1. What does this have to do with "Hacker News".
2. I don't remember where but I read this article with the exact same picture over a year ago. Perhaps the author just updated an old article of his? I find it odd that it was just now posted to nypost.com so far after it was written.
Well this whole thing started with the RIAA stating they are no longer actively searching for users illegal downloading music. So if they are no longer actively searching for them, where are these cease and desist orders originating from? The ISP's say they are not actively seeking the users dling music nor should they, they are just forwarding the notices. The original drama started when the RIAA basically told the ISPs its their job to find the users and notify them of their doings, of which is what the ISPs "hadn't responded to yet".
"Comcast adds via spokesperson that nothing's changed"
So did the RIAA lie and they are still actively seeking out and reporting to ISPs to report to the user or is this article misinformed?
So basically behind the scenes they are really only doing a google search within the site?
Google search [www.bestbuy.com: karate kid DVD] will return the karate kid DVD and price from best buy. I don't understand why I should want to pay for this?
There's actually a lot more to it than that! For some services like Amazon and Yelp, we hook into APIs for quick retrieval/display of data. For others, we pull back data content from RSS feeds. And for others, like BestBuy, we do pass along parameters to their web services. It varies from service to service. But trust me, there's a lot of tech behind the app!
also, the interface is optimized for speed and convenience. you can type 'www.bestbuy.com' into your iphone, but given the choice, our feeling is that many people will prefer to use an app that minimizes typing and maximizes speed.
I actually quite enjoyed that style of video interview. It broke it up for me and clearly separated each chunk of information, letting a few seconds for it to set in and moved on to the next question.
The article states "people were rushing to delete photos and incriminating messages". I find that very untrue and the article made the ordeal bigger then it actually was. Not to mention it wasn't just twitter but also people blogging and such. Things in the past such as the news feed had a 10x larger uproar then this did. (I know I'm going to get down ranked just because you disagree with me)
(I know I'm going to get down ranked just because you disagree with me)
Sorry go to off topic, but what makes you think that? Comments at HN are generally only downvoted for being inappropriate, immature, or extremely insubstantial. Say something interesting and you'll probably get upvoted even by people who disagree with you.
Back on topic, I agree, the article dramatizes things quite a bit. Maybe the new ToS were first noticed/discussed on Twitter, but I don't think that mean Twitter "won" something against Facebook. Also, pet peeve: overuse of the word 'viral'. If 'went viral' just means 'got Dugg' then it's not a very meaningful term.
As someone who I'd like to think has proven to be of some worth to the community I can tell you first hand that people downvote based on disagreement all the time. In my experience it's just a few jerks (I've never been significantly down voted on a quality comment) but it does happen.
I think there was even an "Ask HN" topic on this a while back with people defending the fact that they downvote because the disagree (Sorry, not enough time to search for it right now)
I believe the author is referring more so to the people that tend to think that one person came up with, and wrote it since its attached to a persons name. It also makes for a good (read good in their heads) excuse why not to believe it. I know I have experienced that poor logic in conversation before.
Not only have many ISPs responded with a no, that is also news from a few months ago. So why post/uprate an article that was written 6 years ago that is loosely tied to news from a few months ago?
