Please do not read this the wrong way. I am not questioning what you're doing as improper. I am just curious.

Isn't most of the data in PACER just procedural (cf. substantive)? If yes, wouldn't it have only limited value in illuminating to the public "what the law is"? Would it have some other value? Maybe it might allow generation of some interesting statistics on outcomes, etc.? Maybe you are planning to "disrupt" the jury research industry?

Pardon my ignorance.

(Personally, I think you should also support freeing up access to academic research. Public access to research publications is equally as important as access to the total corpus of US Court dockets. I'm not sure anyone could learn that much just by reading court dockets. But I can assure you that by reading the scientific literature in a given field of science, one can learn a great deal.)

But to answer your question more precisely, I'm interested in identifying trends in the courts with respect to litigated issues. It'd be interesting to determine whether certain pre-trial motions have a higher propensity to be granted/denied in a particular court, before a particular judge, etc. Additionally, I'm interested in tracking cases on which attorneys and law firms typically rely when writing their briefs or other documents submitted to the court.

If everything we ate smelled and tasted "good", we'd die. Because we would eat poisonous things. There is a reason why some things smell or taste "bad".

As another commenter points out, it's a shame because knowing what projects did not work, and when, would be helpful.

Trial and error is a proven way to reach success.

Kickstarter is hiding the errors.

Maybe when Apple reaches Microsoft-level penetration, and of course that is their goal (Exhbit A: Apple pricing trends), you might get your druthers.

It really should not be necessary to "jailbreak" a device in the first instance. The user should be able to easily install their own choice of software on the hardware they have paid for: e.g., applications, OS, bootloader and BIOS. If you want to install Apple's software, you can. If you do not want to install their software, you can install something else. Simple.

Apple's prices have been pretty steady, and are frequently decried as being too high.

Why should they? You don't get to easily put any ingredient of your choice in packaged food, or any instrument of your choice in finished songs, or any cloth of your choice in premade clothing, or any engine you like in a car.

You can mix packaged food with whatever you want. You can choose to eat only the left half of your TV dinner. In short, once it's yours, you can do what you like.

You can take a song and remix it to your heart's content. That is, unless the song contains DRM which prevents you from extracting the raw audio data. This is something most people around here frown upon rather strongly.

Nothing prevents me from taking pre-made clothing and using it in ways the manufacturer didn't envision and doesn't desire. I can use store-bought pants to make rope or filter water or anything I wish.

As for putting any engine you like in a car, I don't know where that came from. Of course you can put any engine you like in a car, as long as you have the resources and the skills.

Nobody is saying Apple must explicitly support third-party stuff like this. They shouldn't go out of their way for it. All we want is for them to stop going out of their way to prevent it.

It's not just a matter of Apple not inviting third-party OSes and bootloaders. The problem is that Apple locks down the platform using digital signatures so that the only way to use anything but an Apple OS or bootloader is to find and exploit a bug in Apple's lockdown code. There is no similar situation in the world of packaged food, music (except for DRM, which is generally considered bad), clothing, or cars.

That's because computing is a new thing in human history. There isn't anything quite like it. But there is matter, and matter is sold with lots of disparate bits built into one product all the time. Things which could be reconfigured by a skilled person, but it's widely accepted that people don't/can't/shouldn't do that.

Your arguments are similarly broken. You can mix your iOS device with any pair of glasses, 3.5mm audio device, wifi AP, or cover, or choose to use only part of it. You can't have a TV dinner without the gravy browning and you can't get an iOS device without the Apple firmware.

The problem is that Apple locks down the platform using digital signatures so that the only way to use anything but an Apple OS or bootloader is to find and exploit a bug in Apple's lockdown code.

And one of the reasons they do that is so they can provide a curated, malware free, beginner-unbreakable, trustable-updating, partly-sandboxed-app experience for their paying customers.

You have complained about my analogies, but you haven't said why "they should" do that, just that "you want them to".

The reason Apple has the App Store and restricts distribution channels is to provide a good experience. The reason Apple locks down the platform so hard that the only way even an expert can customize the OS is to exploit bugs is to retain control of the platform, nothing to do with a good experience for users.

As for why they should do it, it's because I want them to, and because I think the walled garden approach is frighteningly dangerous for computing in general. Everybody is following suit. In a couple of decades it's not inconceivable that it will be impossible to publish any software without permission from a big corporation.

That's not something I can cite peer reviewed evidence for, but from the number of people with unwanted toolbars and junkware on desktops, it seems likely.

So I disagree that it has "nothing to do with a good experience for users".

the walled garden approach is frighteningly dangerous for computing in general.

It has made something widely regarded as the best non-technical computing experience of the decade. It's not 'frighteningly dangerous' while there are still lots of ways to get computation you want done, done. (Albeit not as slickly).

We've been through this countless times. Microsoft and the OEM's. Apple and their locked down hardware. Consumers are not fools. They know the difference between a software company and a hardware company.

Does your packaged food come with silverware?

Do your finished songs come with an mp3 player?

Does your premade clothing come with laundry detergent?

I find these type of comparsions (e.g. of computers and software to food, music, clothing) very strange. We are talking about cheap, programmable consumer electronics. And then we are having an argument over whether the consumer should have the ability to program them. It is absurd.

Should GE obligated to support installing new firmware on your dishwasher?

There's a long history of integrated devices. It may be the case that consumers know the difference between hardware and software. It's also the case, though, that they often do not care, and don't want to see with the difference.

Yes I'm saying they are one product not two. They are made as one product, advertised as one product, sold as one thing for one price, supported as one product. Where do you get the idea that they could reasonably be thought of as two products?

We are talking about cheap, programmable consumer electronics. And then we are having an argument over whether the consumer should have the ability to program them. It is absurd.

No we aren't. We are talking about dozens of components, both software and hardware, put together into one product which is not sold as "programmable electronics" anymore than a dishwasher is sold as "reconfigurable matter". It's a nonsense idea that you want to be the case but you haven't justified why it "should" be the case at all.

"Eric was always on time, never late for work."

The question I have is what is going to come out of Bing's integration of FB?

1. The other is a directory where you look up businesses that offer products and services.

If I'm looking at my old holiday snaps and reliving the good times I had, I might be tempted by an ad for cheap flights to a similar destination.

If I'm looking at recent photos of my relatives' adorable children, I might be tempted by an ad for children's toys to send them.

If I'm looking at a friend's photos from an event they attended and enjoyed, I might be tempted by an ad selling tickets to that or similar event.

If I'm looking at a photo of myself from a time when I was in better physical shape, I might be tempted by an ad for a gym membership.

etc...

I doubt Facebook will ever be able to get to a point where they can make predictions as accurate at that, but given the trove of personal data and image analysis algorithms they have, if anyone could do it, it'd be them.

FB and its believers think that the chances are high enough to make big money, or at least that they can make them high enough.

In actuality they aren't. You might think about booking the flight, but the chances of you actually reaching for the credit card based on idly looking at photos are too small to do worthwhile targeted ads.

The idea that FB can just tune their algorithms until they know exactly what you're thinking is a fantasy based on...

1. an overly optimistic estimation of the SNR ratio of the info people put into FB, and

2. on the hilarious fallacies of the aforementioned Market Economics Fairy which assumes that everyone is always a rational actor, and that everything people do has definite reasons behind it which can be traced and understood, and their future behaviour predicted from, and crucially that these reasons can be modelled with traditional reductionism. This is plainly not true.

Admittedly my opinions here are based on guesswork, just like FBs are, but I contend that I have the benefit of drawing my conclusions without a hundred billion dollars worth of wishful thinking clouding my vision.

And that's why the message to Harvard graduates[1] (purportedly America's brightest rational minds) makes deliberate reference to a man[2] who has consistently proven this to be false. The message also is centered around another pillar of rationality: the idea of "luck".

1. A link to this was recently posted here on HN.

2. One who was "lucky" enough to be awarded a Nobel Prize.

You can keep saying the data is valuable. No one is going to question that it is. We all have imaginations. And advertisers will be curious. They will try advertising on FB.

But there's just a big difference in human behavior in the two examples I gave. They are different. Not because I can make argument based on reason for the difference. But because it's what the facts show. There is a long history to this that predates the web. You might say it's been thoroughly tested.

So, you can make all the arguments you want that people should behave a certain way, and maybe you draw on examples of your own behavior or that of others you know, but when it comes down to making money and growing like Google does, it matters more what people actually do in real life. As opposed to how we think they should behave.

Yellow pages and photo-albums are things that have been around for a very long time, long before the web. If people looking at photos (FB) are at the same time looking for products and services, then why didn't photo-albums before the web have heaps of advertising in them? The answer is because there was a different book where it was more appropriate to advertise.

Read the article on the MIT or Harvard blog again. What you are describing, especially a tactic like image analysis, is exactly the type of approach he is saying is just too invasive. This kind of approach to advertising removes anonymity and violates people's privacy when it's counterintuitive to do so, according to the article.

Hungry. Get food. How much thinking is involved in that?

Do you know what has a very high clickthrough rate on FB, probably their highest CTR ever (but which is no longer allowed)?

Pop-up styled ads for "party poker".

Not much has changed since the 1990's in this regard. Web advertising is still much the same. And anyone who has been using the web since then, such as the author of the MIT article, sees and knows this.

But do the kids with advanced degrees being hired by FB at $100K/yr know it? Nope. They believe that watching your every move and analysing who your friends are is a path to riches.

I'm not sure what's worse. The knee-jerk response of web users to blinking poker ads, or the blind allegiance of otherwise intelligent young people to a sociopath who thinks destroying privacy is a "goal" worth pursuing.

News flash: Communication on and above the scale of FB is possible without destroying privacy.

FB is the next Pets.com

But it's going to be a slow, painful decline. They have raised billions to stay alive.

Solution for FB: Build a search engine and put it where the display ads are. Keep people inside the walled garden by removing any possible reason for them to leave. Like 1990's "framing" reborn. FAIL.

The whole notion of FB is utterly absurd. Tell us who all your friends are and we'll "enable" you to communicate with them (even though it's trivial to do yourself without us). We reserve the right to analyse all the information you give us and monitor everything you do on the FB site and elsewhere on the web to _try_ to make money, in various sneaky, deceptive (but really clever!) ways. FAIL.

Think of Facebook like a magazine. When people read through National Geographic, are they looking to buy a camera right then? No. And yet all the camera companies advertize heavily in Nat Geo because having their ad next those photos creates a positive brand association.

Facebook is developing the ability to show ads that are contextual to whatever you're reading or talking about on Facebook. Their success won't be measured in clicks, but in the same way companies have valued brand ads for decades--by statistical research.

You appear to be referring to future success. It's like Microsoft talking up "vaporware". It gets people's attention, maybe it convinces some to believe and some to invest, but it offers them nothing. Only a promise of some future of which no one can be certain.

We have almost two decades of web display ads and their effects on building brands. Advertisers are not too impressed. They have waited patiently for something that compares to a magazine ad. And no one has delivered. Maybe solving the context problem might not be so easy. Maybe a website is not a magazine.

Meanwhile people are looking for products and services via the web, with their credit cards in hand. And Google has been there to help advertisers reach them.

That's not some promise of the future, that's the here and now.

Facebook has real power for influence. And some of that can no doubt benefit corporations. But what Google offers is something much more direct and efficient. And it's not a pie-in-the-sky promise, it's proven to have worked year after year.

Facebook has no business model. They only have everyone's curiousity. And that's mainly because the "content" on FB is everyone's friends and family, not the type of packaged, commercialised "entertainment" you get from a magazine. FB is not a magazine. It's a photo-album. More specifically, it's a collection of personal photo albums.

It does have some added "features" to the traditional photo album. It comes with tacky, invasively personal display ads in the margin. And it comes with a team of "engineers" looking over your shoulder to log every photo you look at and every comment you make. And it's exposed to viewing by millions of strangers (this is totally unnecessary). I think we can have photo albums without all that cruft. And I think we will.

I find it kind of funny to see the complaints about Facebook's financial future...I'm old enough to remember when Google was a cool new free technology, but no one knew how the heck such a simple search engine was going to make money.

This is because the more I learn about them as people the more likely I am to be disappointed. They will say something stupid. Or, e.g., I find out they like some OS, application or language that I just cannot stand. And I'm like WTF? In short, they are just very different people. I may never meet them in person. It's probably better that I don't. The code I am using as a model might have actually been written a dog, posing as a person, like the one in the NewYorker cartoon. Who knows?

Trying to view these authors as "models" (versus seeing only their _code_ as a model) is just setting yourself up for disappoinment.

That said, some of my all time favorite "coder prose" is the netcat source. Let's face it, programming can be very frustrating. And you need a sense of humor. I wish he was still actively writing and releasing software. And that program still compiles as smooth as any, 15 years later. Great stuff.

I wonder if they'll fix it in the next 24hrs.

Poor Yahoo.