata.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My company has built a nice business around solving this precise problem, although as a web app for internal use in an organisation rather than for organising a filesystem.

The key principle is to organise things by their description, not their position in some sort of filesystem.

If every field in your description allows multi-values, then you can put an object in multiple places. And if you can search and browse on any field, you can find it by subject, author, kind of information, and so on.

There are a few other clever ideas in there, but that's the key: Help users enter really good metadata, then use it to find things within a flat namespace.

It's open source: [http://haplo.org](http://haplo.org)

We're hiring developers to work in our London office: [http://www.haplo- services.com/jobs](http://www.haplo-services.com/jobs)

<comment><USER7> This ties into what I've often thought about our computerized world, that it is mostly a matter of semantic differences, similarities, and identities that prove the mettle of any system considered 'productive'. If my semantic set and your set are generally coherent, we can get something done; if they are not, then we spend a lot of time trying to attain semantic equilibrium, before anything actually gets _done_ according to the business purpose.

The tools that allow us to synchronize our own conceptual copy of the semantic universe in a way that produce a 'flow' between individuals, are the ones that mostly succeed.

Haplo seems to do a good job of giving a small group the ability to construct a semantic set with a productive goal. I've looked at it for 5 minutes, and the only thing I can think to contribute is that I feel it would be of objective benefit to give more examples of how Haplo has granted a group enough self-awareness to actually get some work done. There is kind of a meta- sense to the product, which can either work for you, or against you. Showing how you can use Haplo to build a small business production/flow-line might make it a little more clear as to what particular problem you are solving.

Another thing is that the web is really quite functional, on the one hand, but boring on the other. I wonder how you might gamify Haplo ... Well, I have some idea's, anyway ..

<comment><USER6> Humans are very good at describing the world, and communicating through common vocabulary. The problem comes when you don't model the real world, but instead model your current business processes within a traditional database.

Haplo's data model encourages you to model the real world, using the normal shared vocabulary, then hang business processes on top. This eliminates the semantic problems.

Generally problems come when you try and squeeze your information into what's easy to create with SQL databases and the current crop of NoSQL document stores. We spent the time to build an object store which was capable of handling "information", rather than "data", and it makes an enormous difference.

Regarding examples, we're working on more overview documentation and some example applications.

As a company without investors, funded entirely by revenue from our customers, those customers have to take priority over building example applications. Our aim is to open source the majority of the work we're doing, and hopefully those will be good examples.

But here's a product we've built on top of Haplo: [http://www.phd- manager.co.uk](http://www.phd-manager.co.uk)

<comment><USER7> >model the real world .. shared vocabulary .. SQL databases .. object store .. good examples.

This is the crux of the challenge, I think. Anybody who doesn't know what a scone is, can't really sell it.

The modeling occurs at a word level, like .. as a dictionary .. and everything else is just baggage. Get everyone on the same page .. of the dictionary .. and you get a working group. Isn't software secondary to human interaction?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I want a DB-as-FS.

These all have something in common: namely, that files must be stored in one place. But, as he discovered, files aren't organized by only one thing.

I want a FS where I can tag things. Effectively, a D(A?)G, not just a tree.

Links help some, but nowhere near enough. Especially with the quirks of some things trying to handle links.

<comment><USER9> >I want a DB-as-FS.

So do I. From Project Xanadu to the BeOS to the WinFS it has been a recurring idea in computing and for a good reason, I think. However, as far I am aware no popular implementation of it for Linux, the BSDs, Windows or OS X exists.

In particular, I have long wanted to implement a tag-based file system. Tagging should be easier to implement than a full-on DB-as-FS and, importantly, it would be easier to interop with existing file systems and tools that talk to them.

My design ideas for it so far are as follows:

You can map each tag to a directory at the tagging file system's mount point. Each of these N directories would then contain N-1 for each of the remaining tags to allow you to select files that have two or more tags. For example, the files with the tags "a" and "b" would be accessible through /tagfs/a, /tagfs/b, /tagfs/a/b and /tagfs/b/a.

In contrast to a DBFS accessed through, say, "/dbfs/SELECT * FROM .../" it would be possible to use "ls" to get the list of all the tags, to apply the POSIX permission model in a way that made sense and suchlike. E.g., the permissions of /tagfs/a/b/c could be an intersection of those for "a", "b" and "c".

One problem with this approach is in how ordinary (non-tag) directories would be interact with the directories that represent your tags. Not distinguishing them for the user would create a potential for confusing misfiling errors and data loss on deletion. Distinguishing them by giving the tag directories special names (e.g., ones that begin with a sigil) or permissions would limit the system's power. Extended attributes are not easy to see visualize in most GUIs, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> My experience with organizing files taught me not to consider the user home directory as owned by the user. The home directory is littered with lots of files that most software store there so my user data goes into its own subfolder.

Then I sort my files in directories with an unsual scheme, first directory is the importance of the files to me:

/buffer a space for file copies as I work on them and temporary files /collect for new files /datalibrary, /databank, /datastore, /datakeep are to separate data according to its importance to me for example the keep is a smaller size, encrypted and automatically backed up every day.

The second level of directories is the action related to the data, for example /listen will receive audio files, /watch video files, /look for pictures. other examples include /archive, /customize, /play, /install

Then depending on the content there is a sorting scheme where I either sort by genre, by theme, by name,… for example pictures, if a picture is worth keeping it could go in /by_genre/hispeed or /by_genre/tilt-shift, or in /by_theme/futurama or /by_theme/space, or /by_name/choi xoo ang

Now that I learned of TMSU, tagsistant and the like, I'm gonna try to make use of those.

<comment><USER11> >The home directory is littered with lots of files that most software store there so my user data goes into its own subfolder.

This is a really good idea, going to try it!

Can you go in to more depth about your first tier and sorting process? I'm most interested in how you use datalibrary, databank, datastore, datakeep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hard or sym links exist for a reason. One doesn't need sort everything into only one suitable category. It's not like I have too much to brag about though, my home directory is a mess too. However sorting everything by date in the filename? Files already have date metadata, I use "ls --sort=time | head" a lot.

</comment><comment><USER12> I used to use DevonThink OSX for organizing my info, it was excellent to archive and search through documents. Unfortunately it doesn't work on linux so I am now using org-mode wiki and projectile and the platinum searcher, just search, good naming conventions, no tags. Second rate but i can use it anywhere (including my phone).</comment>


What do people who failed to get into med school do next? - <AUTHOR> Suppose you did everything you were supposed to do to become a doctor. You studied hard in high school, and went to a good college. You again studied hard, and majored in something life-sciency. You took the MCAT, and did fine. You applied to a bunch of med schools. But then, for whatever reason, none of them admitted you.
Now what?
EDIT: Let me just add that I myself didn't fail to get into med school. I'm just asking. <comment><USER2> That depends a great deal on what you want to do with your life.

Michael Chrichton, author of _Jurassic Park_ , attended medical school but always wanted to be a writer. IIRC, he went to medical school at the behest of his family who had no faith that he could make it as a writer. His medical training helped make his writing especially good because he writes very plausible stuff, instead of hand wavy "Uh, radiation explains away my plot hole!"

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton)

So, what do want to do with your life? Why did you want to go to medical school? Was it family pressure? Were you after social status and a big paycheck? Or do you really want to be involved in making people healthier?

Have an honest heart-to-heart with yourself and base your next move on those answers. If you really wamt to go into medicine, nursing is an option. If you really wanted prestige and money, then maybe law is a good alternative.

The right answer here depends on a lot of factors you did not detail in your question.

Best.

</comment><comment><USER3> Try the PA route. The schools are also very competitive, but less so than for being an MD. Fortunately it's easy to apply all over the country through CASPA.

You will end up working as a PA 2-3 years later, with a much better quality of life, less student debt, all while still making a great living.

A site to help find schools to apply to based on pre-reqs: [http://paprogramsearch.com/](http://paprogramsearch.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Things friends of mine have done:

1\. Go to school in another country. I believe there are schools in The Caribbean that are popular for this.

2\. Go to a DO school instead of an MD school (DOs do the same work and are doctors just the same, but I'm told MD schools are more competitive.)

3\. Wall Street. :)

4\. EMT, RN, NP, or PA careers.

Re-applying a year later is quite possible but I don't know anyone who has done it.

<comment><USER5> > 1\. Go to school in another country. I believe there are schools in The > Caribbean that are popular for this.

Yep, but it is complicated when you come back in. There's another exam to pass to practice in the U.S. if you went to school outside of the U.S.

<comment><USER4> That is a good point. I assume there is a wide disparity in passing rates between various international schools. In the case I'm familiar with, the student is now a successful resident.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "The brick walls are there for a reason. The brick walls are not there to keep us out. The brick walls are there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something. Because the brick walls are there to stop the people who don't want it badly enough. They're there to stop the other people." -Prof Randy Pausch

<comment><USER7> I don't agree with that. walls are there mainly to keep people who doesn't pay...

It's the same wrong argument some successful people make that their success is some direct result of hard work, without taking into account things like luck, contacts or a wealthy enough family to be able to take "risks".

<comment><USER6> I wasn't strictly referring to Medical School. Life has challenges. Maybe the brick wall is Medical School. Or maybe not getting in will help him/her understand what their path is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Do some "experience" that would appear good on a application (The most racist person I know did volunteer work in Africa and was admitted to a top university). Then try against next year. Unless you are unsure you want to be a doctor.

</comment><comment><USER9> Do you like animals? How about teeth?</comment>


FDA Orders Genetic Testing Firm 23andMe to Halt Sales - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/25/technology/fda-23andme/

<comment><USER3> The crux of their troubles comes from this paragraph in the Warning Letter: "However, even after these many interactions with 23andMe, we still do not have any assurance that the firm has analytically or clinically validated the PGS for its intended uses, which have expanded from the uses that the firm identified in its submissions. In your letter dated January 9, 2013, you stated that the firm is "completing the additional analytical and clinical validations for the tests that have been submitted" and is "planning extensive labeling studies that will take several months to complete." Thus, months after you submitted your 510(k)s and more than 5 years after you began marketing, you still had not completed some of the studies and had not even started other studies necessary to support a marketing submission for the PGS. It is now eleven months later, and you have yet to provide FDA with any new information about these tests."

The FDA, while being a pain in the rear at times, will actually work with you to meet compliance. But you have to show work and be continually in touch with them and show progress (and document everything according to your own procedures, complying to regulations of course). You can't just say you're working on compliance and then not follow through and show evidence. The issue for 23andMe is the on-label use of the product "in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or is intended to affect the structure or function of the body." They market the product this way. If you want to market your product as such, you have to show proof to the FDA and receive approval to label the medical product in this manner. It looks like 23andMe is either not working towards compliance (and is misleading the FDA) or is doing a terrible job documenting their work towards compliance and keeping the FDA abreast (my guess is this is what's happening). That in itself will get you in trouble, but then expanding your marketing for even more on-label use of the product - which hasn't been submitted to the FDA apparently - while at the same time not having FDA approval for the original use is just plain stupid.

<comment><USER4> I used to work as a state legislative aid; one of my duties was helping constituents work with state agencies on regulatory matters. I learned from that experience most regulators (at least at the state level, I imagine federal is similar) usually care much more about compliance than enforcement. As long as you aren't doing something egregious and make a good faith effort to work with them they'll often be pretty reasonable within the confines of the law. However if you ignore them, they'll come down on you like a ton of bricks.

It sounds like 23andMe has been ignoring them.

<comment><USER5> > As long as you aren't doing something egregious and make a good faith effort > to work with them they'll often be pretty reasonable within the confines of > the law. However if you ignore them, they'll come down on you like a ton of > bricks.

This is how all government works, in general. There will always be multiple opportunities to bring yourself into compliance, since it's in the government's interest for you to comply.

Contrary to popular belief, the government would prefer compliance over a fight.

23andMe on the other hand ... is either grossly incompetent or they're looking for a fight.

FDA's regulatory oversight over this new industry is not established. If 23andMe wanted to challenge them in court, this would be the way to do it. They need standing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the 23andme TOS:

"You should not change your health behaviors solely on the basis of information from 23andMe. Make sure to discuss your Genetic Information with a physician or other health care provider before you act upon the Genetic Information resulting from 23andMe Services. For most common diseases, the genes we know about are only responsible for a small fraction of the risk. There may be unknown genes, environmental factors, or lifestyle choices that are far more important predictors. If your data indicate that you are not at elevated genetic risk for a particular disease or condition, you should not feel that you are protected. The opposite is also true; if your data indicate you are at an elevated genetic risk for a particular disease or condition, it does not mean you will definitively develop the disease or condition. In either case, if you have concerns or questions about what you learn through 23andMe, you should contact your physician or other health care provider."

[https://www.23andme.com/about/tos/](https://www.23andme.com/about/tos/)

<comment><USER7> This is what I don't get. It's not like this is hidden. The site is completely upfront about what they are and what they do, what studies and results have more confidence and which less.

Maybe I'm just a _little_ cynical here, but it seems the FDA would have better things to do with their time. That in mind, I wonder what spurred this...

<comment><USER8> This is much better than the other FDA story today where the FDA declared walnuts a medicine because a manufacture made the factual statement "Omega-3 Fatty Acids found in walnuts have been shown to have health benefits."

[http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/u...](http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm202825.htm)

<comment><USER9> This actually makes sense. They're using marketing terminology to be say "walnuts will do this, prevent this, and help you out with this".

If you want to market your product like a drug, you should go through the regular inspection to make sure all your claims are satisfied, just like any other drug.

<comment><USER10> No, it doesn't make sense. The consequence is that no food marketing can make (even truthful and not-misleading) claims about the healthiness of the product. Carrots are healthier than Twinkies? Not unless they're a medicine.

<comment><USER11> The problem is in the claim that they can be used to treat disease.

Anyone can make false statements and there should be safeguards to protect consumers, especially the sick and vulnerable.

Saying carrots are healthy is one thing, but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to market them as a cure for some illness because "vitamins".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My comment from the same story on reddit.

For those protesting this decision, carefully read the following:

> However, even after these many interactions with 23andMe, we still do not > have any assurance that the firm has analytically or clinically validated > the PGS for its intended uses, which have expanded from the uses that the > firm identified in its submissions. In your letter dated January 9, 2013, > you stated that the firm is "completing the additional analytical and > clinical validations for the tests that have been submitted" and is > "planning extensive labeling studies that will take several months to > complete." Thus, months after you submitted your 510(k)s and more than 5 > years after you began marketing, you still had not completed some of the > studies and had not even started other studies necessary to support a > marketing submission for the PGS. It is now eleven months later, and you > have yet to provide FDA with any new information about these tests. You have > not worked with us toward de novo classification, did not provide the > additional information we requested necessary to complete review of your > 510(k)s, and FDA has not received any communication from 23andMe since May. > Instead, we have become aware that you have initiated new marketing > campaigns, including television commercials that, together with an > increasing list of indications, show that you plan to expand the PGS's uses > and consumer base without obtaining marketing authorization from FDA.

It appears that 23andMe is and has been aware of this situation for quite some time. In fact, the FDA has devoted significant time to aiding 23andMe in their process to compliance:

> As part of our interactions with you, including more than 14 face-to-face > and teleconference meetings, hundreds of email exchanges, and dozens of > written communications, we provided you with specific feedback on study > protocols and clinical and analytical validation requirements, discussed > potential classifications and regulatory pathways (including reasonable > submission timelines), provided statistical advice, and discussed potential > risk mitigation strategies.

The FDA in fact proposed a relatively simple solution, which was related to the labeling of the product.

> FDA has spent significant time evaluating the intended uses of the PGS to > determine whether certain uses might be appropriately classified into class > II, thus requiring only 510(k) clearance or de novo classification and not > PMA approval, and we have proposed modifications to the device's labeling > that could mitigate risks and render certain intended uses appropriate for > de novo classification.

Please keep in mind the scenarios in which the FDA attempts to avoid, in this situation. Particularly, a layman could consider their 23andMe results to be conclusive evidence for/against particular diseases and conditions, regardless of the respective error bounds for the data, and take matters into their own hands or simply prefer their results over the advice of medical professionals. Sure, there are T&C on 23andMe which state that this product should not be used in these purposes, this labeling is exactly what the FDA wants to improve. Limitations of assurance or intended use cases for products of this nature should be clearly labeled, and in a consistent manner. A startup (although 23andMe could be considered to be well beyond that stage) should not entrusted to make these decisions alone, and in fact, we do not have one such independent entity within this space, it is a growing arena within which multiple such entities are competing. It is not their business to care about other use cases, it is their business to stay in business.

A particular paragraph on 23andMe's homepage says "Understand your genetic health risks. Change what you can, manage what you can't." I do see many individuals in the Nootropics/Quantified Self community interpreting their own results and indeed taking matters into their own hands. Okay, so perhaps these individuals may be of above average intelligence and are capable of behaving rationally, but this desire to improve oneself is not limited to our circle. Believe it or not, most of the population would love to improve in one aspect or another. We should be very careful in what 'gifts' we present to society, especially gifts of this nature.

</comment><comment><USER13> The problem with 23andmMe is that genetics can't currently tell us much about our risk of developing common genetic diseases.

Some diseases are caused by a single gene. These are rare because people with a dominant copy of that gene are less likely to reproduce, so they are mostly deselected. Many of these monogenic diseases have a pretty major effect. You know if you have them (and probably died in childhood). Pre-natal genetic counseling is where finding these is useful.

Most of the diseases 23andMe talks about are caused by multiple genes (in combination with the environment). The interactions between these genes are often really complicated, and typically the number of genes involved is huge (and the actual contribution of each gene to risk is very small). This has made investigation a nightmare - even the most understood genetic diseases, we only know about say 10-20% of the genes that make up the genetic part of the risk, which may only be 40% of the total risk.

So 23andMe sees you have 1 of the 100 genes that we identified as contributing to a disease. That means you have 1% of 20% of 40%, which is really nothing to get excited about.

I know 23andMe tries to communicate this, but they are also trying to run a buisness. If they stood up and said 'yeah, we can do some tests, and they really won't tell you anything worth knowing', they would get no press coverage. But anything else is... carefully not lying, rather than being honest.

I read other commenters here, who say things like 'Well it's a nice compliment to getting a blood test', and get the feeling they think these tests mean shit.

</comment><comment><USER14> Previous discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6794122](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6794122)

        317 points by jefffoster 14 hours ago | flag | cached | share | 377 comments

</comment><comment><USER15> Completely understandable and it's a fair point people might undergo unnecessary surgery as a result of a false positive (like having breast tissue removed preemptively after false positives for chances of contracting breast cancer). 23andMe is a nice idea, but you can't beat an old fashioned regular trip to the doctor and blood test to check for these things.

<comment><USER16> Think about the opposite, though -- most people don't get tested for anything, especially weird/uncommon conditions. Tests like 23andme aren't something your local doctor does every checkup.

For $100, people who otherwise would have been clueless know if there's something they should ask their doctor about. In this case, I think some false positives are better than ignorance.

Worst case, you think "oh no, I'm predisposed to ___!" for a few days until you make it to a doctor who can tell you for sure.

It's fair to say 23andme has saved far more lives than it's hurt.

<comment><USER17> > Tests like 23andme aren't something your local doctor does every checkup.

Fair enough. So why not let FDA go through their process, do their investigation, and once approved people could safely rely on 23andme.

<comment><USER18> We could write something untruthful or harmful in the newspaper (maybe about acai berry weight loss).

So why not let the government go through a process, investigate whether what we write is conducive to the public good, and once approved it can be safely published.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Has 23andMe told their side of the story yet? The FDA's press release made it sound like 23andMe was very negligent, but there has to be more to it than that. I can't imagine a company just ignoring the FDA's requests.

<comment><USER20> They posted this to Facebook:

 _Hi everyone, Many of you have seen and been asking about this morning 's news.

Here's the statement we've issued to the media: "We have received the warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration. We recognize that we have not met the FDA's expectations regarding timeline and communication regarding our submission. Our relationship with the FDA is extremely important to us and we are committed to fully engaging with them to address their concerns."

We'll continue to keep you updated here as we know more. Thanks for all the messages of support!_

[https://www.facebook.com/23andMe/posts/10152374363517802](https://www.facebook.com/23andMe/posts/10152374363517802)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> When I read the FDA press release, it states that 23andMe must cease _marketing_ their product. I don't see where it says that they must stop selling it. If I'm right about that, they're free to continue selling the product but have to stop their public statements about it, until the FDA grants them leave to do so.

</comment><comment><USER22> FDA as always sticking their nose into something they shouldn't. Let the people decide whether they want to use this particular service or not. People ought to be free to choose. Otherwise it's not consumer protection, it's consumer dictatorship.

<comment><USER23> This really looks like the FDA sticking their nose into something they _should_. 23andMe is making false claims about the efficacy of their test in their marketing material and the FDA isn't okay with that. They're not even ordering 23andMe to stop testing, just to stop marketing their service as something it isn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Of course this happens the week after I submit my sample.... ;-)

</comment><comment><USER25> I'd rather see them shut down the FDA than 23andMe

<comment><USER26> I am not a big fan of possible snake oil even if it comes in hipster startup form.

<comment><USER22> Great, don't use it then. Why do you believe you have the right to tell other people what to buy for their money?

<comment><USER26> >> Why do you believe you have the right to tell other people what to buy for their money?

I am not doing that. The FDA is doing that. That is their job. If you disagree with that, you should also be okay with charlatans selling snake oil.

<comment><USER22> You are paying for it with your tax money, therefore you are doing it. I'm not okay with selling snake oil, but I think it is wrong to prevent other people from buying it. It's okay to inform them it's a bad idea to buy certain things - it's dictatorship to prevent them from doing so. If you can't convince somebody, it's your problem, not that person's problem. FDA doesn't convince, it just comes and shuts you down or doesn't allow you on the market.

Besides, where is FDA when charlatans sell homeopathic medicine? Show me a little consistency here.

<comment><USER26> I never said that the FDA is perfect or covers all bad cases. Just because a few bad apples can escape the law now, in letter, does not mean that we should not have regulation. Medical regulation is far from dictatorship. It is orthogonal to it.

Just because a govt. prevents from doing X, does not mean by default that the govt. is a dictatorship. X has to be something basic like the right to live or the right to free speech. The FDA is not brutishly shutting down 23andme. They seem to have reasonably tried to work with 23andme. But the startup has been stubborn.

<comment><USER22> You don't get my point. I'm questioning the existence of the FDA itself. What's your excuse for not letting each individual decide for himself what he wants to spend his money on? It's his money after all. He didn't ask you to pay for what he wants. What is your problem with that?

<comment><USER27> Massive information asymmetry means it is highly likely that people will be taken advantage of. The FDA balances the information asymmetry of the public and a product by defining a process that allows companies to make certain claims.

<comment><USER22> This doesn't answer the question of why FDA bans products and services instead of simply informing consumers of possible dangers and letting them decide for themselves. Government has the largest resources to reach out to people, so any message it would want to communicate, it could.

If the government really cared about consumers, it would go after homeopathy dealers, religious leaders and other charlatans. Never gonna happen. Why do you think that is? Why homeopathy existed for such a long time and never had any problems with authorities, but a startup that actually provides some value to people, suddenly is a threat that needs to be shut down?

<comment><USER27> >why FDA bans products and services instead of simply informing consumers of possible dangers

Because that costs money that they shouldn't have to spend. If a company is marketing a product as X, why should the FDA have to counter with marketing that says product is actually ~X, rather than simply stop the marketing as X?

I'm sure homeopathy dealers aren't allowed to make medical claims. Perhaps the FDA doesn't go after them as stringently as you might like, but lets not pretend that they have free reign.

<comment><USER22> So use force instead of convincing people, because it's easier and cheaper.

My problem with any regulatory agency is that it can't claim to work on behalf its clients. Why? Because funding comes from taxes and taxation is not voluntary. No one asks people whether they want to pay taxes or not. They still have to or they will be fined even more or will go to jail. Thus, FDA lacks basic market mechanisms that could check such a consumer protection firm in check. If a group of people feel dissatisfaction with their work - <USER2> them, who cares? They're still getting their funding.

Homeopathy dealers are having a great time and make tons of money. They may not make medical claims, but that doesn't stop them from hurting a lot of people by offering something those people believe is a cure. Let's not pretend government does anything to stop it, really.

<comment><USER27> Personally I feel the libertarian premise is absurd so anything that follows, however rational, is nonsense to me. I don't think we can have a productive discussion.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is this new competitor of Quora? - <AUTHOR> https://provlem.com/ <comment><USER2> It can be a possible Quora alternative. Provlem.com is a crowd sourcing consultancy platform for public and private - free or paid consultancy network or QnA community.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I know - Quora.com is built with Python and MySQL. But as provlem.com writes at footer - "Powered by C++,Go,GraphDB" \- It's going to stay for long.

What's your opinion?

<comment><USER3> Implementation language doesn't matter, at all.</comment></comment>


We Are Entitled to Expect Privacy in Our Smart Meter Data - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/illinois-court-just-didnt-get-it-we-are-entitled-expect-privacy-our-smart <comment><USER2> It's not very private when it's broadcasted for everyone to see...

[https://github.com/bemasher/rtlamr](https://github.com/bemasher/rtlamr)

I have that reading both my gas and power meters, and I can easily see another 60 or so nearby meters. And that's with the terrible antenna that comes with the RTL-SDR stick.

</comment><comment><USER3> I recently logged into the web ui for my smart water meter. There is data going back two years. I've lived here for six weeks. It's weird to get the previous owners water usage history.

</comment><comment><USER4> People who can afford to are going to start buying/using battery packs, water tanks, fuel tanks, just to keep their personal data off-line.</comment>


Jury finds Minn. woman owes $1.5 million for sharing 24 songs - <AUTHOR> http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202474450517&Jury_Finds_Minn_Woman_Owes_15_Million_for_Sharing_24_Songs

<comment><USER2> She brought this on herself. It's interesting to compare what the outcome would have been with a rational defendant.

She had downloaded and was sharing a couple thousand songs. I don't think we've been told what the RIAA's initial settlement offer was when they contacted her, but I believe those are generally in the $3-5k range.

Now at this point, you probably don't know how many songs they know you have pirated and are sharing, and of those you don't know how many they can actually prove. You can guess that they probably know about a lot, though, as they have generally only gone after big time sharers.

For every song that they can prove you violated copyright on, they will get a MINIMUM of $200 statutory damages if you can prove that you were an "innocent infringer". If not, the MINIMUM is $750 per song. (The maximum is something like $30k/song, raised up to something like $150k/song if they can show you were a willful infringer).

Being extremely optimistic, knowing that you've in fact infringed a couple thousand songs, and so calculating damages as an innocent infringer, all they need to do is get you on more than 25 songs, and your BEST CASE outcome is worse than just accepting the initial settlement.

If the innocent infringer thing doesn't fly, all they have to do is get you on 7 songs and you lose compared to accepting a $5k settlement offer up front.

A rational defendant would simply have jumped at the initial settlement offer, accepting that by pirating a couple thousand songs they were essentially taking a bet that they could get the songs for free, but if they lost they'd end up paying about 2.5 times per song than what they would have paid at iTunes.

She refused to settle. She tried to blame others, such as her kids, for the downloading. She tried to destroy evidence (after the other side knew about the evidence--if you are going to destroy evidence you really need to destroy it BEFORE the other side knows it exists). She lied about her actions under oath in court.

These are the kind of actions that make a jury think you are not an innocent infringer--in fact they make a jury think you are scum, and when told to pick damages from a big range, the jury tends to go high, not low on you.

She had another chance to be rational, as the RIAA again made a settlement offer after the first trial, for considerably less than they had won. I don't believe it was as good as their initial offer, but it was still pretty good-- somewhere close to the bottom range of non-innocent infringer statutory damages for the 24 songs they actually ended up litigating over.

Nope, she fought and got another trial. She lost again (which makes since, given nothing had changed), and this new jury went much higher on damages. Oops. Now she's had a third trial, and another loss, and another jury going high.

And she's rejected a $25k settlement offer from the RIAA.

She should accept that offer, apologize for being such an idiot, and ask for donations. There will be enough sympathetic people to cover $25k.

And then someone should see if the lawyers who represented here can be brought up on ethical charges. It seems pretty clear that they used her in order to try out their cockamamie legal theories, and that they were acting in their interests, not in the interests of their client.

<comment><USER3> So, essentially, "Look at that skirt! She was asking for it!"

Horrible actions don't become less horrible just because you can come up with a facile excuse for them. $1.5M does not seem like a reasonable penalty, even if she isn't very likable and clearly was not in the right.

<comment><USER4> I'm with you on that "that's an interesting argument" train of thought, but you ruin the argument if you pull it down to this level.

Most people react _very_ emotional (and - for the most part - this is probably a really good thing) if you bring in arguments about sexual abuse (bonus points for minors).

Let's try to stop these comparisons. They are kind of like Godwin's law, killing the discussion in the process.

In fact - did already someone name this fact before? Can I claim? ;)

<comment><USER3> That's a good point. I hadn't intended for the argument to have such a strong emotional overtone. It just occurred to me as a known-to-be-invalid argument that the comment resembled very closely. I'll keep your law in mind from now on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice, Sony installs rootkit into your computer and sued for $7.50 fine [1] but when women downloaded 24 songs she fined for 1.5M.

What would be the punishment if she install rootkit in Sony or RIAA owned computer?

[1] [http://www.pcworld.com/article/125838/settlement_ends_sony_r...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/125838/settlement_ends_sony_rootkit_case.html)

<comment><USER6> Think about it like this: In the US, a corporation is a legal person.

However, corporations are composed of many people who run the company. A quick google brings up 158,500 in the case of sony. Since the judge broke down the payment to each person, we can re-constitute the number by the people in Sony she would have hurt. So 158,500 * 7.50 = 1,188,750; a number roughly similar to what she now has to pay. You know, maybe these justices are basing it ((song value * #of songs) * number of people in company)

Lawyers: My fuzzy math is available for hire.

<comment><USER7> Another comparison: suppose that every listener pirated music. Assume 2 billion listeners on earth, then the damages awarded would be 3000 trillion dollars. The GDP of the world is about 60 trillion.

<comment><USER6> Piracy is contributing to global GDP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> She did everything she could to ensure that horrible outcome, most notably by overreaching and attempting to demonstrate that she had nothing to do with underlying copyright violations she was (in effect) caught red-handed on. Her team's handling of this case is a setback to efforts to rationalizing copyright damages.

<comment><USER9> Link?

<comment><AUTHOR> A reasonable discussion of the history of the case (noting events that, I think, depict some pretty bad judgments made on the defense side) may be found at the WSJ legal blog: [http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/11/05/copywrong-again- minn-wom...](http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/11/05/copywrong-again-minn-woman- keeps-fighting-riaa-keeps-losing/).

Even after the last trial, RIAA offered to let her settle by paying $25K to a charity for struggling musicians. So, indeed, she has had several opportunities to "get off the hook" and, each time, the lawyers have come charging forward saying they will get her ultimately vindicated. Now, of course, she herself can't be excused because a client ultimately controls this decision no matter what the lawyers want to do. But lawyers are in a strong position to influence most clients and, as a middle-class mother of 4, I assume this client would not be taking ultra-aggressive legal steps unless the lawyers were encouraging this, in effect, making her a martyr for the cause (as "Above the Law" puts it: "The crappy thing about being a martyr is that you have to die" ([http://abovethelaw.com/2010/11/sorry-file-sharing-lady- looks...](http://abovethelaw.com/2010/11/sorry-file-sharing-lady-looks-like- you-just-have-to-take-one-for-the-team/)).

This case really illustrates the ugly face of aggressive copyright enforcement while at the same time highlighting the sometimes questionable judgments people can make in responding to it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> $62,500 per song? How earth did the jury "determine" this. Seems like someone pulled out a number out of their you-know-what!!

<comment><USER2> Well, how much would it have cost per song to purchase from the copyright holders licenses to do what she was doing?

A license to make and redistribute copies, with no restrictions on how many copies can be distributed, and no requirement to track how many copies are distributed or to whom, for a one-time lump sum payment is probably going to be rather expensive.

<comment><USER11> This is a silly argument, though - she was not distributing in perpetuity, and the result is way out of proportion with actual damages. If a total of 100 song copies were downloaded off of her computer, and market price of the songs are $1.30 on iTunes, the damages were no more than $130. In that case, it is as if she deprived them of a maximum of $130, and it should be treated as theft of that amount, at worst. Thieves don't pay back 10000x what they stole, they go to prison.

If she's very unlucky and it was downloaded 1.5 million times off of her computer (doubtful - Comcast would have shut down her computer for going way over her bandwidth quota, and the ratio of sharers to downloaders is quite a bit higher than 1:1000-1:1000000), then maybe it's justified.

This is even without factoring in the likelihood that those people would have bought that music otherwise, rather than downloading in bulk and listening to a small percentage, as is common.

<comment><USER2> So when three of the four major labels were refusing to give Apple permission to distribute DRM-free music on iTunes, but were allowing Amazon to distribute their music DRM free, would you argue that Apple could have just gone ahead and distributed the music without permission, as long as it went ahead and paid the labels the same that Amazon pays them?

<comment><USER12> So when I start throwing rocks and break one window a day of your 5000-window house and announce this intention, when you take me to court and stop me with an injunction after 5 windows, you can go ahead and sue for the repair costs of 5000 windows?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have some trouble understanding this statement: "...willfully infringing on the copyrights of 24 songs by making them available for sharing."

How do you infringe a copyright by sharing something? Is sharing tantamount to distributing?

<comment><USER14> > "making them available for sharing."

It's a really big slippery slope:

The jury was instructed that merely "making available" sufficed to constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution right, even without proof of any actual distribution.[1][11][12] The issue of whether copyright infringement required actual distribution was raised by the defense during examination of Sony BMG's head of litigation on the first day of trial, but the court sustained the plaintiffs' objection and did not permit the topic to be revisited until jury instructions were prepared just before the end of the trial.[12] Despite disagreement from the defense, the court proceeded to interpret making available as distribution for purposes of instructing the jury.[12]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. -Abraham Lincoln

</comment><comment><USER16> Any details on how, exactly, these songs were shared? Just curious.

<comment><USER17> kazaa

<comment><USER16> Wow, really? Didn't even know that was still around. I was using kazaa to download music when I was 13 (21 now).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you can't persuade them, scare them!

Nice try RIAA</comment>