What the World's Oldest Papyrus Can Tell Us About the Great Pyramids (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ancient-egypt-shipping-mining-farming-economy-pyramids-180956619/?no-ist <comment><USER2> > _Astonishingly, the papyri were written by men who participated in the > building of the Great Pyramid, the tomb of the Pharaoh Khufu, the first and > largest of the three colossal pyramids at Giza ... the entries provide a > never-before-seen snapshot of the ancients putting finishing touches on the > Great Pyramid._

really amazing to learn that such documentation survives to this day. just amazing.

<comment><USER3> Sadly we cannot say the same about our current digital knowledge.

<comment><USER4> I'm sure they'll dig up quite a few AOL disks a couple thousand years from now

<comment><USER5> Funny thing how the invention of plastics might reverse the pattern of future artifacts. Valuable/costly artifacts are currently over-presented, since they were made either of stone or metal, as opposed to mud and wood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What fascinates me from reading the article is this expands the scope of the ancient Egyptian economy. While we assume the pace of technological change back then was far slower and less disruptive, it is still a remarkable accomplishment that their civilization's economy lasted intact for over 3,000 years. Much of that time the economy existed was built on barter, without the abstractions we take for granted as superior, such as money.

Now with Tallet's contributions to our understanding, not only did that economy support the massive royal bureaucracy and pyramids projects, but apparently much more extensive brown water and offshore naval infrastructure than we previously thought. The taxes were apparently quite heavy [1], but somehow they made it work for a much longer time than any extant civilization has existed. The kind of archaeology that could explain how they pulled that off would be _really_ interesting. I don't think it could be explained by a single factor like "just" slavery, or "just" religious devotion, _etc._

[1] [http://classroom.synonym.com/taxes-were-collected-ancient- eg...](http://classroom.synonym.com/taxes-were-collected-ancient- egypt-23655.html)

<comment><USER7> > without the abstractions we take for granted as superior, such as money.

That's only true if by "money" you mean coinage, which is a definition so narrow that it also excludes the modern notion of money (you think that's dollar bills you're spending with your credit card?). The Egyptians did have currency that wasn't explicitly coins (e.g. shaped piece of metal), and, at least a 1000 years before they had currency at all, they exchanged items according to the items' value measured in units of metal, even if they didn't exchange the actual metal [1]. Calling this barter (as the linked articles do), from which it's perhaps reasonable to conclude the Egyptians lacked money as an abstraction, is then disingenuous because that's no different than how we exchange goods in the modern world (again, you think that's actual dollar bills that are moving around when you purchase from Amazon? or when you deposit or pay via checks?).

What the ancient Egyptians did lack for most of their history is the device of interest-bearing debt (see [2], pp. 217-219).

[1] [http://classroom.synonym.com/ancient-egyptian-forms- money-57...](http://classroom.synonym.com/ancient-egyptian-forms- money-5775.html)

[2] [http://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf](http://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf)

<comment><USER8> >they exchanged items according to the items' value measured in units of metal, even if they didn't exchange the actual metal

This is still bartering. When I order something off Amazon, I don't have to package up an item of equal value and physically mail it to them. This is the fundamental problem that money solves - an abstract, finely divisible, non- spoiling value store.</comment></comment></comment>


Bitcoin and Thoughts from Bill Gates - <AUTHOR> http://benjamingilbert.net/bitcoin-and-thoughts-from-bill-gates/

<comment><USER2> I think this is a lousy defense of Bitcoin. I cringe whenever I read "oh it's new technology of course people will be scared!" or worse yet, "you must be jealous because you didn't get in on the ground floor." I think it's a really cool technology but the economics don't make a lot of sense. There are a few major issues I see:

-What problem does it solve? Many claim that it's a more efficient way to transfer money, but after paying high spreads & fees on illiquid exchanges or a place like coinbase, it doesn't look so good. International wires are expensive but paying 30 bps each way in exchange fees plus enormous spread concessions to trade even relatively small amounts like $1mm USD are much more expensive.

-What backs it other than speculation? Scarcity itself does not imply value. I don't see a significant "bitcoin economy" out there. Yes, you can buy things with them, but most of these things are priced in dollars. Sellers are accepting bitcoins only because they can sell them for USD, EUR, etc. to speculators. They have no particular attachment to bitcoins themselves and could just as easily accept another crypto currency provided speculators were active enough in the market. How many people are paid a salary or renting an apartment for a _fixed_ amount of BTC per month?

-Many bad actors in the market with little regulation. There have been numerous scams and untrustworthy exchanges out there. It's like taking a trip back to the depression-era bucket shops.

-Consumer unfriendly: the average "man on the street" can't secure his wallet file and even many technically sharp people have been ripped off. Non-reversible transactions aren't a positive for most users and requiring traders to use an escrow service further increases costs. Network can't handle high transaction volumes and sellers need to wait for confirmations or risk fraud, so the use case of everyone buying their morning coffee with bitcoin seems shaky.

-Extreme volatility and lack of liquidity make it a poor store of value or unit of record, two things that are extremely important in a currency. Yes most government issued currencies experience inflation, but I can keep my paycheck in the bank for months or years without its value changing wildly, and I know what a loaf of bread costs in USD within a tight range.

Some of these are fixable and I see some growth potential in micropayments or as a money transfer mechanism for people who don't have access to traditional financial institutions, but what is the general purpose use case? What can I do with bitcoin that I can't with paypal or even a bank account (many let you instantly transfer money these days for no/low fees to pay friends, landlords, etc.)?

<comment><USER3> Two benefits that makes it all worthwhile: 1) you can transfer it to someone else (e.g. an heir) cost free, tax free, paperwork free, without the gov't even knowing you did it. Illegal, but you can do it and probably get away with it. 2) It can't be devalued by gov't action.

<comment><USER4> Both of those points can be seen as good arguments _against_ bitcoin by many. Myself for instance, I don't consider facilitating tax evasion and impossibility to regulate by democratically elected governments a point in favour of bitcoin.

That being said to get back on the technical merits of bitcoin, I agree with the OP that I can't imagine every individual handling their own bitcoin wallet and risk losing everything if it gets compromised (and waiting for transactions to be validated etc...).

So even if the currency is successful we'll end up with bitcoin banks managing the risk for us and visa-like credit cards for day to day transactions. And then I fail to see any advantage over what we have now (besides making a few early adopters extremely rich, of course).

<comment><USER5> > Myself for instance, I don't consider facilitating tax evasion and > impossibility to regulate by democratically elected governments a point in > favour of bitcoin.

That makes Bitcoin immoral from your perspective, without saying anything about the feasibility.

You even restrict the morality argument yourself by saying it is good that a democratically elected government should have the ability to control financial transactions, which I completely disagree with, but even you will admit that there are a lot of unethical governments out there that hurt their population by controlling financial transactions and inflating the money supply.

<comment><USER4> I never said my view was the correct one, I just said I had a different opinion on the matter.

The parent is the one who said that it made it "all worthwhile". That sounded like a general truth to me, I felt the need to point out that it was still up for debate.

And my 2nd point was about the feasibility, I still have to hear from the bitcoin crowd what's the solution for day-to-day use of the currency that does not involve a bank-but-we-don't-call-it-a-bank-seriously-it's-not-a-bank.

<comment><USER5> > And my 2nd point was about the feasibility, I still have to hear from the > bitcoin crowd what's the solution for day-to-day use of the currency that > does not involve a bank-but-we-don't-call-it-a-bank-seriously-it's-not-a- > bank.

Bitcoin was designed to be a peer-to-peer payment system where the owner of the private key is the owner of the funds. Unfortunately, building secure hardware and software is very difficult, that's why many people choose to not keep their private key on their device but let a service deal with the security, which is often a bad idea. One secure hardware is cheaply available on the market[1] and two-factor-authentication becomes more widespread, this becomes less of an issue.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I had more optimism for Bitcoin before I saw people so aggressively evangelize it. I think it has great potential as a digital currency but some people are making into what's almost a totem.

<comment><USER7> i am not familiar with the phrase "totem." care to elaborate?

<comment><USER8> I think 'icon' fits better.

<comment><USER6> I think you're right, icon is a better choice.

<comment><USER9> Particularly, I think Totem is a better choice.. you are backed by giants like Freud:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_and_Taboo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_and_Taboo)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Benjamin, you're conflating bitcoin the protocol with bitcoin the 'currency'.

This is an all too common mistake, so please don't feel too too bad about it. Bitcoin protocol does have some interesting things to offer us and I'm sure it will be built upon in novel ways.

Bitcoin 'currency' on the other hand is a non-starter and as time goes on we will see it discarded.

I hope more people would concentrate on the protocol but about 99% of what you hear and the energy of people is set on bitcoin 'currency'.

<comment><USER11> The protocol and the currency are actually inseparable: [http://timothyblee.com/2014/03/01/heres-why-bitcoin-the- netw...](http://timothyblee.com/2014/03/01/heres-why-bitcoin-the-network- needs-bitcoin-the-currency/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The problem with bitcoin is that no one is using it for its intended purpose - to buy things. People are using it as an investment or are speculating on it, which is not the purpose of a currency.

What you end up with is the anemic system that exists right now, where no one is advancing the actual bitcoin cause, everyone is just setting up exchanges to make money from transactions.

</comment><comment><USER13> Very misleading. Contains no actual statements made by Bill Gates about Bitcoin. It certainly tries to grab your attention by suggesting otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER14> The absurdity of this kind of thought is just profound. Thinking like this may be useful as a means of encouraging hope when all hope is lost, but Bitcoin is nowhere near there yet. Most of all this kind of talk smacks of _deep desperation_ \- "why won't people love me?"

I understand fully why one might feel so desperate. Bitcoin may have the potential to be truly revolutionary. Bitcoin solves the problem of orchestrating an international currency in a manner that limits the implementation details to the design, not banking/payment industry/political types who historically - for one reason or another - end up building in significant _rigidities_ to the system.

It doesn't take a PhD in Economics to see the potential benefits of eradicating PayPal and consumer banks (although it may take one to see the potential pitfalls). More than this though, Bitcoin opens the door to truly free capital flow. It is possible to work in the Western world for a month or two and move, say, far East, and live like a king on the savings for a year or more. Why can't we just buy the stuff over there cheaply and consume it at home? One major reason is the rigidities in capital flow - it is hard, risky business in the current system. As a large company in a Bitcoin world you don't have to worry about a great class of risks of international trade, dumping money into the Cambodian economy is no longer a question of FX risk and "can I get it back out?"

This is a great step forward on the way to homogenising international capital stores i.e. _ceteris paribus_ , rich people buy where things are cheapest, like in Cambodia, thereby flowing capital to, and driving up prices in, Cambodia. Cambodians get richer and the West gets poorer. Bitcoin has the vague potential to be the great equalizer.

We have seen some evidence of this at work in the EU with the Euro, if you look past the troubling dynamics of transition. Imagine how very different the US would be if every state had a different currency and payment processing rules, the diversity in income would be profound.

An educated economist will see a great many problems with this utopian vision, but will likely agree the aim is noble and that the basis - Bitcoin - is the closest thing we have so far to a workable solution.

Bitcoin may be as revolutionary as the fanboys want it to be, even if they don't understand why. My personal thought is that Bitcoin will soon be seen as the thing that started it all, but the solution won't be Bitcoin itself. There are too many problems - no matter how many times you read that a fixed supply currency is the greatest thing since sliced bread, it _really_ isn't. It's also woefully easy to steal and the mining/verification mechanism is far too resource intensive and encouraging of looney speculation making its value at any point in time completely impossible to reason about.

If you love BTC today, don't spout bullshit strings of meaningless words in some grandiose display of being ahead of the times. Make it stronger and better because if you don't history will judge this whole thing very severely in 10 years time, when it really is just a way of buying drugs and hitmen.

<comment><USER2> I think the issue is that bitcoin fanatics assume something is deeply wrong with our current system, or that banks are parasitic and not providing any value. Sure there are places it can be improved, but the current system works well for many people. Before credit cards we had to rely on informal credit. Sure, I could open a bar tab at a local place where I'm a regular, or the man at the corner store might let me run up a small bill. Your word was your bond, but if you left town, wanted to make a large purchase or weren't from the right family (or had the wrong color skin), it was a cash only world.

Right now I can travel to any corner of the globe and make transactions on credit with someone who knows nothing about me and has never seen my face. He's confident that he'll be paid and I'm confident that I have recourse in the event of a bad transaction. I don't have to carry large amounts of cash or worry about being robbed. If my card is stolen my liability is relatively small. That costs something, but people overwhelmingly see value in it and are willing to pay this cost.

<comment><USER14> You're absolutely correct.

I agree with both you and the fanboys on this point, however. Our current system is better than the old, for sure, but at the end of the day it is true that an insane amount of money is paid to these oligopolous firms as fees for doing a very simple job. Payment processing really is a case of moving database rows around, albeit in a highly available manner, yet they demand huge percentages. My bank goes down about as often as my Gmail, and the latter's free and deals with more information than my bank.

The present is better than the old, but very bad compared to what _could_ be.</comment></comment></comment>


Make me CEO of RIM for one day by Alcides Fonseca - <AUTHOR> http://wiki.alcidesfonseca.com/blog/make-me-ceo-rim-one-day/ <comment><USER2> 'I would drop the development of the QNX OS and all related systems'

I knew it was coming and wanted to stop reading after this. With that said Android may work out for RIM vs other companies because they make pretty good hardware and they'd have their own suite to differentiate themselves. With that said I really like the Playbook OS a lot and would love to see what it can do for their phones.</comment>


Nevada becomes fifth US state to allow cannabis sales for recreational purposes - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world-0/nevada-cannabis-marijuana-legal-recreational-weed-sales-pot-shops-buy-legalised-a7817871.html <comment><USER3> I don't even smoke/eat pot and I'm happy this is going through. It's just a mire of confusion that tobacco and alcohol are legal, while a relatively harmless drug is federally illegal. You can't even do medical research on MJ as the laws stand. Mostly because of a backlash against a counter culture who didn't support a corrupt set of government officials and a textile industry that doesn't even produce in America, anymore. I'm (obviously) American, but this propping up of a legacy of corruption and convenient morality is just infuriating...... sorry. Rant =)

<comment><USER4> Reasons it's still illegal

1\. Pharma lobbyists

2\. Private prison lobbyist

<comment><USER5> The biggest funders of the anti prop 64 campaign ("Adult Use of Marijuana Act") were private individuals and police unions.

<comment><USER6> For Nevada Question 2 of the $3,771,500 spent in opposition $3,650,000 (96.7%) of that came from Sheldon Adelson. [https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Legalization,_Quest...](https://ballotpedia.org/Nevada_Marijuana_Legalization,_Question_2_\(2016\))

For California Prop 64 of the $2,077,438 spent in opposition $1,364,000 (65.6%) came from Julie Schauer.

The only other major donor was Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM Action) which donated $489,150 (23.5%)

The California Teamsters Public Affairs Council donated $25,000 (1.2%) and the Peace Officers Research Association of Claifornia PIC donated $25,000 (1.2%).

[https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana...](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_64,_Marijuana_Legalization_\(2016\))

In both cases the majority of support for the opposition came from a SINGLE WEALTHY INDIVIDUAL - not "private individuals."

I am not sure if the Teamsters directly represent police officers but they are a union and Peace Officers Research Association sounds police related so you are right that some vaguely "police" and "union" related groups did donate a relatively insignificant 2.4% to the opposition campaign, but that is it.

<comment><USER5> PORC is one of the largest police advocacy organizations in California state. SAM is funded largely by private individuals (yes, "individuals" not "individual", although its single donor is Julie Schauer). Notably absent is any "big pharma" or private prisons, in contrast to what the GP stated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've never been able to understand how the anti-weed interests have been able to rationalize the astronomical costs of enforcement and punishment for so long. Even if I went out on a limb and said, "well, it'd suck if TONS of people smoked TONS of pot ALL of the time", then I'd still be skeptical about whether that's a problem worth spending billions of dollars (and locking up millions of people) to address.

Put another way: am I missing some sane way to do a cost-benefit-analysis for cannabis policy that winds up showing costs (or negative externalities) that are big enough to conclude that criminalization is the best answer?

<comment><USER8> > am I missing some sane way to do a cost-benefit-analysis for cannabis policy > that winds up showing costs (or negative externalities) that are big enough > to conclude that criminalization is the best answer?

Yes, you are missing one thing: you classify "locking up millions of people" as a cost. For those who created and are perpetuating this practice, it is considered to be a _benefit_ , not a cost. Consider private prisons, for instance: they would go bankrupt without such policies. Consider also that it is overwhelmingly black people, or hispanics, who go to jail on minor pot- related charges. A fundamental purpose of these policies is to provide the ability to lock up millions of colored people. Without this policy, the legal persecution of minorities would become more difficult.

The criminalization of pot is fundamentally about institutional racism. Yes it's expensive for the taxpayers, but the racists in power consider the price tag to be worth it.

<comment><USER9> I'm going to get downvoted to hell, but I love that we both used throwaway accounts to respond similarly at the same time.

<comment><USER10> well i can't help but upvote said arguments because there's a lot of truth to them tbh. even if racism isn't inherently part of the system, it's still widely present in those that enact the rules of it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can't believe so much money was spent on this shit. Unlike alcohol, cannabis is less addictive and way more pacifying, it doesn't make people violent, at worst it makes them dumb, unmotivated and complacent - just like alcohol.

There's literally no reason to it being banned _if_ alcohol is still legal. It's a better replacement, too.

I smoke every now and then, to relieve stress. I just go to sleep, I don't like the high and unlike alcohol I can still follow through on that thought of "nah, it detrimental" when I have stuff to do.

Alcohol is like "one drink, man, you'll be good" and then it's all downhill because one drink leads to half a dozen. Every. fucking. time.

<comment><USER12> Really, really mixed opinions because you are totally right when it comes to alcohol, but I can't completely agree with your perspective on Marijuana.

Neither are entirely healthy or can demonstrably lead to long-term positive outcomes if consumed by individuals under the age of 25 or so. These are not nutritive vitamins by any means.

That said, the long-term effect of jailing African-American or Hispanic teenagers for minor possession or sale of inconsequential quantities is probably far worse.

It's a real toss-up, in my opinion, so all I can say is this: completely and totally legalize Marijuana, but impose strict penalties (5+ years in jail, $xx,xxx fine, etc.) for anyone who provides or sells to anyone under 21, and intensely harsh penalties (10+ years in jail, $xxx,xxx fine) for anyone who provides or sells to anyone under 18.

<comment><USER13> Do you have sources that detail the negative effects on people under 25? I ask because I have smoked almost every day for about 2 years, I'm 23, and I'm worried.

<comment><USER14> Symlinkk- As someone who smoked daily at roughly the same age as you, I can understand your concern. I smoked almost daily for about four consecutive years, starting around 21, and ending around 25. Looking back on that period, I had numerous negative side effects, and it's hard for me to know how much that's perpetuated in the last 6 years since I moved towards closer to a once a month usage level, with long stretches of total abstinence mixed in there.

A few things you should consider. First, is it an addiciton? Addicitions typically manifest themselves in situations where you can't quit using your substance, or change your behavior, despite negative consequences. Smoking for two consecutive years definitely makes it a habit, but I obviously can't comment on whether it's a full on addiction for you.

If you don't feel like you can stop, I'd recommend seeking help. There are likely local MA (marijuana anonymous) or NA (narcotics anonymous) meetings near you, and those support networks can be very helpful for a lot of people.

My father died from at 60 due to heavy alcohol consumption, and was more prepared to die than entertain the thought of no longer drinking. Addiction is a remarkably challenging disease, which can warp ones decision making massively, so if you don't believe you can fairly answer the question, you should think about asking those around you how they see it impacting you.

Wishing you all the best as you seek some answers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> To anyone who's confused by the title: the law was passed in November (by ballot referendum), but it went into effect today, with the first recreational sales. (Medical marijuana was already legal in Nevada).

By contrast, Massachusetts also legalized marijuana on the very same day - <USER2> by an almost identical vote margin - but Bay State legislators are still contemplating whether to let the law take effect at all, and it's unclear if and when recreational sales will actually become legal.

</comment><comment><USER16> Am I missing something:

> People aged 21 and above can now buy up to an ounce of the drug at a time > and use it in their homes if they have a valid _ID in the western state_ , > which is famed for the hotels and casinos in its largest city Las Vegas.

> The millions of tourists who visit Nevada cities every year are expected to > make nearly two of every three purchases from retailers, who began selling > pot early on Saturday morning.

It requires a Nevada ID but they expect tourists to make two thirds of the purchases?

<comment><USER17> I don't know where they expect tourists to actually consume the stuff, it's not legal in public and I can't imagine casinos are too thrilled about people lighting up in their hotel rooms, even in rooms that are already designated as smoking rooms.

<comment><USER18> I was there in March. Every. Single. Hotel. Floor. Reaked. Of. Pot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This, after being told _over and over_ again in school how bad (I specifically remember marijuana being mentioned) drugs were for you.

<comment><USER20> Marijuana isn't _not_ bad for you, though. It's not like alcohol (or tobacco) is good for you, but it's still legal.

<comment><USER21> Semantically, everything is bad for you. Fruits are high in sugar, the sun gives you cancer.

<comment><USER20> There's a pretty intuitive difference between moonshine and a banana.

<comment><USER22> But not between a joint and a twinkie, or 20oz soda, or a deep fried <anything>.

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure. Anything that has psychoactive effects seems like it would be in a league of its own (caffeine, alcohol, cocaine, LSD, etc.).

<comment><USER23> It's not intuitively obvious that acetaminophen has a startlingly small therapeutic window, especially when combined with alcohol. It's not intuitively obvious that alcohol may reduce all-cause mortality in a hormesis- like fashion, with low chronic consumption reducing risk but high chronic consumption increasing it. Pharmacology == intuition goes out the window.

<comment><USER20> That's kind of my point, acetaminophen is a psychoactive drug.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Marijuana smokers will still face fines of up to $600 if they light up in > public places, including casinos, bars, restaurants, parks, and concert > halls, and driving under the influence of the drug remains illegal.

Anybody know if that includes when you're in your hotel room or just on the open casino floor? If so, does "non-smoking room" apply to marijuana as well?

<comment><USER25> The key to paranoid consumption in casinos and hotels is the e-cig style vape pens. They're very inconspicuous and I've had many a craps session now where no one has batted an eye while I puffed on a vape pen every now and again. If you're spending money and being respectful, people in the hospitality and resort industry don't give a fuck.

edit: pro-mode paranoia for in-room consumption brings a smoke buddy, febreeze, and a generous tip for house keeping into play.

<comment><USER26> >edit: pro-mode paranoia for in-room consumption brings a smoke buddy, febreeze, and a generous tip for house keeping into play.

Or request ozone generators outside the room. This seems surprisingly common.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> From the _Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas_ movie: [http://www.upout.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Vintage- Nevada-...](http://www.upout.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Vintage-Nevada- marijuana-sign-e1415719315494.png)

</comment><comment><USER28> This is going to come in handy for the upcoming Burning Man event, although there it's going to be difficult to define what a public space is and what not.

<comment><USER29> I'd go further and say this could have a dramatic impact on the vibe at Burning Man. Marijuana has historically been one of the least popular recreational substances at Burning Man, because the smell is hard to disguise. If marijuana is treated more lightly now by Nevada authorities, I'd expect it to become more popular at Burning Man, and take "market share" away from other substances.

Curious what the expert Burners among us think?

<comment><USER30> If people really wanted weed, why not consume it through edibles? No smell to disguise there.

<comment><USER31> It's really difficult to dose right if you eat it. You can easily take too much and have a _really_ horrible experience.

<comment><USER30> I disagree. It might take some more experimentation, but once you figure it out for a particular product for your body weight and metabolism, it's pretty consistent.

<comment><USER31> Fair enough, I guess it's different in legal states in the US, where you can actually buy edibles with a specific amount of THC in them.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Canadian cable companies interrogate, search Montréal software developer - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/tvaddons-piracy-rogers-bell-videotron-court-1.4231340 <comment><USER2> > _On June 9, the telecoms got an Anton Piller order, a civil search warrant > that gives a plaintiff access to a defendant 's home, without notice, to > search for and seize relevant evidence before it can be destroyed.

A Federal Court judge would later declare the Anton Piller order in this case "unlawful," but that was weeks after a group of men arrived at Lackman's door..._

Mind boggling that Canadian law constructed a _civil_ no-notice ( _i.e._ unappealable) instrument with third-party enforcement. That literally cedes the state's monopoly on violence [1].

Curious if such a law would pass Constitutional muster in the United States.

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

<comment><USER3> I was shocked by this as well. I can't imagine the criticism the U.S. would face if it had such a mechanism.

<comment><USER4> Only in Quebec is this allowed though, not the rest of Canada [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28civil_law_jurisdiction.29)

EDIT: turns out I'm wrong, disregard this.

<comment><USER5> On the other hand, Canada _does_ seem to make some odd laws or judgements, such as the supreme court (or a similarly high court) judge ruling that for the purpose of child pornography laws, "person" includes a completely fictitious character, not based on any real person, and may have extremely abnormal and non-humanlike proportions.

<comment><USER6> A depiction of a fictional person is still a depiction of a person. Its just that the person being depicted is fictional.

Would you argue that propaganda glorifying the extermination of a community of a real religious or ethnic group, say Jews, would be ok if the community depicted was fictional?

<comment><USER5> Without really questoning what a "person" is, to get into a debate about abstract and concrete forms, etc. I firstly do not believe the example you have provided is a good counter example or fitting analogy given the intent of child pornography legislation, nor do I believe the material you describe should be illegal.

There is first a key difference in the kind of material I am talking about. You are talking about propaganda, I am talking about even private possession of drawings. Further, I think that it depends on if the cartoon in your scenario acutally calls for violence, or if it is merely a scene drawn in disgusting taste. I would find it disgusting, as would many others - but does that mean it ought to be illegal? To distribute on the street perhaps, but what about privately on the Internet? Or publicly on the Internet?

The key is intent. The intent of child pornography legislation is to prevent its circulation and production, for its production necessarily requires the abuse of a child, and market effects can demand more to be produced, necessitating more child abuse. As such I think it absurd to consider, for the purposes of child pornography legislation, a fictional character to be a "person". What harm is done by drawing on paper? What of keeping that paper to oneself in private? What of giving that paper to your friend? What of selling that paper for a price? What of giving it away for free?

It would be strange, though I accept, that you want the propaganda you describe to be illegal to possess or share. I however cannot agree on that principle, for I view it as a violation of one's rights of freedom of expression. In the same way, illegalising a disgusting pornographic comic I believe is also an infringement.

Finally there is no real victim being hounded in your example. There is no call to violence, threat etc. and I judge it hideous that one would prevent me from owning such material.

<comment><USER6> Hmm, I can't reply so I'll post here. I don't think bans on child pornography are just to prevent children being abused in its production. I think partly it's because the circulation of such depictions make it more likely for people who enjoy such material to act on their fantasies against real children. It. Institutes incitement.

In other words I think child pornography is a form of propaganda glorifying the sexual abuse of children.

<comment><USER5> Although I share this concern, I can't really square with the idea of freedom of expression. Because someone _may_ do something, I don't think it's good reasoning. And as far as I know, there's little or no evidence linking drawings of fictional characters having sex to child abuse. I think it's strikingly similar to the argument that violence in video games _may_ cause people to act out similar violence in real life, i.e I don't agree with it.

Until there is sufficient evidence, I will tend to err on the side of freedom. Unfortunately in my country (England) such depictions are illegal and I have campaigned online for the past couple of years for its repeal - though God forbid I do it in person.

I think we are living in a _very_ strange world in which drawings are illegal because they _might_ cause people to do bad things.

With regard to the idea that drawn CP is a form of propaganda, I must disagree. In propaganda there is intent, and there is no intent I can see in lolicon hentai manga to encourage abuse. In fact, many manga contain warning notices saying that such things in real life are hideous crimes.

And even in the instances in which it is propaganda, so what? People must be shielded _by the law_ from propaganda?

The HN mods have put a flag on my account which says that I'm not allowed to post very often because once I was posting in quick succession on a political topic. As such, if you reply to this, my reply may be an addendum to this comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Holy shit, terrifying.

The article mentions that the developer was threatened with contempt of court if he didn't answer questions, didn't give up his passwords, etc. I subscribe to the "you can be the rap but not the heat" mentality - if he had kept his mouth shut, even if the bailiff hauled him off to jail that day, a week later he'd have been let out, email and social media intact and whatever other information he revealed in a 16 hour interrogation safe.

<comment><USER8> Does he have a day job? This always seems like an easy decision from 10 miles away, if the police/bailiff/whatever are threatening to take you to jail wrongly you hold your ground and get let out anyway, right? That works great when missing a day or more of work isn't going to end up with you getting fired, even if you did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

<comment><USER9> If you get fired for not handing over your personal information to the government after being wrongfully detained then, depending on your country, you have a potential lawsuit on your hands

<comment><USER10> When it comes to employment, the law only matters if you can afford to forgo income from that particular employer, and if you can afford the lawyers. For many people, if they don't have another stream of income or support from family or friends, it's effectively useless to them.

<comment><USER9> My integrity in the face of tyranny and the future of my country is worth more than my livelihood. Each and every time someone bends to the will of the police state like this, it makes them a little bit stronger.

<comment><USER11> It's easy to say. It's hard to do, especially when you have a family to support.

I'm not saying you're wrong - we _should_ push back against things like this - but not everyone's cut out to be a martyr, and some people aren't in a position to martyr only themselves.

<comment><USER12> It depends.

A software dev with a month of slush fund in the bank and a wife who can mostly manage the household is in a very good position to keep their mouth shut on principal, especially if the facts of the case are something the larger community can empathize with.

People will fund a kickstarter to pay your rent while you're in jail if you're in jail for a good reason. Getting publicity is the hard part.

<comment><USER11> Yup. I was in that position 18 months ago, and I would likely fight the law.

But today, we have a rambunctious 17 month old, and while my wife _could_ raise her single-handedly for an indefinite amount of time - single parents do, after all - it would be incredibly difficult and unfair to both her and my kid, and all the family members who would have to increasingly begin to pitch in.

For starters, if I were facing a jail term of longer than about a month, she would likely have to move to a much cheaper, further apartment. A move isn't free, and a move isn't easy - neither is finding a new daycare, nor losing the hours in the day that get eaten up by the worse commute and having to drop off and pick up the child.

Sorry if some of what I said above is obvious, but a lot of people on HN are single and unattached, and these ramifications may not come as easily to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Well, according to Wikipedia:

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada)

an Anton Piller Order has a whole lot of "guarantees" for the "defendant".

In this specific case it seems like the behaviour of the "Independent Supervising Solicitor" was far different from the one the Law assigns him/her.

See also:

[http://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in- canada-g...](http://www.mnp.ca/en/posts/civil-search-warrants-in-canada- guidance-for-anton-piller-orders)

It seems to me like any and all forms of "interrogation" of the defendant, let alone not allowing him to counsel are totally arbitrary and out of scope/boundaries of such order.

</comment><comment><USER14> Some information about what is TVAddons:

"TV ADDONS is an unofficial Kodi add-on development site, it does not host nor link to any type of protected content.

It was contended that out of the 1500+ add-ons indexed on TV ADDONS, less than 1% were what the plaintiffs considered to be allegedly "infringing."

Kodi add-ons scrape content sources that are readily available online, sort of like specialized search engines.

Add-on developers do not control the content the add-ons are scraping, they are simply a conduit for accessing content through streaming web sites, the same way your web browser would.

The Canadian telecom cartel never sent us a takedown notice, something that is required by law." [[https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/support- tv-...](https://www.generosity.com/community-fundraising/support-tv-addons-in- the-fight-against-censorship)]

</comment><comment><USER15> I am baffled. That is some seriously dangerous lawmaking. Essentially a corporation was given the go ahead to gather evidence, in a private citizens house, for its own case. I don't see how this event can be twisted into any other story.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is how the civil courts system works in Canada? Agents of a corporation are permitted by law to search a private citizen's home, seize property, detain him against his will, and deny him access to his lawyer for 16 hours?

Even if they overstepped their authority in this particular case, that there is any case where some version of this is legal is absolutely unconscionable.

<comment><USER17> No. What they did was beyond the bounds of this type of order.

Americans should get off your "FREEDOM" high horse until you reduce your prison population to something sane.

<comment><USER18> You know it's possible, as an individual, to be critical of this and, for example, prison population.

<comment><USER17> I'm fine with people being critical of it, some questionable behaviour pretty clearly occurred.

I'm tired of Americans acting like they have a monopoly on Freedom and giving (often uninformed) opinions about how screwed up the justice system of another country is, and how the charter of rights and freedoms is worthless. I just think it's arrogant and hypocritical.

<comment><USER19> How do you know they're American? As a Canadian I'm disgusted by this, reeks of fascism to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The article states that the court order used in this case is something called an Anton Piller order [0].

Its intended use seems to be for cases where the defendant is known to possess incriminating material they are in imminent danger of destroying, and have caused serious damage to the plaintiff. It also seems that an independent lawyer is required in these cases to explain the order to the defendant and handle the collected material.

The judge apparently ruled the use of the order unlawful after the fact, so I'd hope that the poor guy is entitled to some sort of compensation.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada)

<comment><USER21> If the defendant is known to possess incriminating evidence then you already have all the proof you need. The law is an oxymoron and dangerous.

<comment><USER11> > _If the defendant is known to possess incriminating evidence then you > already have all the proof you need._

Knowing that someone _has_ evidence isn't the same thing as _having_ that evidence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In Canada, these corporations just don't deliver television content, they create it and own all the mediums of delivery. Many of those methods of delivery were once created by a Crown Corporation which was paid for originally through taxes and then privatized in times of need.

So basically, you control the media and you control the nation. There's restrictions around telecom providers entering new markets, and that plays to the businesses because it allows them opportunity to collude nationally.

They own the Cellular Networks, Radio Stations, Television Broadcasting, Internet Service Providers and Newspapers. The Sports Teams, The stadiums, Movie Production, Television Production, Home Security Monitoring and more!

They don't have much sympathy from the public; generally there's a hatred towards them but when you have no options you choose your preferred lesser evil. There's some choice out there but it's few and far between because they're as much a victim of attacks from the monopoly as the citizens. (See Barry Logan v. TekSavvy - [https://teksavvy.com/Media/Default/Customer%20Notices/Voltag...](https://teksavvy.com/Media/Default/Customer%20Notices/Voltage- CrossExam-Logan-TRANSCRIPT.pdf) )

<comment><USER23> > There's restrictions around telecom providers entering new markets, and that > plays to the businesses because it allows them opportunity to collude > nationally

I wish we had a real free market in Canada for telecom services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Canada has a reputation as a "softer, gentler" version of the US. I'm aware this is probably a gross distortion but the one topic about Canada where I hear more disturbing stories than any other is in relation to the amount of regulatory (or judicial/legislative) capture around copyright issues.

Does the Canadian copyright lobby have friends in very high places? Or compromising photos of friends in very high places?

More seriously - what gives? How comes it appears that the Canadian system seems so one-sided on anything IP related? Or is it just an artefact of getting my Canada news from HN?

<comment><USER25> > Does the Canadian copyright lobby have friends in very high places?

Yes, to the degree that a certain percentage of Radio and TV content must be of Canadian origin:

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

<comment><USER17> That's a CRTC ruling designed to promote Canadian content. It's a protectionist measure because the US is right next door. It has helped artists get exposure. Stills shitty when a third of the radio content is the same stuff all the time.

<comment><USER26> >That's a CRTC ruling designed to promote Canadian content. It's a protectionist measure because the US is right next door. It has helped artists get exposure. Stills shitty when a third of the radio content is the same stuff all the time.

This is why the Internet is such a wonderful thing, when it works properly (without worrying about georestrictions, for instance): it allows us to route around things like Cancon, and listen to the streaming audio of our choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This corruption is directly supported by patronizing the content cartels, including their facelifts such as Netflix. These thugs can't be out of business soon enough.

Be a friend, pirate.

</comment><comment><USER28> Lot of power being used for copyright enforcement lately. Yesterday it was NSA, now this. How much time until we see military getting involved?

<comment><USER29> In the end, property laws are the only really important laws for capitalist so be ready for them to lobby for more laws and enforcement in that direction.

<comment><USER30> Intellectual property isn't real property, though. Which makes it even scarier, like "thought police" scary.

<comment><USER31> > Intellectual property isn't real property, though

Do you mean intellectually property isn't _really_ property, or do you mean intellectually property doesn't consist of estates in land ("real property".) The latter is obviously true, but hard to see it's relevance; the former is false. IP is no less property than any other form of intangible personal property.

<comment><USER32> Sure it is, it is a completely different thing. The only way I could see thoughts and concepts being property, is if human law defines reality. But it does not, it just tries it's best to model an idealized version of reality. This really starts to become apparent where legal English diverges from dictionary or common English.

<comment><USER31> > The only way I could see thoughts and concepts being property, is if human > law defines reality.

IP isn't thoughts and concepts, it's expressions and concrete applications, and "property" is a legal relationship; human laws don't define reality, but they do define legal relationships.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "...civil search warrant..."

That phrase sends chills up my spine. Does it mean a civilian organization can obtain a search warrant in Canada?

<comment><USER33> Perhaps it is based on the fact that Quebec law is known in French as the "Code civil" as opposed to the English-based "Common law" and so, would have little to do with what the English speaking world know as "civil cases".

<comment><USER13> No, this Anton Piller thingy has originated in Common Law BUT the Quebec Court of Appeal has "accepted" it in Civil Law, see:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28civil_law_jurisdiction.29)

<comment><USER34> I found something interesting at paragraph 109 of citation #21 ([https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2...](https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2002canlii41255.html))

Je crois bon de préciser ici que les personnes à qui l'ordonnance a été signifiée auraient pu refuser de fournir les informations demandées. Devant un tel refus, Groupe AST (1993) inc. n'aurait pu insister davantage, mais aurait dû plutôt utiliser la procédure d'outrage au tribunal pour faire valoir ses droits. Il n'y a pas de preuve au dossier indiquant que Groupe AST (1993) inc. aurait obtenu les informations par la force, après un premier refus. Si tel avait été le cas, il y aurait eu lieu d'annuler l'existence de l'ordonnance Anton Piller, vu que ses limites auraient été dépassées. En l'absence de preuve à ce sujet, je considère qu'i n'y a pas lieu pour notre Cour d'intervenir à cet égard.

It means that the defendant would be under contempt of the court if he refused to answer questions or let them get what they wanted under the warrant. But, if he refused, and that the plaintiff "uses force" to fulfill the warrant then the limits of the Anton Piller would be overstepped and it would be voided.

From what I understand, under Quebec civil law the maximum sentence for contempt of court is up to 5000$ and up to a year.

<comment><USER13> Good find.

Still (see paragraph [106]), it seems to me (my French is not as good as it should be) that the generic point remains untouched:

>Par ailleurs, le paragraphe 29 n'autorise pas un huissier à interroger des témoIns comme bon lui semble. Il ordonne plutôt ...

>Furthermore, paragraph 29 does not authorize a bailiff to examine witnesses as he sees fit. Rather, he directs ...

Imagine that I have an Anton Piller order to find and seize for preservation something at a high risk of destruction, let's say all sugar in your house ;).

I can ask you where you keep the sugar, biscuits, cakes, sweets, mints and lollipops, besides soda beverages and chocolate. (and if you refuse to respond you are passible to be held in contempt of the Court)

I can also check whether you have hidden your sugar in the bathroom or in the bedroom.

What I cannot ask you is whether you are member of a club of sugar addicts, and the name of all its members, where you bought those nice looking cupcakes, how much meat and bread do you eat everyday, etc.

The scope of an Anton Piller order is just for presevation of evidence and specifically of evidence at high risk of destruction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I was wondering why he didn't just clam up and let them arrest him, and then I read this:

> He was given a break for dinner and to speak to his lawyer, who was present.

I have to wonder if, after seeing how far off the reservation these guys were, his lawyer just told him to go with it in hopes that the whole thing would backfire. Which it looks like it has, at least to a point, if the judge ruled the search unlawful.

</comment><comment><USER36> At least I'm pretty sure they (the cable companies) won't be able to use anything they got there in court.

But let's be real for a moment, that man, if he sues, will get absolutely nothing in return.

Still, it's about time Canada starts getting real laws.

This and the people held hostage without AC or water in a plane for 5 hours+ is a proof at how backward this country really is.

<comment><USER37> That's quite a bit of hyperbole to say those two cases represent a "backward country".

I think the issue will be if other telco's use the same process (this time staying within the bounds of their instructions) on other cases.

<comment><USER36> It represent a backward country as these cases should never have happened in the first place.

Also, the operation was lead by pretty much all of Canada's telcos. It's not an especially competitive market.

<comment><USER37> Two cases do not make a country.

<comment><USER36> You are right.

Maybe I'm biased and a tad emotional. I was expecting more from Canada.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38>
      Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers.

Now that is some * * * * ed up stuff right there...

</comment><comment><USER39> It baffles me that he let them in. Unless you have a badge, if you come to my door and tell me you need to search my home because of yada yada yada, you'll be escorted off of my property pretty damn quick.

I'm Canadian and I'll take my chances in court on this one. Complete nonsense.

I can only imagine how badly this could go if it happened in a rural area.

</comment><comment><USER40> "It is important to note that the Defendant was not permitted to refuse to answer questions under fear of contempt proceedings, and his counsel was not permitted to clarify the answers to questions. I conclude unhesitatingly that the Defendant was subjected to an examination for discovery without any of the protections normally afforded to litigants in such circumstances," the Judge said.

There's more on this case at: [https://torrentfreak.com/tvaddons-returns-ugly- war-canadian-...](https://torrentfreak.com/tvaddons-returns-ugly-war-canadian- telcos-kodi-addons-170801/)

</comment><comment><USER41> A "civil search warrant"? Fortunately, we have no such thing in the U.S. And since it appears he wasn't allowed to leave, it was effectively a "civil arrest warrant" as well.

<comment><USER42> You only _think_ you don't. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet#R...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_Internet#Raids_and_lawsuits)

<comment><USER43> "Accompanied by Scientology lawyers, federal marshals made several raids on the homes of individuals who were accused of posting Scientology's copyrighted materials to the newsgroup."

That's different than the scientology lawyers going alone.

<comment><USER44> There was a bailiff and independent counsel there as representatives of the court, so they weren't alone in this case. This action is so rare that they obviously had no clue what the limits were, though.

<comment><USER34> The limits and the penalties for overstepping are getting clearer: [http://www.thecourt.ca/anton-piller-orders-and-privileged- do...](http://www.thecourt.ca/anton-piller-orders-and-privileged-documents- celanese-v-murray-demolition/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Quebec having draconian ass backwards laws...no way.

<comment><USER46> It has nothing to do with Quebec. These warrants can be issued anywhere in Canada and in many countries ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Canada)).

<comment><USER45> Actually it does, in Quebec it's a civil law, in the rest of Canada its a common law, big difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I think the fact that his social media accounts were "seized" is even more fucked up.

</comment><comment><USER48> People should try to film/record these interactions whenever possible.

<comment><USER49> His phone was seized... he couldn't have filmed even if he had wanted to. Besides, 16 hours, nothing I own would film for that long without changing something.

<comment><USER50> He didn't have to give up his phone. The searching parties need the resident's permission. They can threaten contempt of court, but they can't otherwise just barge in and take stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Let's hope this was an anomaly, if a disturbing one.

Unfortunately, given the palpable desperation of the corporations actions, I fear it may not be.

</comment><comment><USER52> I was under the impression that section 7 of the charter means that one cannot be compelled to speak. So how was the order lawful?

</comment><comment><USER53> this is exactly why its an Amendment in the US Constitution to bear arms. People should have a last resort of meeting the force of the state with their own.

<comment><USER54> that would have ended well

<comment><USER34> of course not but if the plaintiff have to rely on force to fulfill the warrant then the warrant is voided because it oversteps the limits. ([https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2...](https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2002/2002canlii41255/2002canlii41255.html) (paragraph 109))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> "Lackman was "not permitted to refuse to answer questions" and his lawyer wasn't permitted to counsel him in his answers.

"Any time I would question the process, they would threaten me with contempt of court proceedings," says Lackman."

I asked in the other thread, but it got buried - can someone versed with Canadian law comment on if this is how it's supposed to work? Were these just empty threats, or can you _really_ be charged with contempt of court if you don't answer, and if you don't have the right to counsel on those questions?

<comment><USER56> The article is terrible. Who exactly coerced Lackman to answer arbitrary questions? Who was his lawyer? When did his lawyer arrive? Who threatened Lackman with contempt or court?

I've known the parties to a couple of Anton Piller orders and I don't believe there was any questioning. Anton Piller orders are essentially a civil search warrant to seize evidence. Go in, take the items sought by force if necessary and hand them to an independent lawyer who will keep them. The defendant or someone representing it if it's a corporation has to be there to witness it and be given an inventory of what's taken. There's no scope for questioning anyone.

<comment><USER57> The article said that a judge ruled the search unlawful after the fact, and one of the reasons for that was because of the questioning -- so I'm not surprised there was no questioning in the cases you are familiar with since they may have been carried out correctly.

<comment><USER37> My interpretation was that the questioning was unlawful since they asked about other companies that might be selling these android boxes. They were supposed to limit questions to his particular case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> That agents of private corporations can be granted the authority to conduct searches and interrogations is chilling.

Welcome to late-stage capitalism, where the state grants law enforcement powers to corporations in order to defend outdated business models and protect profit.

<comment><USER58> I don't know why this was down voted, I was honestly thinking the same exact thing.

<comment><USER59> It's downvoted because its precisely wrong - the court ruled the search was outside the bounds of the law, and threw out the case. People fuck up all the time, but here, the system worked _exactly the way GP wants it to._

Certainly the ISPs are at fault here, but the Canadian court system seems to be working just fine. The existence of the Anton Piller concept is troubling, still.

<comment><USER60> A correct system disallows abuse to happen in the first place. I would draw a parallel to buggy software, that loses the trust of its users. I feel that the same thing can happen to a legal system: and then what will happen?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> He broke the law. Not just that, he broke the law and spit in the face of powerful people holding lots of money. Not just that, but he did it publically, SELLING HIS ILLEGAL PRODUCTS.

What happened to him is terrifying and way disproportionate of his crime, which amounted to a few dollars of lost profits by companies that continue to post record profits even in the face of widespread piracy. However, the lesson you should take from this is that if you should 1) not piss off people with lots of money while breaking the law, and 2) if you do, try to make yourself hard to find. People commit much worse crimes like rape and murder, and get away with it without being found, you should be able to figure out how to give people an app anonymously.

Of course, that is unless you want to make a political statement via civil disobediance, but I have the feeling that person wasn't after that.

<comment><USER62> > He broke the law.

Which law?

> Not just that, but he did it publically, SELLING HIS ILLEGAL PRODUCTS.

What was he selling? The site looks like a free listing of other people's plugins for Kodi, hosted on other sites (github and the official Kodi add-ons repo, for the 5 add-ons that I looked at).

It looks like he's got ads up, and links to zips containing XMLs written by 3rd parties, that presumably provide the metadata to eventually reach some streamed audio/video/whatever. Calling it "selling his illegal products" is more than a stretch.

> 1) not piss off people with lots of money while breaking the law

Might as well drop "while breaking the law". Things won't end well if you piss of people with a lot of money _legally_ either.

<comment><USER61> He's profiting from piracy. Recently the EU ruled that linking to pirate content transitively makes you a pirate, and similarly in the US aiding piracy is illegal. I assume that Canada has similar laws. So not only was he engaged in illegal activity - providing information on how to access pirate content, he was actively profiting from it.

What happened to him is absolutely the expected outcome of his activity.

<comment><USER62> > Recently the EU ruled that linking to pirate content transitively makes you > a pirate, and similarly in the US aiding piracy is illegal.

How about links to links to pirated content? How many levels of indirection would it take to not be "linking to pirate content"? I assume that he must've received some kind of take-down notices (the site claims claim they haven't, but sure, we'll assume that they're just lying), but wouldn't it make as much or more sense for those notices to go to the account-holders on github where a lot of the repositories storing the actual connection data are?

With the information given, my opinion is that the connection is too indirect for the level of response. The site itself seems full of mostly-legal content (the same free channels that show up on my Roku, for example). It seems like overkill to me.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Does Sponsoring Daring Fireball Work? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.desk.pm/df/ <comment><USER2> A previous amusing note from Gruber[1] on his sponsorship system and a sales email from Taboola, purveyor of the obnoxious click-bait grids that you're starting to see all over:

> Speaking of revenue and pageviews, true story: I got an email yesterday from > a sales rep at Taboola, pitching me on running their ads on DF. It included > this line: "I see your site is not monetized at present, and I think there > is room to do so in a non-intrusive manner that can still make you money."

> I don't know what I love most about that. I think it's that from the eyes of > someone who sees Taboola ads as "non-intrusive", what I'm doing at Daring > Fireball doesn't look like "monetization" at all. Needless to say, I find > Taboola ads to be highly intrusive. (You may not be familiar with the > "Taboola" name, but you've seen their ads. They look like this[2].)

I really like what he does, and it makes the rest of the web remind me of the bloatware loaded Windows installs on every PC that isn't sold directly by MS. Short term money at the cost of a slower and more annoying experience that users hate in the long term.

[1] [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/10/09/more-df-rss- feed...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/10/09/more-df-rss-feed- sponsorship-openings)

[2] [http://daringfireball.net/misc/2014/10/not-intrusive-at- all....](http://daringfireball.net/misc/2014/10/not-intrusive-at-all.jpg)

<comment><USER3> I try to boycott as many sites that use Taboola as possible... this can leave very few sites left to visit without hating myself... Them and Outbrain have to be the absolute worst that I see on "reputable" sites. You begin to truly understand a site's revenue integrity when you see these in their "Sponsored Content" sections.

<comment><USER4> This is why I personally don't like using an ad-blocker.

If I have ads blocked, then I'm blind to the problems that the average internet user faces. I end up viewing, reading, tweeting, talking about sites that are flat out reader-abusive in their advertising. As a web developer, my sense of the state of the internet is warped.

With ads turned on, I end up avoiding those sites and seeking quieter places. I have a better understanding of what normal people see.

<comment><USER5> I noticed the same problem when I sent a link to a friend. All this flashing blinking crap all over the page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Really interesting to see these numbers. I've been reading DF for years and years, and its is the only advertising model I've encountered that doesn't grate. His advertising is considerate, audience appropriate, and vetted. I feel good supporting his advertisers, because I feel good supporting him, and because they're just consistently things I'm happy to hear about.

I would really love to see more independent journalists follow his model, although obviously his market is more suited to this model than some others are. Still, I think there's a lot to learn, here.

<comment><USER7> I'd rather not. It introduces a pretty big conflict of interest (for example, Gruber would probably think twice before writing something negative about a former sponsor when he's on the record endorsing them) and blurs the line between advertising and editorial content. As mentioned in the article:

> the cost today ranges between $8,000 – $10,000 dollars per placement and you > get to write your own post, essentially

Maybe this isn't a big deal for DF, but I can imagine this would lead to a total lack of trust for other independent journalists.

<comment><USER6> John has been sponsored by Google(1) and by Microsoft(2) both of which he has written some decidedly negative things about. I think he takes conflict of interest seriously, and has a strong division between his editorial and his advertising content.

1: [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/08/10/ios-at- google](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/08/10/ios-at-google)

2: [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/04/20/windows-azure- mo...](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/04/20/windows-azure-mobile- services)

<comment><USER8> Azure itself is pretty safe from Gruber's crosshairs. Google was less successful, but there is a common trend of companies paying their way into the good graces of Apple bloggers' inner circle (Squarespace, Backblaze, Everpix).

<comment><USER9> I'm sorry, but what you're implying is that these companies have sub-par products that unscrupulous writers have been willing to treat as well-made in exchange for cash payment. As someone who (very happily) uses both Backblaze and Squarespace I can safely say this is not the case, and that they're not just "buying their way into" bloggers' good graces.

I'm pretty sure that if they're in anyone else's good graces, it's because they provide a great product with solid service at a decent price. It's absolutely not because they had to bribe people to overlook the fact that they weren't really any good.

In essence, DF is an endorsement-based model. This is one where a justifiably trusted source uses their hard-won credibility to promote products that reinforce their credibility. It's pretty much the opposite of a model that allows people to "buy their way in". Indeed, that's the whole point. You _can 't_ buy your way in. If you don't have a decent product, you're not getting listed.

<comment><USER8> No, I don't think they are sub par. But I do think their exalted place in the Apple blog world is not earned by quality, but ad money. You don't see many of these bloggers actively using Squaresquare for anything but side projects, but they all push it as the go to platform to use even outside of ads. I would also contend that you can certainly buy your way in. See ads for stuff like Clean My Mac, which I am positive Gruber would never use himself.

I don't think there is anything extremely unscrupulous going on, just that there isn't much of a wall between editorial and advertisement with Gruber's model as some people claim.

<comment><USER6> This is actually a great example of something I wanted to dig up earlier, which is a DF sponsor that john clearly doesn't give a shit about. The tone of the 'thank you note' for that can be generously described as "professional". You can _almost_ hear him gritting his teeth.

[1] [http://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/2014/01/cleanmymac_...](http://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/2014/01/cleanmymac_2_by_macpaw)

[2] [http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/03/22/cleanmymac](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/03/22/cleanmymac)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yev with Backblaze here -> I'm a bit late to this party, but I can tell you that advertising with John has worked for Backblaze from a monetary perspective. It's a mutually beneficial sponsorship. John's used us in the past, Marco uses us on occasion, and due to that, the ads are read with a certain knowledge of the product and ring more "true" than a lot of things that I hear on various podcasts and websites. The majority of the ads we've done with John are sponsorships of "The Talk Show", but those have been quite successful.

</comment><comment><USER11> Congratulations to the author and a succesful campaign.

My favourite part of his post reminded me of a quote my marketing professor once told me "The most important thing in a marketing campaign is a great product"

Had desk been a poor product, I doubt the Halo-effect would have happened.

<comment><USER12> I dunno dude, I bought it, tried to use it, and quickly discovered that it's a pretty poor product. I won't go into it here, because it's off-topic and I left a two-star review in the App Store anyway. But my impression of the app is that its success is mainly due to marketing savvy and the current infatuation with "minimalist" writing apps that use Markdown. So I would say yes, DF advertising clearly worked here, and props to the author for also getting extra mileage out of it with this post + HN hit.

Not only is his promotion on DF and followup blog post a model of How It's Done, but his entire blog is really well-done from a marketing and SEO standpoint. Lots of relevant internal links, good photography, great design, and posts that are devoid of keyword spam and are just the right length and reading level.

Anyway, great design, very savvy marketing and SEO, wrapped around a buggy app that ticks a lot of the currently trendy boxes and contains some shocking deficiencies. And if I sound irritated for being taken, it's because it cost me $30, which is what a mature, quality, premium app like Pixelmator costs.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can always get a refund for the app... and I'm really sorry it didn't work for you.

It's honestly really tough being an indie developer... I have to do EVERYTHING related to not just building the DAMN THING but all of the business, marketing, Q/A, financials/accounting, blogging... the list is eternally-long.

v1.0 was lucky... in a lot of ways. v1.1 addressed a shit-ton of issues... v1.2, out in a week (hopefully) will add a major user-requested feature...

it... just... takes... time... when... doing... it... alone...

thanks Jon for the comments. I'm doing my best.

<comment><USER12> Believe me, I understand how hard it is. I've been working alone on a project for the past 2.5 years now (not quite ready for prime-time, but soon), so I know exactly what you mean. However, two things are just inexcusable to me:

1) this is a writing app /with no support for paragraph breaks/. That is unbelievable to me. Nobody who writes for a living can use an app that shows all of your text to you as a really large single block with no horizontal breaks between paragraphs. How? Why? Not only am I stupified by this, but I also am dumbfounded at all of these 5-star reviews that don't mention it or any of the other show-stoppper flaws I pointed out within the first 20 mins of use. Are people reviewing an app that they've not actually used?

2) The price. $30 is a lot of money, and yeah you can try to convince Apple's customer support to give you a refund, but we both know nobody does that.

The combo of high price, glaring product problems, and a masterful marketing effort just doesn't sit well with me. I'm not saying you're a scam artist -- the site and even the app reflect a lot of passion and creativity. But I do question your priorities. More coding and user testing, and less SEO and blogging and convincing everyone in your network to give the app 5 stars, maybe.

<comment><AUTHOR> I won't win this argument (and I won't try), but, I appreciate the time you took to write me a response!

1\. I'm working on this and the feature was an attempt to combine both WYSIWYG and Markdown into one formatting experience. This ended up being a gamble and one that I lost and the newest updates will address this. It sucks, i failed, i got it wrong.

2\. A lot? sure. i guess. there are tons of great alternatives, for sure!

"More coding"...? #facepalm ...

really?

<comment><USER13> Re.: 2. Don't worry about the price point atm. He might be right that it is not worth currently for him, but it looks like that a lot of other people value it.

If you continue adding features and continue making the product as a whole better and more valuable for a larger and larger audience.

So eventually he should be happy as well.

That requires obviously, that you mostly add features. i.e. you don't re- invent features or redesign features without adding value (just to make prettier), I have seen a lot of teams/people doing that kind of mistake.

<comment><AUTHOR> a great reminder. i'm keen on keeping it simple... and focused. i don't need to be the next microsoft word... i'd rather not actually.

i think one of the most important things any developer or business does is decide who their customer is... and who their customer isn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you have a Mac App or iOS app, Daring Fireball would be a great place to advertise. I'd like to here from some of the web apps that are promoted, do they have a same uptick in subscribers?

<comment><USER15> Azure Mobile has been a sponsor. I guess at that point it becomes difficult to even extrapolate the impact of the sponsorship...

<comment><USER16> Yeah. The acceptable cost for acquiring a customer for something like Azure, AWS, Heroku, New Relic, et al. dwarfs the cost of most advertising that reaches the ideal audience (so, yeah, ROS banner ads on Yahoo might not cut it). I'm in the email newsletter space and had the cloud division of a very major three letter company send me an IO to buy >$100k of advertising _without us ever having communicated before_ \- I couldn't fill the order as we don't have that sort of capacity, but it blew my mind and certainly got me thinking about where to take the business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > I went on to grab a net-revenue (profit) of just north of $32,000 for the > month of December, 2014

That's pretty darn impressive. Congratulations! Excellent copy writing on your desk.pm landing page as well.

<comment><USER18> I like the feel of the landing page, but I have a hard time figuring out what desk is.

I don't know how it compares to other markup editors or distraction-free writing environments (I currently use and love Ulysses, and have tried several other similar apps), I don't know the details of its blogging platform integrations, or how it manages media.

Without that info, I'd be happy to try a demo, but not risk $30 to figure out if it's an app I can use.

It's obviously working well for conversions, and other people feel like they're getting enough info to risk $30, but I'd need quite a bit more information than the app's website currently gives to know if it's a purchase worth making.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is great feedback and something I can do better. I had actually done a retrospective on the change of the landing page but you're right... it still needs improvement.

At some point I'll probably hire a "real" designer to help me... since i'm not a designer by any stretch of the imagination.

<comment><USER18> I wouldn't even say it's a design issue. More of an information issue.

If there's no demo available, I need (as a potential purchaser) quite a bit of information to know if it's worth risking my $$'s. I'd say some combination of screenshots/gifs or screencasts going through the program would be great. Or maybe more of a focus on the workflow, or maybe just expanding your features section to be illustrated with screenshots form the app showing how features are used.

Honestly, some of the best descriptions of the program are in App store reviews where it's compared to other distraction-free/markup writing environments.

Also, congratulations and good luck!

<comment><USER19> I'd argue that design and information are (or, should be) inextricably linked. Your advice is sound however!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This section confused me -- can anyone explain?

> I was so unprepared for this deluge that it stunted what was already going > to be a banner month as _I simply did not have enough review copies and > tokens to go around_. I ended up having to wait-list over 30 prominent blogs > which hurt my momentum severely.

He's selling _software_ , right? It sounds here like he hit problems that simply shouldn't exist for a digital product.

Is this an AppStore-specific problem? If so, why in the world should it work that way?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm given 100 "tokens" or "review copies" to give away for free per every single release via the MAS.

Essentially, I ran out and couldn't give free copies for review for big name blogs and news sites and thus lost a lot of opportunities for free press.

<comment><USER20> Congratulations, first -- that's a good thing to run out of!

But it's a bit infuriating that the problem seems to be completely fake; that is, of course Apple has no limitations to how many review copies and/or tokens they can generate; they could trivially give you a button to request more.

In cases like yours, that would have been the more profitable choice for them... but they're operating at immense scale, which generally means removing choice as much as possible -- and there must be some loophole they're closing (though I admit I don't see it yet). They can't pay someone to check _every_ possibly dodgy request for more copies/tokens, and so they can't check any.

/rant -- this is certainly a tangent to the article! I just found it startling. I've sold my own software and online subscriptions for more than a decade (though nothing ever likely to become big) and naturally if I feel like giving away copies, they're mine to give.

<comment><USER21> Well, it is a fake problem. There's nothing preventing a developer from hosting a binary on a server and sending the download link to a potential reviewer or user, other than the simple matter of implementing license checks and demo timeouts. It's the same now as it was 20 years ago.

It's telling that many App Store developers, even very successful ones, no longer bother with that crap. It's just so much easier for both the developer and user to send out a promo code in an email.

<comment><AUTHOR> well, what might be considered "simple" is not entirely simple. sure, i could send out the packages to anyone, provisioned locally. sure.

but... doing a demo with license checks really, really, really well...? that takes time, care, and impact user-experience.

i decided that i didn't have time (yet) to implement a really kick-ass demo / trial version... but in the future i'd like to take a serious look at it.

context is important: as an indie developer i only have so much (so little) time to invest... i have to really carefully choose my battles of where i spend that time... and that's really the hardest part of it all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This was very helpful and thanks for publishing. Right near the end you just touched upon what i think is an important topic (perhaps its own post) If you could chart it your first exposure to John's (or anyones) audience is probably 80% of the bang for the buck. Sponsoring again 4 to 6 months later really only exposes you to net new readers since your first exposure or those that missed your first exposure and/or weren't a good target then but are now. If John is charging the same amount for each sponsorship the pricing model is broken for both of you. It sounds like you're underpaying for the 1st one and overpaying for additional and vice a versa for John. In general it's just something worth noting for anyone who advertises via such distinct channels (Imagine if HN let you do the same thing how your traffic and sales would be impacted by the 1st time you were on the homepage for 8 hours vs if you did it again 3 months later)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a great point and something that I thought was going to "pay off" but didn't. The results were significantly different but still beneficial... what I should have done is waited a few more months to dive in.

Will I do this again? Probably... but not until a major release, like a 2.0...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I suspect this is a lot more informative about the future of journalism. The 'old school' magazine/newspaper group was all about getting 'readership' and then 'blasting their eyeballs'. And there was a tremendous amount of loss to their madness. 6 months after a magazine was published it was entirely unlikely that someone would pick up that issue, see an advertising message, and act on it.

But on the web the long tail is the long tail. Search engines can pull an article out of the mists of time and that advertising is still intact. So you're exposure is very different.

Combining that with the curating effects of a trusted source, and you get a solid advertising value for the right brands.

I expect it will be "successes" like DF which inspire additional people to create this sort of content and that seems to be a good thing for everyone (advertisers and readers).

<comment><USER24> Sponsored posts might come up in long tail searches, but most of the pages on the DF site, at least, are monetized with a display ad on the left. This will show the current ad at the time of the page view, not the ad at the time the article was written.

<comment><USER23> > This will show the current ad at the time of the page view, not the ad at > the time the article was written.

Which is _awesome_. When I thumb through old BYTE magazines they have ads for companies that don't even exist any more. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Great post. Thank you for sharing all of this - really great information and I'm thrilled for you that you took a risk and it really paid off. Cheers to that!

That said, your site has so few images on it of the actual product, that for a price of $30, I feel like you are holding back for a reason. I buy anything and everything, but this doesn't feel right. When someone displays their admittedly very nice logo far more than the product I get a flashing warning sign. My 2 cents.

When I can either get a demo or see more of the product I will probably buy.

Again, congratulations on your successful launch!

<comment><AUTHOR> I appreciate that a lot!

To answer your question, i had actually was trying to explicitly move people to the app store to "view" the images there... but i could do a better job of providing those screens... thanks for that!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What's often under appraciated about sponsored content is that it does seem to be catching on as valuable channel to acquire customers not just branding exposure.

Here is a case study from Dash as well.

[https://syndicateads.net/casestudy/dash.pdf](https://syndicateads.net/casestudy/dash.pdf)

(Full disclosure I'm on the team at SyndicateAds)

</comment><comment><USER27> I think his model works well for his blog. Not all blogs work well with this model and it doesn't necessarily scale well to a large news org.

For what he does and how he does it, this is a cool model for both him, his audience, and apparently the advertisers.

<comment><USER28> Yes. Couldn't agree more. There're other bloggers in the tech/culture space like Jason Kottke of kottke.org, and Jim Dalrymple of The Loop, who make far less from advertising/sponsorships than Daring Fireball.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I've done a quick RETROSPECTIVE on how this "viral event" impacted sales: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8959967](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8959967)

:)

Thanks everyone! That was fun.

</comment><comment><USER29> TLDR: "Yes, DaringFireball worked for me."

<comment><AUTHOR> HAHA. I should add that...</comment></comment>


Django 1.2.3 released - <AUTHOR> http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2010/sep/10/123/

<comment><USER2> Cool, I've just started using Django so it's good to see it's still being developed.

<comment><USER3> Django seems to be a pretty active project, so I'm not sure what gave you the impression that it wasn't developed:

<http://code.djangoproject.com/timeline>

Looks like the 1.2.2 security release they did earlier this week was a bit rushed, partially because the security issue was reported via the public bug tracker instead of the security contact address.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's a little worrying that the release is essentially just a fix for patch and package mistakes in 1.2.2. I know that 1.2.2 was a pretty urgent security update, but to re-update it a day later because the patch was broken _and_ you botched the packaging just doesn't fill me with confidence.

</comment><comment><USER5> _yawn_

<comment><USER6> I have to agree that a routine update to security features hardly qualifies as front-page news. No wonder the Ruby guys think Python is no fun!

<comment><USER7> We should whip up some artificial controversy based on personality clashes between two or more immature community icons!</comment></comment></comment>


Does the increased time before going public stop you from working for a Unicorn? - <AUTHOR> Slack just raised a bunch of new money and its CEO had this comment about it... "It's a strange world. If it was 10 years ago we'd be public by now," said Butterfield, but going public is not what unicorns do these days, so Slack isn't doing it."<p>I'm trying to organize my thoughts around how to think about the increased time that unicorns are spending as private companies. <comment><USER2> I think it's a tradeoff between:

\- a potentially earlier monetization event where the shares might not be above water when lockouts expire

and

\- a potentially later monetization even where the hype would hopefully keep the shares high enough to be valuable after the lockout period

That being said, anyone who joins a startup thinking their options/shares have assured value is a fool. My own personal experience netted me a few K in exchange for a lot of anguish.</comment>