I don't think they were prepared for the response they got.

I don't know which is the more disturbing point.
1) Coming to the conclusion of removing support of an internally used format for external devices. A format most, or all, of the developers of 3rd party apps use.
or
2) Not being able to foresee the kind of reaction from the developer community, which any successful OS these days need.

No one ever considers the /. effect.

But Google/Chromium coders should have!

Disturbing on many levels.

I disagree with your "might as well buy a real laptop" statement. I see nothing wrong with buying a $200 Chromebook and attaching an external drive, whether a $100-$200 SSD or a $70 TB HD. My Chromebook has a usb 3 port. Very handy for attaching external HDs/SSDs. My chromebook is the higher model @ $250.

I agree Chromebooks are useful. One thing is certain. I will definitely be forking the Chrome OS on any future chromes I might buy, to add back in support for ext2/3/4. Or I may buy a second one which still has the support. If some update comes down removing the support, I will simply "patch" it, to add it back in.

The warranty on the first one expires in a few months. I may just install Linux over it, and be done with it. The Chrome OS, does have just enough quirks that annoy me enough to switch it to Linux. Everyone in the house knows how to use Linux, but there will likely be performance penalties in switching.

Perhaps the best solution is to use a fork of ChromeOS.

You're arguing a strawman argument, or rather a non-existent man argument. IF they had had a warrant, what they did would not be a problem. But they "hacked" into the server "exceeding authorized access" in violation of the CFAA WITHOUT A WARRANT. Hence it was a criminal act, by their own definition.

Now if you remove the CFAA, or clarify the law so it can't be misused to prosecute innocent uses, and uses that security professionals would normally use when looking for weaknesses in systems and not from a maliscious or criminal intent. Then what they did is probably ok. But as it stands now, what they did was criminal. It's a stupid, broken, clueless law, but it is the law and they would definitely prosecute someone for doing what they did.

Agreed that it's not in the summary, but as you correctly note, it's just a "summary". Anyone who reads the underlying blog post will read this among the facts on which the court based its opinion: "The public was allowed to search by keyword. The search results showed only the page numbers for the search term and the number of times it appeared; none of the text was visible."

So those readers who RTFA will be in the know.

Don't I wish.

A cynic might argue that the key difference in this case was that, for a change, the ISP's, and not merely defendants, were challenging the subpoenas; but of course we all know that justice is 'blind'.

An ingrate might bemoan the Court's failure to address the key underlying fallacy in the "John Doe" cases, that because someone pays the bill for an internet account that automatically makes them a copyright infringer; but who's complaining over that slight omission?

A malcontent like myself might be a little unhappy that it took the courts ten (10) years to finally come to grips with the personal jurisdiction issue, which would have been obvious to 9 out of 10 second year law students from the get go, and I personally have been pointing it out and writing about it since 2005; but at least they finally did get there.

And a philosopher might wonder how much suffering might have been spared had the courts followed the law back in 2004 when the John Doe madness started; but of course I'm a lawyer, not a philosopher. :)

Bottom line, though: this is a good thing, a very good thing. Ten (10) years late in coming, but good nonetheless. - R.B. )

"These creatures you call mice, you see, they are not quite as they appear. They are merely the protrusion into our dimension of vastly hyperintelligent pandimensional beings."

Do YOU feel manipulated?

Signed: A male (smelly) scientist

From dmesg

[ 421.406145] netcat: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel.
[ 421.406149] Disabling lock debugging due to kernel taint
[ 421.416664] [netcat]: netcat - Cycles Per Instruction - Kernel Module Edition - 2014
[ 421.416668] [netcat]: netcat is Brandon Lucia, Andrew Olmstead, and David Balatero
[ 421.416670] [netcat]: On the web at http://netcat.co/
[ 421.416671] [netcat]: 'ogg123 -

So yes

My grandfather manned a gun in a real open cockpit in WWI, flying in planes put together by wires, cloth and wood.

He took one of those wires through his chest in a crash landing, and lived to tell the tale, get married, have kids and eventully die mowing his grass one week after lung surgery because he was bullheaded, stubborn, Irishman [yeah runs in the family].

Step number 2 should be "bring a rebreather", rather than an oxygen tank. Rebreathers should be good for trans-pacific flights, 1.5-8 hour capacity, theoretically speaking.

Then again, Not sure how well they will work at 40,000 feet in the atmosphere. Nor if the sensors will know how to prevent you getting stoned out of your mind on too much oxygen (depending on the particular configuration of the rebreather). Still a rebreather would be my tank of preference for a wheel well trip.

But then if you can afford the $4000-$15,000+ for a rebreather, you could probably afford to hire a private jet.

Of course, you could probably save a bunch of money, if you plan on being a frequent-wheel-well-flyer.

Well no one, but some hrdcore Bush fanatics.

It takes 9 hours to go from Omaha to Miami on Amtrack , and you can get a one way ticket for $275.

Yes, you can opt for the 23 train that takes two partial days (not three full days - although there might be a possible package for that too), and yes you can buy a cabin ticket for almost $1100.

http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/...

No it's not faster to drive, and I've driven such distances. Cheaper? Perhaps. If you have more than one person, definitely. Again, I've done this, I prefer to drive, and often get a rental with full coverage, in case I decide to pull any Jackass stunts ( with full coverage, I can take the car to a demolition derby before returning and not have any worries). It's definitely not more relaxing, especially if you're trying to beat a train going 90.

Note: if going from Omaha to Miami you'll probably go first to Chicago, and may get put on the City Of New Orleans (made famous by the song), and go to , you guessed, it New Orleans, then to Jacksonville, and then to Orlando, and then to Miami, there might be 3 to 5 train changes there. Then there are other, slower routes, with more changes.

It may be more rewarding to drive.

Also, it should be noted that some train stations have TSA agents and you'll still have to deal twith them sometimes by train. If you go that route. Trains can be fun though, no need to turn off your electronics, and you'll likely have excellent signal strengths wherever possible, plus a lot more room to get up and walk around and socialize.