GoPro S-1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1500435/000119312514204902/d552193ds1.htm <comment><USER2> Nick Woodman founded this company on a $35,000 loan from his mom in 2002. The rise of this company has been amazing to watch. It really is a great product line. What's most amazing is how the camera basically marketed itself with the rise in both action sports and online video. Some damn lucky timing.

<comment><USER3> Are action sports really that new? People have been skateboarding, surfing, and mountain biking for decades.

<comment><USER4> I believe it's just that GoPro + Internet allows for more action sports footage from many more perspectives to be broadcast to a wider audience compared to what was available ten years ago. I know theberrics.com uses GoProp for a lot of their footage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Something I find really interesting is the decreasing gross margins:

                        2011  2012  2013
        Gross margin     52%   43%   37%
        Net inc. margin  11%    6%    6%

I'm curious to know what is creating that margin reduction... pricing pressure or cogs.

Additionally, the net income margin seems to be stabilised at 6%, which seems to me pretty standard for hardware plays.

Still, the most refreshing part of this technology S1 is that GoPro has no losses! Good for them.

<comment><USER5> They also disclose units shipped (1.15MM in 2011, 2.32MM in 2012 and 3.85MM in 2013).

A simple revenue/units calculation would imply that revenue per unit is increasing ($205 in 2011, $227 in 2012, $256 in 2013).

This is a primitive analysis for a number of reasons, but it suggests that pricing pressure is not the issue. The MD&A, on page 64, also states that higher product costs were the primary reason for the gross margin decreases in 2012 and 2013, and that there was a 14% increase in average selling price in 2012.

<comment><USER6> Depends on how you define "pricing pressure". By the similar calculation the average COGS per unit in 2011, 2012, and 2013 is $97.11, $128.67, $162.07 respectively. It grows faster than the revenue per unit. Which may mean upward price pressure from suppliers, downward price pressure from consumers, or both.

<comment><USER5> Yes. I took the question as asking whether absolute revenue per unit was going down or absolute COGS per unit was going up (or both).

Obviously there are different perspectives from which we can look at absolute and relative pricing pressure, and with everything in finance it depends on definitions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand this "trend" of posting the entire S-1 document that a small portion of people are going to read in full. I'd much prefer to read a news article rather than trying to skim through it all.

<comment><USER8> Judging by the amount of upvotes, maybe more people than you think read the document...

Personally, I don't read it all but much prefer reading the sections I find most relevant than reading a summary made by someone else. Also, I think it makes for a better discussion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have a Contour helmet camera. Everyone always asks me if its a GoPro. No wonder GoPro is going public and Contour went out of business a few months ago.

(and deleted all my videos on their site >:| )

<comment><USER10> Contour camera performed fine when it was at its peak. But Go-Pro's marketing was just leagues ahead.

<comment><USER11> Too bad advertising is so important. I thought go-pro was a narcissistic waste of time, but once I saw the how useful they were on the production end of the Gold mining show on the Discovery channel; I realized their value. I hope they continue to improve quality, and lower price points. And not spend more money on advertising.

<comment><USER12> GoPro's most effective marketing _isn 't_ traditional paid advertising, it's the cool video your friend shot & put on YouTube.

Or if you don't have any cool friends, it's Jeb Corliss' "Grinding the Crack"[1]. Given that many credit the massive success[2] of AWOLNATION's "Sail" (the soundtrack to that clip) to the 26M views that clip has had, I wonder how many GoPro's it sold, too?

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWfph3iNC-k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWfph3iNC-k)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sail_(song)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sail_\(song\)) (Note that it entered the Billboad 100 a month after "Grinding the Crack" went viral)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So many TV programmes uses GoPros nowadays. Every outdoor show uses those. They just strap them in the weirdest places. 10 GoPros is something like 5000 euros and with that a fishing show can be sure that they will catch a nice angle when the big fish eats the lure.

Car shows? Just put one camera to every corner, on the roof, on the dash, trunk and what ever. Because why not?

Biking in some lifestyle/feelgood show? You can put couple cameras to every bike. When hiking everybody can have a camera.

No, the picture quality is not as good as with professional cameras, but few second clip from awesome angle with OK quality is better than great quality from bad angle.

<comment><USER14> "Gold Rush: Alaska" and "Yukon Gold" are both filmed in my local area (Dawson, Yukon, Canada), and both companies strap GoPros onto every piece of heavy equipment they can. If they fall off and get run over, they're out $300, which is a negligible amount of money for productions of their scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I know little of the device or the company, but perhaps someone can help inform me and others. Is GoPro a single product company, with expected growth and decline curves of Iomega or Palm? Or is it divested across wearables or some other sector?

<comment><USER16> They have 3 models ("white", "silver", "black") of their main product–the Hero camera–which is currently in it's 3rd version (the Hero3). The only other products they produce (to my knowledge) are accessories for the camera.

I don't think comparison to Palm or Iomega is fair. Camera technology seems a little more cemented than storage or mobile operating systems.

I think the rise of sectors like drones will make GoPro a successful complement for a long time. I'm sure they could divest into specialized cameras for these sectors if they wanted to (think infrared/multispectral imaging for agriculture). Right now, however, they seem to have a "Do one thing and do it really well" approach.

<comment><USER17> They also have a editing video software. It's currently free.

And they also organize events.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Am I the only one who thought seeing the title "oh, nice, a new GoPro model already!" before clicking the link?

</comment><comment><USER19> Revenue growth is pretty astounding:

* 187% from 2012 to 2013

* 225% from 2011 to 2012

* 363% from 2010 to 2011

<comment><USER20> I wonder how long the GoPro device lasts before a consumer replaces it. In my mind, a GoPro is something you wear on your head while doing crazy stuff. Even if GoPro never makes technology improvements, it seems like people would be destroying them as part of normal use, like other types of athletic equipment.

<comment><USER21> Skydiver with 3 GoPros in the family. I started with the 1, got my wife a 2, and then I upgraded to a 3. The V1 is still alive and kicking, but the image quality was so much better on the 3 that I felt like I had to upgrade.

Also, we see new jumpers every year, and the first thing they want to do is start jumping with a GoPro (even if we don't want them to for safety reasons).

I think they're doing a good enough job with new features that people like me will keep upgrading for a while.

<comment><USER22> Same here. I've seen one survive from 10,000 ft (lost helmet). You would really have to try hard to break one of these.

<comment><USER23> Dropped one without the case: lens onto concrete floor and it chipped it.

Consequence of fumbling while trying to take it out of the case for SD card retrieval and charging. Now, I unmount the case, take it to a desk in a carpeted room & open the case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> GoPro has all the characteristics of a successful long-term brand. I recently bought one for my son. I could not find a better product in that category. Many of his friends have one (or more). It produces great video. It is simple to use. They are nearly indestructible.

Established camera makers don't seem to understand how to compete, despite the GoPro being a pretty simple camera made with an off-the-shelf camera SoC that comes with firmware for many of the key features.

It pleases me that the valuation is more than double that of Twitch. A glimmer of hope for life outdoors.

<comment><USER25> >I could not find a better product in that category

Really? What were your considerations? I'm always told that the Sony Action Cam is better quality.

<comment><USER12> _I 'm always told that the Sony Action Cam is better quality._

It's not.

The image quality is comparable to the Hero 3+, with no clear consensus as to which is better (eg [1],[2]). Sony uses the Zeiss lens as a selling point, but still can't do the 4K resolution of the GoPro.

GoPro's image quality is good enough for it not to be something that counts against it in almost any case. A quick look at some of the clips produced by GoPros will give enough evidence to convince most doubters.

GoPro usually wins because of a combination of things.

Firstly there is the form factor. Usually it is seen as a downside, but then you discover that the "wide & short" GoPro factor is the only one you can chest mount safely, and the only one you can helmet mount in the middle of a helmet. That's usually enough to counter any "form factor" arguments (although I'd like to see a "long narrow" GoPro - there are some cases where it is better too).

Then there is the ecosystem. You can get GoPro mounts for _anything_. Most competing cameras sell adaptors, but then you often run into the form factor problem - the more common "long narrow" form factor doesn't fit into the same space as "wide short".

Then there's the software. GoPro's software isn't fantastic, but it's mostly ok. Most of the competitors have pretty bad software.

[1] [http://www.digitalrev.com/article/gopro-hero-3-vs- sony/Njk3M...](http://www.digitalrev.com/article/gopro-hero-3-vs- sony/Njk3MDQ3MDg_A)

[2] [http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/personal/2013/08/31/perso...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/personal/2013/08/31/personal- camcorder-pov-camera/2724163/)

<comment><USER26> >GoPro factor is the only one you can chest mount safely, and the only one you can helmet mount in the middle of a helmet.

I agree on the chest mount, but the helmet? Why wouldn't I be able to put my AS15 on my helmet with the provided stickymount? I prefer long and thin on my helmet...

I actually prefer the AS15's colours compared to the GoPro White (which is closest in pricing), and the Sony cost me €100,- less. (€150 / €250)

<comment><USER12> Probably depends on the sport. Many like it mounted on the front of the helmet facing slightly down, and the isn't usually possible with (typically) top mounted long-thin cameras.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I hope with their extra money they make from this they can use it to make their products and software more reliable. I've had to RMA at least 5 of their cameras over the years. I've had every single one, minus their first film wrist camera.

It is so infuriating to deal with a camera that crashes, wont turn on, gets stuck in a software update, has buttons fail, has the locking clips crack, wifi remote problems, short battery life.... all while you're in the moment and want to capture something.

I wish to move to another company but it seems there aren't any competitors who match up yet (when my gopros do work properly). There is a camera by AEE that I want to try out. I like the image quality better so far, I wish them luck because without a doubt gopro needs some competition.

</comment><comment><USER28> I really like GoPro, bought one a few months ago. But longterm I really wonder: it seems this will be disrupted from the low end, right? Currently GoPro's have better quality, but in a few years a $50 Chinese clone will also do 4k video at 120 fps. Where can GoPro add value when that happens? There isn't much lock in (a bit in the various plastic mounts). Any thoughts where they will go?

<comment><USER29> They now a branding company not a video company.

The term GoPro is used to describe any action-orientated camera in popular consumer circles. Aficionados will always use the correct terminology but my family and friends just refer to portable, waterproof, sports cameras as Go Pro's.

Even you tell them it is a Sony or X brand of helmet cam they will say "So it is like a Go Pro?"

They have become synonymous with the market like Hoover and BiC.

They also provide software services for editing footage and galleries for for you to upload your work. In time I can imagine they will expand to make the editing process as easy as possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The greatest part of GoPro's marketing is their youtube page. They just post videos shot with GoPros and like amateur versions of the same. I go there when I'm feeling like I need a taste of the outdoors and I've also got a GoPro on order, coincidence? Maybe but probably not.

<comment><USER31> This.

Some of my favourites.

Lions - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCzSfv4hX8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCzSfv4hX8)

Base jumping - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVcV9ItdZ8w](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVcV9ItdZ8w)

Skydiving (from the stratosphere) - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYw4meRWGd4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYw4meRWGd4)

<comment><USER12> Also note that their (free) video software make creating this style of video incredibly easy, and just happens to have a pre-reel "GoPro" trailer by default. Everyone leaves it in because they want their video to "look pro".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> My Hero3 is one of my favorite tech gadgets. Awesome video quality, stupendous battery life, tough enough for bitter cold days in the wilderness skiing. I hope they continue to make good stuff!

<comment><USER33> I love the Hero 3 too, but I found the footage I shot with it just wasn't that great until I got a quadcopter (DJI Phantom) to mount it on, along with a gimbal to stabilize it. The footage you can get out of a $1000 rig now is amazing.

I wouldn't be surprised if GoPro acquires DJI, or DJI IPOs themselves in < 5 years.

<comment><USER34> Which gimbal do you use on the Phantom? Zenmuse?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I had expected them to list Google Glass under competition.

<comment><USER36> Is it because you never saw glass footage (poorly focused almost choppy 720p with extremely poor dynamic range)? or read about battery life?

if anything this is their competition

[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pivothead- smart](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pivothead-smart)

[http://pivothead.com/](http://pivothead.com/) seems to be down at the moment, but company is real and has real products.

<comment><USER37> Also the Glass is 4x the cost of the most expensive thing GoPro sells.

It doesn't mean a future version couldn't be competitive though, and Google has certainly thought about it:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7TB8b2t3QE#t=232](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7TB8b2t3QE#t=232)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Facebook should go for it! Then, they would own Go Pro to capture stuff, and Oculus to VR-display the same stuff.

</comment><comment><USER39> What do you think will be the valuation of the company?

</comment><comment><USER40> can we talk about tech here?

<comment><USER41> A technology company going public isn't?</comment></comment>


Pictures from the Norwegian street protest against the ISO approval of Microsoft's OOXML format. - <AUTHOR> http://flickr.com/groups/750232@N22/pool/ With ODF already an ISO standard, many were not happy with the recent approval of OOXML as new document standard.  I Norway some people took it to the streets... <comment><USER2> Wow.</comment>


Vint Cerf: Internet Access Is Not a Human Right - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html?_r=1&hpw <comment><USER2> I began this piece raring to disagree, but I find it hard to fault his logic. A human right to unimpeded use of carriages would seem hilarious today, and a right to the use of landline phones will likely become so in the next decade.

We don't want to regulate specific rights as reactions to the particular issues of the day, we want to distill those issues to their essence so that we can meaningfully protect freedoms that are fundamental to meaningful human existence.

However, as others have noted here, this article leaves a couple of important points unaddressed.

Firstly, how can we be sure that the internet isn't fundamental? I can imagine arguing (in an earlier time) that legal counsel shouldn't be a human right, because we'll have something better than the legal system at some point. Yet thousands of years of human development have led only to a more complex legal system with the same fundamental ideas. Maybe the internet isn't horse-riding, maybe it's the invention of law. How do we know?

Secondly, if internet access isn't fundamental, then what is its more essential formulation? Being banned from the internet today makes you deaf, dumb and blind; much like being banned from electricity would cripple you. The difference is, nobody's trying to make three strikes laws for the power grid. We need to protect something. So what is it? The idea of free access to information? Ability to form and join networks? It's clearly not anything that's currently protected.

Unfortunately, there is more than just an academic interest at stake here. It's well and good to say "ha ha, you see, I have a new and interesting perspective", but this is a situation where there are actual losses being made in terms of real people's access to the internet. Unless Vint Cerf is trying to say that's not important, perhaps it's a little counterproductive to make an article that shoots down a core idea for internet freedom without providing anything else of substance to fill its place.

<comment><USER3> (Apologies to non-US hackers, the following reply is couched entirely in the context of the Constitution, however I think the thrust is relevant in general)

So, all the other replies so far note the explicit mention of "the press".

I'll first note that we certainly no longer talk about "the press" in reference to physical presses, and I'd naïvely hazard that the framers of the constitution didn't mean it that way either. In that regard I think it's a bit of a red-herring to talk about.

The critical point really is whether we as free people have the freedom to communicate and associate.

The reason why the internet is interesting is because it's the confluence of two of our existing rights. Sure the internet can be used for the purpose of mass media publishing, in a manner that would be analogous/familiar to the framers. But i would argue that the internet's facility for real time communications has done something unique. The internet as a communications technology has enabled communities to form that, while not without precedent[1], would not otherwise exist.

So, to me, access to the internet is relevant both to the freedom of the press and the freedom to associate mentioned in the constitution. It becomes problematic to say that government or corporations can stand in the way of my intent or desire to communicate with whom i wish.

I'd like to flip this on it's head. The United States Postal Service is explicitly established in the Constitution (see: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Clause> and note particularly that infrastructure was an important point of discussion/controversy that is essentially a footnote/non-issue now).

So, Why _isn't_ internet access guaranteed by the US government in a similar fashion?

[1] Organizations which communicate primarily on the basis of correspondance have existed for centuries, but i'd argue the majority of them have been niche and primarily affluent, e.g. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society> or more recently science fiction fan zines.

<comment><USER4> "Freedom of the press" presumes the right to build, buy, or borrow a press. Of course the framers of the constitution referenced physical presses as part of that right.

Insofar as the government providing Internet access under a logical expansion of the postal service, that is an enumerated obligated power of government, not a right. The government is required to provide it (albeit ill-defined), which is different from you having a right to it.

<comment><USER3> Do you have any additional references to cite regarding your claim? Cause the constitution itself only makes references to "the press" in the first amendment, which you can reproduce in full, since it's so short:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

(edit: I don't mean that as a challenge, I am genuinely curious if you know more about this than I presume to. Sorry if that came off a little catty)

And perhaps i wasn't explicit enough, i'm not claiming that the USPS is a right (it isn't), but the point was that it is important enough that it was established in the Constitution, although i would want to dig up additional resources as to whether that is an act of practical expedience, principle, or both.

Regardless, the question still stands. Why doesn't the US government do for the internet what it does for mail?

<comment><USER4> Freedom of the press is moot if you don't have a press, or are limited to antiques.

Gun rights activists are fighting a similar issue in areas where the relevant enumerated right is formally acknowledged yet acquisition of viable tools needed to exercise that right are forbidden. A right is suppressed if the government prohibits tools needed to exercise it in a normal, modern manner. "You can have a musket (but no cartridges or semiautomatics), so your right to bear arms is not infringed" is just as absurd as "you can have a Gutenberg- style movable type press (but no photocopiers or websites), so your right to speech & press are not infringed".

Methinks the government COULD consider the internet a logical technological extension of Constitution Article I Section 8 "The Congress shall have Power ... To establish Post Offices and post Roads". If we want "press" to include "blogging from my iPhone", then surely "post" (as in mail and delivery thereof) should include "e-mail" (and delivery thereof). Insofar as it is treated as a "common carrier" wherein delivery is assured strictly regardless of content, and nothing akin to the gov't monopoly on First Class mail, that would be a proper exercise of an assigned federal power in a modern context.

There is a subtle but important semantic difference between the governmental power to provide a service to citizens vs. the citizen's right to that service. In this thread's context, it's akin to the obligation of the gov't to deliver mail to your door (or even just to a local Post Office), but there is nothing obligating the government to bring mail into your house and read it too you (or transport you to the Post Office to pick up a package).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I get extremely frustrated when writers try to decide whether something is a human right or not. The whole concept vexes me:

1\. Statements like this: the author comes up with a criterion for what a human right should be, and gives examples of things she thinks are human rights, but doesn't notice that they violate the criterion.

" _The best way to characterize human rights is to identify the outcomes that we are trying to ensure. These include critical freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of access to information..._ "

These are fundamentally NOT rights that can be identified by their outcomes. This point is almost trivial. The freedom of speech is not "an end in itself" any more than the Internet is. Free speech is "an enabler of rights, not a right itself" which is his criterion for not-a-human-right. We want free speech so we can influence civil rights, protect our freedom or <insert whatever right we think we have> not just so for the sake of spouting things into the public or private sphere.

2\. Rights conflict, so asking whether something is, or is not, a right becomes irrelevant. Let's say we've decided I have a right to not be murdered. Great. That might conflict with your right to, say, freedom. Obviously that's restricted so that you don't do things. Or maybe everyone has a right to their property, but also an equal chance at getting to water, and I own the only watering hole. The question is what we do when they conflict (i.e. we say that my right to not be killed trumps your right to do whatever you want, or access to water trumps the right to property).

3\. They never seem to make a broader point about how to make the world a better place, other than "now that you know the Internet isn't a human right, you can, er, um, work to make it better?" Blah.

<comment><USER6> I think I agree with you, but what do you mean by "I own the only watering hole" in this hypothetical context outside the zone of commonly prescribed rights of freedom, ownership, etc.?

You own what? The land? How much of it? And why? Because I can't take it from you? Watch me (and my army). You own the well? To what depth? Watch me (and my army) dig deeper and take the water from underneath "your" watering hole.

It seems you're conflating somewhat the concepts of personal freedom and interpersonal contracts. For example, your right not to be murdered and my right to "freedom" are not in contradiction if my right to freedom is constrained to apply only to those actions of mine which have nil or negligible impact on others.

I think Cerf's point is that we should not take something which is complex and takes extraordinary human effort to produce, maintain, protect and secure as a granted right. It intermingles motivations undesirably.

<comment><USER5> _For example, your right not to be murdered and my right to "freedom" are not in contradiction if my right to freedom is constrained to apply only to those actions of mine which have nil or negligible impact on others._

This is what I mean by conflicting rights: when they conflict, we constrain them. There are situations where it's murkier. Instead of "negative" rights and corresponding obligations (I have a right not to be murdered, so you have an obligation not to murder me) into "positive" ones (I have a right to life, you have an obligation to feed me if I'm starving and you have food). Suddenly you're constrained in a fundamental sense if I have a right to life: your doing anything other than feeding me has a horrible impact on me. Where do we draw the line at how much I can expect from you? To the point at which your not sacrificing other rights (this is Peter Singer's argument[1]), or do we just ignore positive rights/obligations altogether? Gets murky.

And when it gets that murky, it's silly to try to divide things we want/need into categories of "IsAHumanRight" and "IsNotAHumanRight".

\-----

Cerf writes:

 _Yet all these philosophical arguments overlook a more fundamental issue: the responsibility of technology creators themselves to support human and civil rights._

If then said "so it doesn't matter if the internet's a human right, let's just help people use it for the betterment of the world, etc." then I'd be all on board. Instead he makes a big deal about not putting the internet into the sacred but ill-defined category of "IsAHumanRight", all the way up to making that his title, when it should be (IMHO) "Stop worrying about rights, help the Internet help people."

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/World-Globalization-Professor-Peter- Si...](http://www.amazon.com/World-Globalization-Professor-Peter- Singer/dp/0300096860)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have read the piece three times, and I get the point, but I don't see the purpose. I suppose he is trying to say that "freedom of access to information" is the real right, and that declaring internet access as a right is foolish. I agree.

The problem is that I know of no country that offers "freedom of access to information" as an ordained right. In America, we accept Voltaire's line: "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." but that is not quite the same as "freedom of access".

I wish Vint Cerf had actually said something rather than just waxing poetic.

<comment><USER8> I think he is trying to mitigate the medium in which the access to information happens (the internet in this case) and make sure that when we think of human rights we think of it in a broader sense of what we should have access to, not how we have access to it.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I see him as attempting (perhaps unsuccessfully) to articulate some timeless principle that "access to the internet" is the current, 2012-era implementation of.

<comment><USER8> In the most non-tinfoil-hat way I can say it, when people like Cerf try to agnositcize the medium like I think he is doing here, it makes you wonder what type of future he is already envisioning. In his view, does the net get over- regulated to the point of creating fragmented darknets and pocket-nets in which this information is dispersed in the coming future, which is the reason that he is trying to downplay the medium in which we consume this info? In regard to him just "waxing poetic" I think that stuff (cryptically?) written like this shows a lot more about what the future-thought by the author is, rather than stuff that is just some fluff/patterned response to regulation he doesn't agree with. I could also totally be off here ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Vint doesn't say what he means by 'Internet', and I think that his argument fails on a sufficiently broad definition of Internet.

The Internet is 'just a technology' if you define it as a network of nodes which communicate using Internet Protocol.

That may have been the original meaning of the term as Vint planned the early work, but that meaning is not what it means to most people.

In modern usage, the open Internet is a global network that allows data to be passed between any two hosts without requiring that third parties authorise the content of that data.

Under that definition, the Internet is a concept synonymous with uncensored automated communication, rather than a specific technology; these concepts are capable of surviving into the future even if the hardware and software protocols layered on it change drastically.

<comment><USER11> My thoughts exactly. Cerf uses a strictly technical, near autistic definition of the Internet.

The social meaning of the Internet as a human right can be defined as the right to globally interconnect any means of communication that doesn't involve the physical transport of people or objects. I.e., _uncensored communication without borders_.

That's what the word Internet means to ordinary people today. Protocols, networking layers or physical networks are irrelevant, it's about the right to do what we do via the Internet today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> More generally: nothing can be a right if it must be paid for by other people; rights can only be proscriptive, never prescriptive.

<comment><USER13> When people talk about a right to Internet access, they generally mean a negative right: you can't be barred from using the Internet (as in the oppressive countries Cerf mentions), but you still have to pay for it. This is similar to the right of free press, which belongs only to those who own one.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights>

<comment><USER14> I'm curious about one thing. If it's a human right in France, it would appear to be an alienable right, given some conditions, such as the "three strikes" (HADOPI) law[1], which seeks to address copyright infringement, allows for suspension of internet access for violations.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HADOPI_law>

<comment><USER15> That's not how rights work. For instance, there's an inalienable right not to be locked in a cage, but if you violate other people's rights not to have their car radios stolen, you can still be locked in a cage.

<comment><USER16> Exactly. The first version of the HADOPI law was censored by the French Constitutional Council in 2009 on the ground that only a judge could restrict a fundamental right. This is the case with the current version of the law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a weird piece, I didn't quite understand what he is riling against. One place where I would like to clear the distinction is:

"we have come close to this with the notion of "universal service" — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right"

Let's not confuse access to Internet (which is described here) and _free_ access to it. You can have free service to all houses in the US but if the likes of SOPA are implemented, I think most people agree that some rights are being trampled on. Otherwise, why oppose SOPA at all, or why find the Chinese Firewall objectionable? To put Cerf's analogy on better ground, it's as if you have phone service but can only call some numbers.

<comment><USER18> I think he doesn't want the emotional impact of the word "right" to be diminished by applying it to arbitrary technology. What he says makes sense. Freedom is a right. The Internet is a tool that allows people to exercise that right.

<comment><USER19> Right. Your rights on the internet should follow from your human and civil rights. If you have access to the internet, your right to free speech, your right to assemble, your right to etc... should not be impeded, because it's a medium. Blocking access to something shouldn't be viewed as a violation of your right to the internet, it should be a violation of freedom of speech.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> There seem to be some technologies, like telephones and indoor pluming that aren't really "rights" but when treated in a rights-ish manner, make everyone's lives much better. If a rich 1% decided that they'd rather have the money it took to build the sewer system for their town than the sewer, their lives would become worse, not better despite having the extra money(1). If only the super rich had phones, they'd be nearly useless(2).

Internet access is certainly looking like its shaping up to be one of those things.

1) And everyone else would be much much worse off.

2) The phones, not the rich, but both come to think of it.

</comment><comment><USER21> _> Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I'm not sure where I would put it. _

Just because you have a right doesn't mean you have to "cash in" on it. According to the Constitution, I have a right to "liberty" [1]. If I didn't want liberty, the right should _still exist for those who want it_. Just because I don't want it doesn't mean nobody else wants it. Over-protecting is a better policy than under-protecting.

1\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_o...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness)

</comment><comment><USER22> Any discussion of rights without discussing duties is vacuous because rights can't exist without duties ie: My right to X imposes a duty on you to provide or not prevent me from X.

So if internet access was a right, what is the corresponding duty it imposes and who is that duty imposed upon? Must the state (and therefore you) provide me with a super computer & T1 connection or is free netbook and dial-up for all sufficient? Or perhaps your rich neighbour. Why not TV or radio as human rights?

Claiming these things as human rights imposes unjustifiable burdens upon others when you have no right to do so. If you disagree, please explain why I should be forced to ensure you have access to facebook and where your power of imposition comes from.

But just because something is not a right, doesn't mean that universal access is not a good thing. Plenty of goods such as education, healthcare and sanitation fail the duty test but their universal access is still a very good thing. We may even agree that these things 'should' be a right but in that case the right is a political one based on mutual agreement, not some inalienable human right.

<comment><USER23> Internet should absolutely be a right, but that's not a burden on you. It's like the right to bear arms: a normal citizen can't be prevented from doing so, but he still has to buy them himself.

<comment><USER22> You are missing Cerf's point. It may be a desirable but its not a human right. What you are describing is negative freedom: no one should stop me from doing X. But this is very different from a human right: something that is inalienable and fundamental to human existence.

The right to bear arms is a political right (in the US at least) as well as a negative freedom. It is not however, a human right. If it was, the nearly every other country in the world would be violating fundamental human rights by denying their citizens the opportunity to carry a weapon that kills with such ease.

Access to the internet wasn't fundamental to human existence 100 years ago when it didn't exist or even 10 year ago when it did. Its still not fundamental to our existence today - its just very useful.

<comment><USER24> _It is not however, a human right._

I, for one, disagree.

 _If it was, the nearly every other country in the world would be violating fundamental human rights by denying their citizens the opportunity to carry a weapon that kills with such ease._

Yes, yes they are.

What could possibly be a more fundamental right than the right to defend oneself? And arming oneself to do so obviously follows from that, IMO. Heck, a wildly popular definition of what "government" is, is based on the idea of self-defense as the fundamental innate right (I'm referring to Bastiat and his idea of "government as the collective extension to our individual right of self-defense").

<comment><USER22> You are missing the link between rights and duties. If you have a right to bear arms, then in the positive sense I have a duty to provide you with arms and in the negative sense, I have the duty not to stop you bearing arms. I'll assuming you refer the the negative sense.

If so, what grants you the authority to impose that duty upon me? Why am I not allowed to protect myself by ensuring you don't have the means to harm me?

One way to protect oneself is to ensure no one has the means to do harm to each other. Given that that option exists, then the right to bear arms can't be a fundamental human right because it is clear not fundamental to human existence. If it is a right, then it is a political right that comes from mutual agreement.

<comment><USER24> _You are missing the link between rights and duties._

I just default to the definition of "right" that's more like "something you can do without needing anyone's permission." I don't accept that anyone is ever obligated to do something (provide me with a gun, for example) because of someone else's rights.

 _in the negative sense, I have the duty not to stop you bearing arms_

No, you could try if you feel justified. But at that point there's no more reasoning from first principles or anything... you just have two sovereign individuals with a dispute over something. The dispute can be settled through diplomacy, force, or whatever. I'd hope it was the former not the latter, of course.

 _One way to protect oneself is to ensure no one has the means to do harm to each other_

Any living human being has the means to do harm to another, including killing them. Killing another human with your bare hands isn't terribly difficult, especially if you catch them unaware (e.g., slap on a rear-naked-choke and simply choke them to death). So by your standard, living itself can't be a fundamental right, since we all have a right to commit genocide (since that's one way to make sure no human can harm another human).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What is a human right anyway? Ask an Ayn Rand fan, a libertarian, a Hobbesian, the United Nations, or a Swedish legal positivist, and you willl get different answers.

We need to define these things, otherwise the discussion becomes a clash of presuppositions and worldviews.

</comment><comment><USER26> Internet access is not a human right, but right of free will when you are not harming anyone and right of free speech (a derivative of free will) is. That makes me think that when internet is taken away, there is a violation of human rights.

</comment><comment><USER27> Cerf appears to be arguing semantics. What is one practical consequence of Internet access being seen as a "human right" as opposed to "civil right," or "really good thing to have"?

</comment><comment><USER28> I disagree that the internet connectivity is not a right. It is the modern day equivalent of a library. I also see a flaw in his logic with the horse. Horses weren't owned by large monopolies and they didn't control how often you could use your horse. Imagine if Verizon owned all the horses at the time of the formation of constitution. With clauses like, "you can only use your horse from 8am-2pm" and if you fail to pay your monthly bill we will take your horse away from you. I would bet there would have been an amendment to the constitution to govern the horse.

Now im not saying the internet should be free but it should be available to all people, unrestricted by usage, uncensored by governments and affordable.

</comment><comment><USER29> Forgetting the bit about human rights for a second, in his conclusion Cerf goes for this odd statement that:

"In this context, engineers have not only a tremendous obligation to empower users, but also an obligation to ensure the safety of users online." Ummmm, yesssss

"Technologists should work toward this end." And, as far as I know, they are.

This entire column just seems like wasted space and time, arguing frantically against... what, precisely? Engineers who don't think about "harms like viruses and worms that silently invade their computers"? There's a lot of alarmist language, and very little substance.

<comment><USER30> I think it is statement that is worth repeating regularly. Too often I work with technologists who refuse to consider a moral or ethical dimension to the work they do.

The technology may not inherently have an ethical or moral dimension but the uses to which it is put often do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is overly complicating a correct and basically simple issue.

In my view, a human right is something that, all things being equal, a human being would be able to provide by him or herself, and which can be restrained by another human. So there is a right to live, to eat, to speak freely etc.

Therefore, Internet access is not a basic human right, as it has to be provided by someone and isn't available to a naked human in the middle of nowhere, as we all once were.

</comment><comment><USER32> I disagree with this.

Human Rights should be as specific as possible (but no less specific). There is real risk in making them too general. The Bill of Rights is a good example of what works (freedom of the press, right to bear arms, etc.). Abstract ideas that can be misinterpreted or interpreted under the aegis of whatever the mass public can be sold with (often as mere lip-service) are what can be most dangerous.

<comment><USER33> I would prefer a combination approach: general, but with a list of specific examples. It's the best of both worlds, albeit more verbose than either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I always clash with people on this topic, mostly because to me "Human Rights" is mostly limited to "Natural Rights".

</comment><comment><USER35> I see internet as the fourth dimension to daily life. It certainly isn't an necessity but making sure that it is available, if requested, is sane.

Related: _Finland makes broadband a 'legal right'_ <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10461048>

</comment><comment><USER36> Yes it damn well is. If telephone access to emergency health and hospital services is a human right, then access to the VoIP telephone systems on which mobile phones access emergency responders is a right which cannot be refused by any lawful government.

</comment><comment><USER37> There are no rights that give you a right to someone else's property.

Freedom of the press means you can own one. It does not mean your printing press can be taken from you and redistributed to some one else that can't afford to buy a press.

<comment><USER23> Likewise, a right to the internet doesn't mean someone has to pay for it for you but rather that you always have the right to participate if you can afford to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> What if most everything you buy is full price unless you can buy it online?

So you'd have two classes of people, those with internet access and those without. Those without pay much more for food and clothing and possibly eventually shelter.

</comment><comment><USER39> Internet is nothing but Expression. Free expression should be human right and so should be Internet. No less.

</comment><comment><USER40> Internet Access is a NEGATIVE right

</comment><comment><USER41> internet is not technology but a place and a medium to it.

</comment><comment><USER42> My personal view of this is that the internet is no different than access to a telephone landline or a mobile network, a bicycle, a car or public transport. No one denies you access to transport or communication - you have a human right to them - but someone has to pay for the actual services in the end. The reasoning that internet should be a human right is semantically the same as people suddenly being given the right to claim someone else's vehicle or someone's phone at their convenience - read: their human right to it - or to claim a free ride on a public transport system. Cerf differentiates these parts in a pretty clear way that I like, in a way that seemingly very few others manage to do.

For some reason people partaking in this debate often feel that it's sane and logical that use of the internet should be a human right in a free-of-charge sense without a second's thought about the costs, while they realize the ridiculous err in their reasoning when you put it in the context of transport or communication. Somehow, in that context, they understand that these things cost money, and that it's neither violation of human rights nor denial of access to ask for payment prior to use.

</comment><comment><USER43> I don't care about the semantics of "right". Free and easy access to all knowledge so far would really improve our societies and that is the main point.

</comment><comment><USER44> The piece does not address the fundamental point that you cannot with intellectual honesty claim as a right that which, to be satisfied, requires another human being to perform work.

<comment><USER45> So, I don't have a right to a trial, which requires the work of a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a judge, and a jury? What about the right to vote, which requires someone to count the votes?

<comment><USER46> Well, those rights are a bit different from, say, free speech, methinks.

In my opinion, we have the right to free speech by virtue of being human. At bare minimum, one has a brain, and that brain controls one's mouth. No other human can control someone else's voice in any fashion similar to how he controls his own. To restrict someone from exercising this right requires an outside force to aggress against the speaker. Societies today more or less agree, there's little (or nothing) one can say that should justify violence against the speaker. Similar reasoning can be applied to the use of justly acquired property as a means of disseminating information. It's a promise from government: "I won't take this away from you".

The right to a trial is different. No human is born with this right, as no human pops out of the womb with a staffed courthouse in his possession. In fact, the notion of a right to trial doesn't make sense if there are no laws. It also doesn't make sense if there are no conflicts (alone on a desert island). It's also a promise from government: "I'll give you the right to contest my decisions before I use force against you". It's more like a return policy than a natural right, in my opinion.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Link Vault - an API to create single-use download links - <AUTHOR> http://linkvau.lt

<comment><AUTHOR> This is my "weekend project" it's in need of a better design, but thought I'd get the ball rolling by showing you guys! I'd love to hear what you think of it.

</comment><comment><USER2> You should publish the HTTP API then you won't need to worry about making all the clients right away.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is this page - I'm adding a link to it from the homepage now: [http://linkvau.lt/help#theapi](http://linkvau.lt/help#theapi)</comment></comment>


UK Daily Mail interview with Aaron Swartz's girlfriend - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264177/EXCLUSIVE-Girlfriend-Reddit-founder-hanged-tells-moment-body-hounded-vindictive-legal-system.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Is this normal for Daily Mail coverage? It seems fairly ghoulish, but also includes some relevant details (hence, I submitted it).</comment>


Would someone please submit this poll?  - <AUTHOR>

(1000 karma is apparently insufficient for me to do so myself)
Poll: Do you feel free to speak your mind in the U.S.?
text: Though I've always assumed the NSA (etc.) watched for keywords, I've recently begun to feel still more nervous about using the words "terrorism" or "bomb" (etc.) within correspondence (I'm even censoring myself in this post!), lest my identity get flagged.
I'm curious as to how many others feel the same way.
questions: I am a U.S. citizen and I feel free to say whatever I want.
I am a U.S. citizen and I engage in self-censorship for fear of what the authorities might do.
I am a legal alien within the U.S. and I feel free to say whatever I want.
I am a legal alien within the U.S. and I engage in self-censorship for fear of what the authorities might do.
I'm a non-American outside the U.S., and I feel free to say whatever I want.
I'm a non-American outside the U.S., and I engage in self-censorship for fear of what the authorities might do. <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5873933](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5873933)</comment>


Amazon Pitches Facial Recognition to Monitor Immigrants - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-23/amazon-pitches-facial-recognition-tools-to-monitor-immigrants?srnd=premium <comment><USER2> Sure and while you're at it why not implement cameras all over every roadway to automatically ticket you every time you break the speed limit. Or better yet, why not devise a real time geolocation device to be embedded in cars and then lobby for it to be nationally adopted so people literally can't speed?

The reality is that very few people want to live in that world and even if we do fully adopt technologies like this, it doesn't necessarily make us any safer. A car traveling 30 mph is absolutely as lethal as a car traveling 10 mph faster than that. And I'm much more likely to be killed by a random traffic accident (only time I've been hit on my bike was by a white women driving a Ford) or domestic terrorist/psychopath than an immigrant.

So you're pitching huge lifestyle and diplomatic costs without any obvious benefit... Please count me as a no.

<comment><USER3> This was something that came up shortly after the Snowden documents were released. I don't remember who made the point (maybe Moxie Marlinspike), but they pointed out how important it is to be able to break the law. That breaking the law is an vital means of effecting change in the US: kids smoke pot illegally and grow up to be adults that push to legalize it. Gay people are more and more open and successfully push for gay marriage. Etc.

So if you take away people's means of breaking the law (such as auto speed- limited cars), it's actually striking at something really fundamental in the ability of the citizens to push for change or to protest. Almost like we want to have just the right amount of law breaking, although I can't imagine anyone associated with public policy ever adopting this stance.

<comment><USER4> And what kind of right would breaking the speed limit push that citizens could possible want to have changed?

I am all for hardcoded speed limits. Why sell cars that can go faster than $MaxSpeedInYourCountry ???

Other than that I think you made a good point.

<comment><USER5>
      Why sell cars that can go faster
      than $MaxSpeedInYourCountry ???

Politicians today have three choices:

(1) Set and enforce low speed limits, large numbers of drivers make low-impact complaints.

(2) Set and enforce high speed limits, small numbers of parents of dead children make high-impact complaints.

(3) Set low speed limits but don't enforce them. Anti-speed campaigners and road users are both satisfied.

In my country, politicians tend to go for (3). A switch to (1) would not be without its costs.

<comment><USER6> In response to aggressive use of traffic cameras, people in a number of cities and states have passed propositions banning their use.

A switch to (1) might have similar effects, motivating the people to force a switch to (2).

<comment><USER7> _Any_ use of traffic cameras is seen as 'aggressive'. It inevitably results in hundreds of tickets that otherwise wouldn't be written, affecting hundreds of citizens in a way they see as intrusive and 'unfair'. For better or worse.

<comment><USER8> not disagreeing with the first part of your statement, but, for the second part, a reasonable remedy would be to simply lower the cost of each violation.

e.g. if almost everyone got speeding tickets, but they only cost $15 and didn't involve any points against the driver's record or insurance premium hikes, people would simply pay up and probably speed less often. complaints about the injustice of speeding tickets would probably remain at current levels.

<comment><USER7> Tragically, reasonable fees for bad behavior encourage the opposite behavior: all guilt evaporates and folks feel entitled to the behavior, after all they can pay for it. Famous studies of charging parent who were late picking up children from school, everybody started doing it and gladly paying.

<comment><USER8> Ok, but, could it be that the fee charged to parents was simply too low?

Can't we just view "the right to speed" as a service offered by the government and then apply the usual price and demand logic to it?

<comment><USER7> I've had the same idea - a geometrically increasing 'fee' for road use depending on speed. Kind of like toll roads, but maybe even most roads. If you want to spend the money (and have the money, thus likely the deep pockets to compensate for damage) then go ahead!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's just another use-case for them I suppose. Interesting to see how, as tech companies become bigger, they go the same way as companies in all the other industries. I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed.

<comment><USER10> Stupid question. I actually am a big fan of no borders but what's wrong with this? Seems like America entering the new millennium.

Edited also why was this downvoted?

<comment><USER11> Because constant surveillance of a targeted group will be systematically abused. And because next is using facial recognition to monitor other groups — LGBT, activists, political opponents.

That is extremely frightening coming from an administration that is increasingly using violent and elimitionist language to levy completely made up charges at immigrants, LGBT, and particularly political opponents.

<comment><USER12> Do people have a right to not be identified in public? In public, your right to privacy doesn't protect you from having your picture being taken. Then, what if someone identifies you from your picture? How about if they use a CV system to speed it up? What's the argument here?

BTW, as I expand upon below, I'm against surveillance of private communications, I think we all are. As far as I understand it, this is not surveillance, this is identification technology, which is different.

<comment><USER13> Scale matters.

If it were only warm-blooded individual humans identifying you, there wouldn't be much potential for abuse. In the 1960s, your privacy was pretty much preserved even in public spaces. Unless you were a genuine person of interest, worthy of expending costly observational resources.

Now? Drive anywhere, walk anywhere - machines log your travels. It's a perfect recipe for abuse. Just scale, is all it takes.

<comment><USER14> At one time, rock stars were essentially anonymous and could have relatively normal lives when not on tour. The audience was huge and they were essentially faceless.

Then TV, music videos and the practice of having huge screens broadcasting the faces of the band to the audience ruined that.

KISS used face paint and that helped protect their identity, but when they got too big, you saw Gene Simmons wearing a mask on dates to try to preserve his privacy, yet everyone knew the masked guy was Gene Simmons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yikes. I've heard of some American citizens being mistaken for illegal immigrants and being detained with no recuse[0], I could only imagine how bad it could get if the machine errors.

[0] [https://nypost.com/2018/04/27/ice-wrongfully-detained- nearly...](https://nypost.com/2018/04/27/ice-wrongfully-detained- nearly-1500-americans-report/)

<comment><USER16> According to some of my team mates, a computer is never wrong. And they would gladly replace the justice system with AI ones. They program computers and they should know better but I am lost wondering at what level they are thinking to even go down this road.

<comment><USER17> Always remember its really hard to get 100% accuracy on AI.

<comment><USER18> But is it more accurate than human judgement?

<comment><USER17> Well, it certainly depends on the person doing that, like accuracy of AI depends on the programmer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Makes sense.

Jeff Bezos wants to provide the tech that lets Washington form the first pre- crime unit.

What they didn't tell us in the movie was that the precogs were AI.

</comment><comment><USER20> More evidence that the invention of the transistor marked the doom of individual liberty.

By the time I die I assume we'll all be tracked at all times or well on the way to that.

<comment><USER18> > By the time I die I assume we'll all be tracked at all times or well on the > way to that.

If you have a smartphone this is already the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Regarding speed cameras. I was driving around the Netherlands and saw speed cameras for the first time (I'm from the US) in Apeldoorn. There were signs that warned drivers about them. In the US, in several rural areas have electronic signs at the edge of town, just outside of the limit change, which warn you when you are exceeding the limit through town. I would have no problem at all with permanent enforcement systems provided they were accompanied by advance warnings. If I am so inattentive to my driving that I miss the warnings and get a ticket, so be it. It is much safer (and should be much cheaper) than randomly placed patrol cars performing radar/laser speed enforcement.

<comment><USER22> Speed cameras are one of those things that seems good as a concept but are always abused in practice. We seem to be unable to remove the profit motive from local governments so the only real recourse is to deny them the ability to profit from an activity that will always be abused.

> It is much safer (and should be much cheaper) than randomly placed patrol > cars performing radar/laser speed enforcement.

The fact that it has a lower ROI to post an officer+radar than the ROI from a speed camera is a feature, not a bug. It helps control abusive revenue seeking behavior.

<comment><USER23> > We seem to be unable to remove the profit motive from local governments

As in, "such changes would be hard to achieve currently in the current US", or not possible in principle? I'd disagree with the later one. Redirect those funds to the federal budget and I'd expect such abuse to plummet. Tragedy of the commons can sometimes work in our favor as well, at least if we manage to set up system accordingly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Could websites use all the data they collect about their users to determine when it's a good idea to auto-play videos, and when not? Because I, for once, would sure like this functionality implemented on Bloomberg, among others.

</comment><comment><USER25> anybody can elaborate on why amazonians can't pull a Google and make them drop the contract?

<comment><USER26> No company employees other than Google are known to be as vocal about business decisions,AFAIK. Culture matters. The culture which Larry,Sergey and others started is reaping benefits today. I might be wrong,but if we look at companies in general, Google is the closest to having a democracy-type of vibe.

<comment><USER17> Couldn't agree more. I don't think Amazon listens to its employees on how to run a business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Amazon needs a manifesto

<comment><USER28> Well, it's clear they already have one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's like Amazon and Google are competing on evilness.

</comment><comment><USER30> 1984 is coming...

</comment><comment><USER31> Unrelated, but when, and if Bloomberg is found guilty of pushing the fake Supermicro China story there should be a penalty for publishing clickbait headlines that are, for lack of a better term, fake news.

I know for a fact HN blacklists conservative news outlets such as Breitbart across the board. It seems a little biased and double standard to just let Bloomberg continue to push outrage and in some cases baseless stories and have them make the front page of HN.

/rant

<comment><USER32> You will be downvoted for speaking your mind, but well said. Hn doesn't claim to be free speech forum which is quite unfortunate, as most of the discussion here is usually academic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I am not an American and I obviously have no right to meddle in your affairs. But only today Trump tweeted out Obama being against immigration and then from their the rabbit hole went deeper and there was a video of gasp, bernie sanders calling open borders a "Koch brother" conspiracy.

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone high up in America really has any integrity? I fail to see anyone who is consistent in their views and actions.

Google cooperating with Chinese censors knowing fully well how China persecutes Muslims (and that is something I do get emotional over), and Schmidt talking about bifurcation of internet soundbyte to make a case when its clear that the so called bifurcation is because of language.

It just all seems so staged at this point. And I don't mean to insult my America brothers here but I just want to know who actually is on the "right" side?

Edit: I see that the person who replied "politics I'd cesspool of.." Has his comment deleted. I understand that this is defeatist attitude and we are all smart people but better to talk than to silence him. Silencing is the reason I never saw this 10 year old video.

<comment><USER34> > bernie sanders calling open borders a "Koch brother" conspiracy.

Quite right. It wasn't just that Bernie disagrees with open borders, in that video he is visibly upset. He really doesn't like it.

(It was the Vox interview I assume, unless you saw another one)

Also if you are old enough you might remember large anti-globalization protests around G8, Bilderberg and other such meetings.

It is kind of baffling how just a decade ago left groups were getting teargassed fighting globalization and now they are openly advocating it.

Such is the power of propaganda. It is extremely effective and could turn pink into blue, and then yellow with some moderate effort.

I suggest everyone read Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent. It was actual when it was written and just as actual even if not more today.

Speaking of Chomsky, find his writings on NAFTA and globalization as well. It might also surprise you what he has to say.

<comment><USER35> There's a wide variety of positions between "open borders" and "forcibly take refugee children away from their families and put both in detention facilities".

One can object to the latter without supporting the former.

<comment><USER32> Please name a crime where you are allowed to take your children with you when you're arrested.

<comment><USER35> Requesting asylum is not a crime, so I'm confused by this request.

<comment><USER32> I think that's more than valid. Does doing so require always crossing border illegally? Also, what percentage of people are under a legitimate threat of their lives (or relatives)?

<comment><USER35> Why are you focusing on people who entered the country illegally? The trump admin has separated families who crossed the border legally at ports of entry and then requested asylum[1].

[1]: [https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants- right...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and- detention/fact-checking-family-separation)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> If not Amazon, another company will do business with gov. Face recognition is mature enough, there is no very high barrier. Even if US gov doesnt adopt such technology, another gov will do and already done. It is just business.

<comment><USER37> > If not Amazon, another company will do business with gov. Face recognition > is mature enough, there is no very high barrier. Even if US gov doesnt adopt > such technology, another gov will do.

> It is just business.

Guns are a mature technology, and pretty easy to use. If I don't do the hit for Vinny, some other hitman will, so I might as well make some cash. It is just business.

The fact that someone else may perform a morally dubious action if you don't does not provide any justification for you to perform that action.

<comment><USER36> gun is gun, please don't mix together. Face recognition doesn't attack people. I admit that someone might feel uncomfortable but it can protect you in another cases. (another privacy vs safety argument)

Needless to say this technology can only deploy in public places. If someone appear in public places, why you think he would like to become invisible to all others.

In the meanwhile, I agree that no gov employee can be authorized to access the data without limitation. There must be some laws to regulate its usage.

<comment><USER37> > gun is gun, please don't mix together. Face recognition doesn't attack > people. I admit that someone might feel uncomfortable but it can protect you > in another cases.

Guns don't attack people either. There's a saying: "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

<comment><USER38> And they kill each other much more the easier it is to do so...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Don't Worry!!! Face recog startup founder here. Amazon's tech only allows them to monitor a specific people list in real time. So search period should be limited. Otherwise it's so expensive to do that. It only tracks for specific target list on real time cameras or photos. When it comes to searching on archives Amazon is so expensive to do it. As Reminisce Inc we are a photo delivery company. We have a face search tech ( similar to face recog but different, ours is exponentially faster than existing ones). Our tech is the only solution that allows us to search for specific list in archives. However we use our tech only to deliver souvenir photography to event attendees. We will not sell it to government. You can check for your photos in our db here it gives you the result in 15 seconds [https://www.reminis.app](https://www.reminis.app)

<comment><USER40> Kudos for the principled stance. Hope you can maintain that in the face of investor pressure.

Are you saying it's prohibitively expensive to archive footage to later recog against (storage), or is the recog itself the expensive part (compute)?

<comment><USER39> The first thing we tell to investors is we are not building a security or surveillance product and we don't have a vision like that.

Storing and indexing (computation but not search) is expensive on AWS. Practically 1000 face metadata is not more than 4MB's of data in practice. 4MB face data is 1$ on AWS. Just one surveillance camera output archive + real time recognition costs 400$ / month according to my calculation.

Search part can be extremely fast with postgres in a special setting. It's kinda instant.</comment></comment></comment>


Harvard professor's arrest shows Chinese spying via US universities - <AUTHOR> https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2020/01/30/harvard-china-spy/ <comment><USER2> related: [https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/01/02/the-new-red- sc...](https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/01/02/the-new-red-scare-on- american-campuses)

</comment><comment><USER3> While China's actions are reprehensible, it takes two to Tango. American selfishness and greed allows this to happen.

<comment><USER4> How so?

<comment><USER3> Not sure what the confusion is here? Lieber knowingly (and illegally) hid his links to foreign agents for massive sums of money. He could have resisted if it weren't for his greed. Not saying China isn't to blame but, hence "it takes two to tango".</comment></comment></comment>


THINKPAD X220 RESOURCES - <AUTHOR> http://x220.mcdonnelltech.com/resources/ <comment><USER2> Notable for instructions to install MacOS.</comment>


Artificial Intelligence Will Make Forging Anything Entirely Too Easy - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/ai-will-make-forging-anything-entirely-too-easy/ <comment><USER2> Not really news. This has crossed the mind of just about anyone who has seen the Face2Face clips on YouTube.

Could be interesting to see what will happen to big media conglomerates, though. The day that any form of media is regarded as reliable as witness testimony, it will all start being treated as such. Suddenly, a video can't be taken seriously unless it is independently corroborated by some other organization. That could be a push towards diversity in news reporting.

On the other hand, the ability to forge events also enhances the impact of credibility, which pushes the whole sector in the opposite direction.</comment>


Bark-Data Quality Service on Cloud for both real-time and batch data - <AUTHOR> DQSolution is an open source Data Quality solution for distributed data systems at any scale in both streaming or batch data context. When teams use big data products (e.g. Hadoop, Spark, Kafka, Storm), they always need a data quality service to build their confidence on the quality of the data processed by those platforms. DQSolution creates a unified process to define and construct data quality measurement pipeline across multiple data systems to provide:
FEATURES
- Accuracy Measurement - Accuracy of a data asset compared to a verifiable source
- Data Profiling - Statistical analysis and assessment of data values within a data asset for consistency, uniqueness and logic
- Anomaly detection -  Pre-built algorithm functions for the identification of events which do not conform to an expected pattern in a data asset
- Visualization - Dashboards that can report the state of data quality
KEY BENEFITS
- Real Time - The data quality checks can be executed in real-time to detect issues faster
- Extensible - The solution can work with multiple data systems
- Scalable - The solution is designed to work on large volumes of data. It currently runs on ~1.2 PB of data
- Self-Service - The solution provides a simple user interface to define new data assets and rules. It also allows users to visualize the data quality dashboards and personalize their view of the dashboards.
Github:https://ebay.github.io/DQSolution/
     Please fork!Thanks!
Contact us: email@example.com <comment><AUTHOR> good!</comment>


XSV: A fast CSV command-line toolkit written in Rust - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv <comment><USER2> I like how all those rust/go implemented, fast, cross-platform tools are starting to get mainstream. (ripgrep's another great one).

Really useful if you're a programmer preferring Windows but mainly using Unix tools and developing for Unix OSes.

By the way, I've been using xsv when analysing 8 GB csv's (the Amazon review dataset) and have been nothing but happy with it.

<comment><USER3> >I like how all those rust/go implemented, fast, cross-platform tools are starting to get mainstream. (ripgrep's another great one).

Both xsv and ripgrep are by BurntSushi, and ripgrep was mentioned twice on HN recently, once in a release note thread, IIRC, and another time in the CLI: Improved thread.

Both were mentioned before too.

<comment><USER4> Crazy, I know, but some people don't read HN 24/7.

<comment><USER3> I don't either :) I just happened to have read those earlier threads because of interest in the topics, so thought of sharing the info that I did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is great. For now, my go to tool is csvkit (Python) which has all kinds of neat tools. In particular loading data into databases (csvsql) is just plain awesome. Check it out at [https://csvkit.readthedocs.io/en/1.0.3/](https://csvkit.readthedocs.io/en/1.0.3/).

</comment><comment><USER6> Seems great at first, but how is that better than piping the whole CSV file into SQLite and then doing the processing there? I think CSV is great for data exchange but not so great for data processing.

By using SQLite (or any other DB actually) you can decide which data to index, and write arbitrarily complex queries in a rather understandable language. I think XSV is kind of reinventing the wheel here.

<comment><USER7> You could. But then you need to write a schema. How do you know what schema to write? You could ask csvkit to do it, but it might not be fast enough on, say, a 40GB CSV file. Or maybe it isn't quite accurate enough. xsv might be the tool you use to figure out what the schema should be.

SQLite (or any SQL database) does not cover all use cases. For example, if you need to _produce_ CSV data, and you can fit your transformation into xsv commands, then it might be hard to beat the performance in exchange for the effort you put in.

This is probably an expression problem. Tools don't always neatly fit into orthogonal buckets. If you think in terms of shell pipelines and want to attack the data as it is, then xsv might be good for you. SQLite is, IMO, a pretty massive hammer to apply every single time you want to look at CSV data.

<comment><USER8> Have to pipe up here and say an enthusiastic / visceral / emotional 'thankyou' to BurntSushi for all your great contributions - xsv, rust-csv, ripgrep etc - not to mention your superb blog articles.

Im using xsv to wrangle 500gb of data, it is phenomenally useful and fast. The main datastore is postgresql and it is great, but there are some things pg just isn't fast enough for [hash joins anyone]. I have to do a lot of pre- processing, and xsv is incredible for that.

Perhaps the best complement of all - I am seriously looking at moving from node.js to Rust as my daily data/systems programming language _because_ of how performant and elegant xsv / rust-csv / ripgrep are, and how readable the rust code is.

I also have renewed respect for the staple of olde unix tools - sort sed grep wc etc

xsv is a brilliant addition to that canon of unix lore.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for your kind words, I really appreciate them! :-) Please reach out if you'd like any Rust advice!

<comment><USER9> Which of the two available rust books would you recommend for someone who knows c/c++?

<comment><USER7> Hard to say. I own them both but haven't thoroughly read through either. I would probably go with The Rust Programming Language, though, I suspect you can't go wrong with either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> BurntSushi is a badass; always cranking out awesome tools. I use ripgrep [1] on a daily basis as a grep replacement

[1] [https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep](https://github.com/BurntSushi/ripgrep)

<comment><USER11> Their FST library is also awesome

[https://github.com/BurntSushi/fst](https://github.com/BurntSushi/fst)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Would be interesting to see how xsv compared to miller ([https://johnkerl.org/miller/doc/index.html](https://johnkerl.org/miller/doc/index.html)) in terms of perf, this tool comes exactly as I am about to munge 1TB of gzipped csv files.

Unfortunately, the main operation I need is not supported by xsv...

<comment><USER13> What is the operation that you need? Can you send a PR?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I like the pager UI of the VisiData utility, written in Python, for exploring data. Since XSV is written in Rust, it could theoretically be imported and used in VisiData.

[https://github.com/saulpw/visidata](https://github.com/saulpw/visidata)

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm not too familiar with rust tools, but I wanted to check this out. Can someone explain to me why this worked,

        sudo apt-get install cargo rustc
        cargo install xsv

but this did not:

        git clone <xsv github>
        cd xsv
        cargo build --release

The latter gave me a ton of compilation errors on the package crossbeam- channel. The former installed the program and compiled a bunch of crates, but did it install a pre-built binary for xsv? "downloading" then "installing" of xsv was the _first_ step, _then_ all the crates were downloaded. ldd seems to report that the installed xsv binary has no dependencies so I don't see why it would need to download and compile a bunch of crates in that case. On the other hand if it was compiling xsv then I don't understand why I don't get the same errors as in the latter case.

It seems Ubuntu has the following version:

        $ rustc --version
        rustc 1.25.0

I realize it's probably not optimal to use the Debian-packaged rustc but I didn't feel like figuring out the whole ecosystem just to install one program to test it out.

<comment><USER7> Because current master requires a newer version of the Rust compiler than the current release on crates.io. If current master were a release, then `cargo install xsv` would have failed with the same errors.

If you like, you can download static binaries from github: [https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv/releases](https://github.com/BurntSushi/xsv/releases)

<comment><USER15> Ah, ok thanks. Anyways I got it installed, was just wondering about certain actions that cargo took. I found I could copy the resulting binary and delete my entire .cargo directory and it continues to work, so it seems cargo did some unnecessary things for `install`, but no worries.

<comment><USER7> To add to this: Cargo is more of a development tool for Rust programmers rather than a package manager for end users. Both types of tools have a lot in common, which is why things like `cargo install` exist and are very useful. In the case of `xsv`, it's a useful escape hatch since your distro doesn't package `xsv`, but `cargo install` is not like `apt install`. That is, it downloads all of the source code dependencies of `xsv` and builds them. This also requires sync'ing with crates.io's registry list. None of this is unnecessary in the standard Cargo workflow in order to build xsv, but the build artifacts are certainly unnecessary in order to _run_ xsv.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This looks great, and I'm very keen to try it out.

I have a malformed 115GB CSV which took some work to process with SSIS, but I'm really interested to try again using xsv to split off the bad rows and see if that would have been an easier option.

Very cool!

</comment><comment><USER17> Burntsushi mentions in the readme that it is often the case that people receive large csv files needing analysis but he also mentions that valid criticisms of the tool are that you could use an SQL database. Why can't you use a database in some scenarios? And when blazing in memory speed is useful, why can't you use something like this: [https://github.com/jtablesaw/tablesaw](https://github.com/jtablesaw/tablesaw)

Is XSV faster? Is it the command line convenience (although surely it was not that convenient to write a new tool to do it)

Genuinely curious and I do not mean to belittle the project as it looks well implemented and useful nonetheless.

</comment><comment><USER18> BurntSushi, dude you're awesome.

</comment><comment><USER19> OK, dumb question, because there have been a LOT of these types of stories lately:

Why does it matter (beside to the implementor, or for pedagogy) what language a CLI tool is implemented in?

<comment><USER2> Rust and Go are languages with ecosystems, in which writing everything in a cross-platform way is the default. They also compile to a single statically linked binary.

You don't need an additional runtime + load of dependencies like node or python.

They are lightweight and fast to start up as opposed to the jvm.

<comment><USER20> Python is installed literally everywhere. If it's a CLI tool, and it's written in python, the chance that it won't work is slim.

Go has a massive number of problems. For example, I tried to run Keybase's standard "go get" build instructions. It failed with 200 import errors. That was the end of my attempt to install keybase on my raspberry pi. Others had said that it works.

Rust requires a massive amount of hard drive space and takes a long time to build. You also have to build it. That's antithetical to rapid development.

I can't wait until the pendulum swings back away from static typing and the next generation of programmers discover the benefits of literally ignoring everybody and doing your own thing. It'll be painful, but at least it'll be effective. And you won't have to compile anything.

<comment><USER21> > Python is installed literally everywhere.

I figured Ubuntu 18.04 didn't have Python pre installed. Besides, installing all the dependencies with pip is another step to do and gets annoying when deploying to many servers.

For something that gets distributed, a single static binary is very welcomed.

<comment><USER22> I think it has python 3, but not python 2

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I started to write a similar application in C++. Have up because I didn't think people would find it useful. After seeing this in the front page, I feel it might be a good idea to get back in. [https://github.com/tfili001/line](https://github.com/tfili001/line) If I get back into this, CSV parsing will be my next step.

<comment><USER7> Check out csvmonkey for a really fast C++ csv parser: [https://github.com/dw/csvmonkey](https://github.com/dw/csvmonkey)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Burntsushi is like the most productive programmer.

<comment><USER25> BurntSushi will soon be BurntOut ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Thank you for this! I've been looking for windows equivalent to csvkit and this is just the ticket

</comment><comment><USER27> Really nice!

I think I've written at least a couple of these in some basic form myself. At some point in a business someone is going to hand you CSV or excel dataset and you end up having to deal with it.

</comment><comment><USER28> Have been using xsv (in combination with any-json, and jq) for a few months wrangling big csv files at work. Found it to be a better / faster process than rolling my own code.

</comment><comment><USER29> I have used the simple and beautiful tool

[https://github.com/Clever/csvlint](https://github.com/Clever/csvlint)

It is in golang.

</comment><comment><USER30> Good to have another tool for csv debris management. Especially those multigigabyte gifts that need to be in the database "yesterday". This has happened several days or weeks in a row more times than I can count. And no, people won't provide such things in sqlite or something sane.

I feel like I should also recommend this: [https://digital- preservation.github.io/csv-validator/](https://digital- preservation.github.io/csv-validator/)

I think something like this rewritten in go would be great.

<comment><USER7> > I think something like this rewritten in go would be great.

Why not use it how it is? There are static binaries provided on github.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> no CSV diff capability? find which columns are different, which rows? ability to ignore spaces or leading/trailing 0s or quote marks?

<comment><USER7> I imagine you could get pretty far with

        diff <(xsv input old.csv) <(xsv input new.csv)

In particular, xsv prints valid CSV, and quoting rules will be applied consistently so that they can be diffed. Ignoring spaces and 0s might not work though.

If you'd like to file an issue with a specific use case (sample data from a real world problem would be great), then that would be appreciated!

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Also relevant, this forgotten gem:

[http://www.rseventeen.com/](http://www.rseventeen.com/)

</comment><comment><USER33> Ok, I'm curious and may have follow-ups:

What exactly is being checksummed in cargo.lock? Is it the source code, a binary, something else?

<comment><USER34> [https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/guide/cargo-toml-vs-cargo- lo...](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/guide/cargo-toml-vs-cargo-lock.html)

<comment><USER35> That doesn't seem to talk about the series of "checksum ..." entries in the [metadata] section at the end of the Cargo.lock.

<comment><USER34> Hm, appears to be an alternate (new? Old?) syntax for:

"Cargo will take the latest commit and write that information out into our Cargo.lock when we build for the first time. That file will look like this:

[[package]] name = "hello_world" version = "0.1.0" dependencies = [ "rand 0.1.0 (git+[https://github.com/rust-lang- nursery/rand.git#9f35b8e439eeed...](https://github.com/rust-lang- nursery/rand.git#9f35b8e439eeedd60b9414c58f389bdc6a3284f9\)"), ]

[[package]] name = "rand" version = "0.1.0" source = "git+[https://github.com/rust-lang- nursery/rand.git#9f35b8e439eeed...](https://github.com/rust-lang- nursery/rand.git#9f35b8e439eeedd60b9414c58f389bdc6a3284f9")

You can see that there's a lot more information here, including the exact revision we used to build."

<comment><USER35> No, the git hashes are still there in the same syntax as described in that document. In fact, the checksum entry of a git dependency seems to be "<none>".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Awesome tool. Pretty useful to manage big-scary csv files.

</comment><comment><USER37> What about using awk?

<comment><USER7> awk doesn't support csv.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> XML-separated values? Fortunately no: command line program for indexing, slicing, analyzing, splitting and joining CSV files.

<comment><USER39> This comment shouldn't have been downvoted/killed; at the time it was made, the title of the post was completely uninformative, leaving people to guess what on earth "XSV" might be.</comment></comment>


How to Build a Premium (Ubuntu) Sous Vide Cooker - <AUTHOR> http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Build-a-Premium-Sous-Vide-Cooker/ <comment><USER2> Use ssr and no mechanical moving parts outside of the pump are left. Bump the watts to 2000 - 1kw heating element is a joke and waiting for the pump to come to temp will be painful.</comment>


All about Woad - <AUTHOR> http://www.woad.org.uk <comment><USER2> Also some linguistic interest:

"Waddy" is one of the words for cowboy, especially a cowboy who drifted from ranch to ranch and helped out in busy times. Jo Mora and Ramon Adams both suggest that the word derived from wad, something used to fill in, but this notion isn't widely accepted. Neither is the suggestion that it comes from chewing tobacco. To add to the mystery, waddy first meant "rustler", then "cowboy". Also spelled waddie.

        Woad (also wad), is a plant grown, mostly in England to make a blue dye consisting primarily of indigotin. It was supplanted by indigo, then later by synthetic dyes. People who worked the woad plantations in the Fens of Holland, Lincolnshire, and Cambridgeshire still call it wad, just as it was pronounced 1000 years ago. People who worked in the woad fields were called waddies, or less frequently woadmen. (From Woad in the Fens by Norman T. Wills) It likely crossed the atlantic with migrant agricultural workers (cowboys).

</comment><comment><USER3> Fun fact - the blue in woad is indigo, and indigo was once banned in parts of Europe to protect the local Woad industry once it became clear indigo is just a better source of the dye. Little bit of fun old timey trade war/protectionism stuff.

<comment><USER4> Another fun fact: one can reasonably guess a high order bit for the age of a country by the colours used in its flag. Before chemical dyes, blue and red were the only lightfast possibilities.

(hence the "orange" in [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Fl...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg/langfr-450px- Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg.png) )

<comment><USER3> Ooh, I never tied that to flag colors, thats super cool. Indigos and I assume anthraquinone dyes for the reds. Though I think with some "younger" countries like India that have oranges on their flag, saffron/mangowood yellow and other orange colors have enough cultural significance that it doesnt seem out of the question for an empire in the region with the resources for war elephants to decide to use a saffron flag that they keep re-dying as needed

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Now I know what the word 'woad' means in "Woad Raider" in Age of Empires [1]

[1] [https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Woad_Raider](https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Woad_Raider)

</comment><comment><USER6> Is there some reason I am missing that this is on the front page?

<comment><USER7> What to Submit On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off- topic.

<comment><USER8> The website here, at least in its mobile incarnation, is all but content-free.

<comment><USER9> You're missing something then, because the sidebar contains links to detailed instructions on growing woad plants, extracting woad dye, dyeing with woad, the chemistry of woad, the history of woad, pictures of woad-dyed materials...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A fascinating study in regular webpages that are so nondescript they look like they must be fake...

No doubt, this page looks earnest and honest—but it also looks like a domain squat, or spam.

(Responding here to the mobile page)</comment>


WinwInnKeeper Airbnb Premium Management - <AUTHOR> https://winwinnkeeper.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> We are WinwInnKeeper and we provide Airbnb Premium Management - hotel style management services for short-term lettings. We help our clients - <USER2> landlords to maximize their income. Get WinwInnKeeper to take care of your home!</comment>


Improve computer security by removing unwanted services - <AUTHOR> http://www.ihackforfun.eu/index.php?title=improve-security-by-removing-services

<comment><USER2> These commands don't work on a Linux mint install. Pointers anyone?

<comment><AUTHOR> You could try this link from the mint community as a starting point: <http://community.linuxmint.com/tutorial/view/114> and also this article: <http://forums.techarena.in/operating-systems/1384637.htm></comment></comment>


Google Ad Grants Report Adwords Script - <AUTHOR> https://www.suisseo.ch/en/blog/google-ad-grants-script/ <comment><AUTHOR> Here's a free Adwords Script that check for one word keywords and other mandatory requirements and sends the result to a Google Spreadsheet.</comment>