The Juul Fad Is Bigger I Would Have Guessed - <AUTHOR> https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/12/the-juul-fad-is-far-bigger-than-i-ever-would-have-guessed/ <comment><USER3> I was a nic addict for several years. Most of the time it was spliffs (weed mixed with nicotine) but my consumption rate was probably the equivalent of 4-5 cigs a day (8 king size spliffs per day). I also smoked here and there but I didn't like the taste or throat hit as much.

After having a prolonged cough, I switched to juuling. I loved it - <USER2> great, nice buzz, amazing (AMAZING) throat hit. I stopped smoking spliffs (positive was I was no longer high 24-7), my lungs felt better, I overall felt better.

However, the issue with these things is it is so available. You can take tiny rips anywhere. And there is no quantized amount. You just take a few puffs but you have no idea how much that is, unlike a discrete cig. So my 4-5 cig a day habit turned into the equivalent of a pack a day habit. I found myself 'going to the bathroom' all the time at work to sneak a quick hit. I think my base level anxiety went up.

So I quit the juul (quitting wasn't as hard as I thought despite using a pod a day for 6 months, the anxiety of what would happen when I quit was really the big thing. In terms of withdrawals all I had was a desire to consume nic on my mind all the time for a few days).

Really what I want to say is that the juul is a better cig. You can use it anywhere. You feel much less terrible and sickly (when your smoking you couch all the time). It tastes much better. However all of this makes it much more addicting than the traditional cigarette

The science is out on how bad for you vaping is. Many point to the fact that nicotine by itself is really only bad for your heart - the extra stuff is more from smoke / chemicals in cigarettes. However nicotine addiction kinda sucks

<comment><USER4> > nicotine addiction kinda sucks

Sucks more than caffeine addiction?

<comment><USER5> Quitting caffeine cold-turkey is worse than quitting cigarettes cold turkey IMO - the headaches are awful. But aside from that, nicotine addiction is way worse. Even when I drank ~20 "cups" of coffee a day, I didn't have cravings or headaches unless I somehow managed to go several hours after waking up without having any at all. Nicotine cravings are frequent and sporadic and prevent you from focusing on anything else for more than a few seconds at a time.

With cigarettes, there's also the fact that you actually have to, well, smoke cigarettes. Sometimes that's great (if you're used to it), but when you have a sore throat, forcing yourself to smoke a cigarette one painful drag at a time is a horrible experience. Juul is a huge step up this way, though it comes with other issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My younger son (high school freshman) would agree. He informed me that it is very addictive. Some kids try it out of curiosity and then become very addicted. It is easy to hide at school. He calls their bathroom the vape lounge. Kids can vape at home without their parents becoming aware if they have enough spending allowance. I thought E-cig was going to help people addicted to cigarettes quit smoking. I didn't imagine it may become a new plague itself.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand why people are anywhere near as worried about vaping as they are about cigarettes.

Yeah, it's addictive because of nicotine. But there's no evidence that nicotine is harmful, in fact it may be neuroprotective, and vaping simply does not produce the type and quantity of carcinogens that cigarette smoking does.

I think this amounts to hysteria because people associate nicotine with cancer. Not sure why the addiction is such a big deal.

<comment><USER8> > But there's no evidence that nicotine is harmful

LD50 of nicotine in humans is 6.5–13 mg/kg orally.

<comment><USER9> Orally has no meaning since there is no clealy fixed LD50 for inhalation. which is what mattersin this discussion.

[https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/54115.html](https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/54115.html)

Note that rats have a LD50 at 50 so the measureyou gave for LD50 in humans seems very, very conservative.

<comment><USER8> Actually the conservative estimate in humans, according to Wikipedia is 0.5–1.0 mg/kg. Rats are a lot tougher than humans.

<comment><USER9> Wikipedia is not the place you should look for reliable toxicological information. There are better places online (and free of access, too).

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880486/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3880486/)

> Although an LD50 of 0.8 mg/kg would implicate that the toxicity of nicotine > is similar to or even higher than that of cyanide, fatal nicotine > intoxications are relatively rare, and there are countless records of > subjects who survived consumption of nicotine in amounts far higher than 60 > mg (Larson et al. 1961). The most drastic example is probably survival of a > suicide attempt with 4 g of pure nicotine (Schmidt 1931). While this is > certainly an exceptional case, in which the amount of bioavailable nicotine > was markedly reduced by vomiting, ingestion of tobacco or nicotine gums at > doses up to 6 mg/kg nicotine was reported to evoke symptoms of intoxication > without causing death (Malizia et al. 1983; Smolinske et al. 1988). These > and many other literature reports on nonfatal nicotine intoxications are > hardly compatible with a lethal dose of 60 mg or less.

> Several detailed reviews are available on fatal nicotine intoxications > caused by either suicidal intent or accidents, latter mainly resulting from > misusage of nicotine-containing solutions marketed as pesticides (Esser and > Kühn 1933; Larson et al. 1961; Maehly and Bonnichsen 1963; Tiess and Nagel > 1966; Hayes 1982; Corkery et al. 2010; Solarino et al. 2010). The postmortem > data reviewed by Maehly and Bonnichsen (1963) and more recently by Corkery > et al. (2010) and Solarino et al. (2010) revealed minimal nicotine blood > levels of 2 mg/L, but rapid decline of blood nicotine after death (Sanchez > et al. 1996) may have led to underestimation of the actual lethal > concentration in delayed autopsies.

> Despite these uncertainties and the complex pharmacokinetics of nicotine > (Hukkanen et al. 2005), a rough estimate of the amount of ingested nicotine > from postmortem analyses of blood levels appears feasible. Smoking a > cigarette results in uptake of approximately 2 mg of nicotine and gives rise > to mean arterial plasma concentrations of about 0.03 mg/L (30 ng/ml) > (Gourlay and Benowitz 1997). Based on 20 % oral bioavailability of nicotine > (Hukkanen et al. 2005) and assuming linear kinetics, an oral dose of 60 mg > would give rise to a plasma concentration of about 0.18 mg/L. The literature > reports on fatal nicotine intoxications suggest that the lower limit of > lethal nicotine blood concentrations is about 2 mg/L, corresponding to 4 > mg/L plasma, a concentration that is around 20-fold higher than that caused > by intake of 60 mg nicotine. Thus, a careful estimate suggests that the > lower limit causing fatal outcomes is 0.5–1 g of ingested nicotine, > corresponding to an oral LD50 of 6.5–13 mg/kg. This dose agrees well with > nicotine toxicity in dogs, which exhibit responses to nicotine similar to > humans (Matsushima et al. 1995).

So, in reality the LD50 is much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than the number you provided from Wikipedia. This however agrees with the former number you provided, and I guess this is the study where it came from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I hate juul. I support traditional vape. Juul just seems like a horrible company with horrible intentions.

<comment><USER11> I'm not familiar with nicotine vaping. How is juul different from "traditional vape"? Not trying to degrade your post by use of quote marks, I'm just not sure what is meant by that term. Did people use to vape tobacco by by grinding leaves and using an oven vape - like vaping cannabis in, e.g. a PAX 3?

<comment><USER12> As far as I can tell they have 10x or 20x the nicotine strength of normal vapes, and a much harder hit. Juul seem to be 59mg/ml, most regular juice I've come across has been 12, 6 or 3. Highest I ever saw, online, was 18.

Highest I ever tried was 12, which was recommended to start when I switched from a 20 a day cigarette habit, in a simple pen vape. I couldn't tolerate it for longer than about a week before dropping down to the next juice down.

Traditional vapes break into 2 types. Pen vapes don't produce much heat so liquids tend to be a bit stronger. They'd use mostly 6, 12 or 18 strength liquids. Vape mods (silly name as they're not modified, so I don't know what the mod is meant to mean) have a larger battery pack with separate tank and lower resistance coil. They're usually a fair bit larger than any pen or cigarette. These produce much more vapour so usual strengths are 3 and 6. I would expect Juul to be at the lower end of vapour amount as the cartridges are so tiny.

I can't imagine the hit from Juul, and can't imagine ever trying one. It'd be like chain smoking 4 cigs. I quit vaping totally already anyway. :)

They haven't yet launched in the UK, but I'm doubtful they'd be allowed at that strength. (Israel banned them, having set max strength at 20mg/ml).

Juul seem around 10x the price too. I used to pay £1 - £2 for 10ml of juice that would last well over a week, often 2. Juul cartridges are tiny, $4 each but supposedly last about a day or two.

Last, but not least, they're 40% owned by Philip Morris (Marlboro).

<comment><USER13> Juul seems to have much smaller battery than vape "pens". It also does not produce nearly as much vapor. Their whole innovation is formaliting high concentration juice which would not make you barf (using a different nicotine- derived compound than the pure nicotine in the original e-juice) so it could be used in a low power device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My grandmother had nine sisters. All nine of them died in their 60's from emphysema and lung cancer. All told fifteen people in my family died from smoking related illness. These early deaths were absolutely devastating to us kids as they happened in rapid succession.

Vaping saves lives. Vaping saves lungs. Let's just continue to get people off of burning cigarettes and we can tackle nicotine addiction once cigarettes are a bad memory.

<comment><USER15> You might be right for smokers who transition to vaping. I would bet money that you are right. When my patients ask me, I tell them my guess, and I am emphatic that it is a guess. We will know the right answer at some point.

However, the concern is that nicotine use is on the upswing among young people ( _edit_ : previous nonsmokers) for the first time in many years. If vaping is anything short of harmless, which I think we must presume it is, then this is a brewing problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> And juul is safer than inhaling the combustion products of smoke, correct?

<comment><USER17> But more dangerous than not inhaling anything.

If people were swapping cigarettes for Juul I'd see your point, but as the article states, they is not.

<comment><USER16> I guess I have a hard time buying that when the article admits to strong bias like the following:

Vaping in general, and Juul in particular, have wiped out years of hard work to get teens off of cigarettes

<comment><USER17> How is that bias? The data clearly backs up that teen rate of nicotine product use (for want of a better description) was on a dramatic decline until the advent of Juul.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't know at this point we can call it a fad. Fad is usually by definition short-lived. It looks like this is gonna stay.

[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fad](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/fad)

</comment><comment><USER19> Quote "I knew that the Juul fad had practically taken over American high schools recently...". After looking at pictures of their products I think I understand why [1]. I have the impression that some of these products are tailored to sell to teenagers. Last time I meet my younger brother, he couldn't go for more than a few hours without becoming agitated or vaping. Way to go and make that money

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JUUL#/media/File:Juul_with_pod...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JUUL#/media/File:Juul_with_pods_\(29395579877\).jpg)

</comment><comment><USER20> Wow. I had no idea that a single company had such an effect. I'll stick to my occasional pipe loaded with organic tobacco, and enjoy my continued lung health and lack of nicotine addiction.

EDIT: Yes, I know about mouth cancer risks, and I also know that occasional pipe smoking puts one at approximately the same risk for various cancers as drinking hard liquor does. If you don't mix the two activities, you aren't raising your risk of anything, and you are lowering your blood pressure and stress levels, so much so that pipe smokers are estimated to live about 3.8 years longer, on average.

<comment><USER21> Right, because tobacco never hurt anyone. On top of that, it's organic! Probably good for you really.

<comment><USER22> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER21> >Wow. I had no idea that a single company had such an effect. I'll stick to my occasional pipe loaded with organic tobacco, and enjoy my continued lung health and lack of nicotine addiction.

I understand that, but what is the "strongest plausible interpretation" of this exactly? In what way is occasional pipe smoking a replacement for vaping? In what way does smoking a pipe ensure "continued lung health"? Is there no nicotine in organic tobacco? What is the intent of the comment to begin with?

All I see is an ignorant endorsement of tobacco smoking over vaping. What am I missing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Vox did a video[0] on Juul's marketing. Moral issues aside I thought the whole idea was genius. Not surprised they are printing money.

[0]. [https://youtube.com/watch?v=AFOpoKBUyok](https://youtube.com/watch?v=AFOpoKBUyok)

</comment><comment><USER24> On the article's comments, some people discuss whether vaping is as unhealthy as normal cigarettes.

Curious to hear an opinion if any expert is reading this.

<comment><USER25> Not an expert, but there's plenty of research that shows that vaping is indeed less harmful than traditional smoking.

E-cigarettes and vaping are endorsed and used as part of smoking cessation therapies.

However, regarding vaping itself, is still too early to tell if it is safe. Safer than cigarettes? Yes. Chemical and toxicological studies show that vaping/e-cigs are far less harmful than traditional tobacco. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110871/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4110871/)

Not harmful at all? Unlikely. It's hard to determine at this point the level of harm, but it's fair to say that any form of chemical inhalation is bad for you (including the simple act of breathing in a city or area with high air pollution).

<comment><USER26> That's a good overview of papers in favour of vaping -- but note there's some conflict of interest concerns:

> Conflict of interest statement: Riccardo Polosa... has served as a > consultant for Pfizer and Arbi Group Srl (Milano, Italy), the distributor of > Categoria™ e-Cigarettes.

> Konstantinos Farsalinos ... has received financial compensation from > electronic cigarette companies for the studies' cost.

And some bold statements like this point that seems to be strongly contradicted by the chart at the top of the OP:

> Regulatory authorities have expressed concern about EC use by youngsters or > by never-smokers, with ECs becoming a gateway to smoking or becoming a new > form of addiction. However, such concerns are unsubstantiated; research has > shown that EC use by youngsters is virtually nonexistent unless they are > smokers.

All that said, this review does provide some evidence that vaping is less harmful -- however I'd take it with a pinch of salt.

For example, these two papers on negative effects of vaping on gene expression in the immune system have since been published:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819171/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819171/) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5436899/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5436899/)

(Reported in the popular science press e.g. here: [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160620141317.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160620141317.htm))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> A coworker recently left for Juul. It was an inside joke, of sorts, that a lot of their growth is driven by minors.</comment>


Defense Claims Courthouse Was Illegally Bugged - <AUTHOR> http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202742595279/Defense-Claims-Courthouse-Was-Illegally-Bugged?slreturn=20151017120052#ixzz3rlZnXKdh <comment><USER2> > The defense motion claims that beginning in December 2009 government agents > planted microphones in three locations near the entrance of the courthouse > at 401 Marshall Street in Redwood City: inside a metal sprinkler box > attached to the wall, in a large planter box and in vehicles parked on the > street. The hidden microphones were activated at least 31 times through > September 2010, according to the filing. > > The only authorization came > from attorneys working for the FBI and Antitrust Division of the U.S. > Department of Justice, the motion states.

In one sense, this is a small thing. There isn't any allegation that the recordings caught privileged attorney-client communication or jury deliberations. But it _is_ an attack on the integrity of the legal system, and it's part of a pattern of attacks on the legal system that adds up to a serious threat to the rule of law.

Defendants are asking for these recordings to be quashed. That is what is customary, but it is not sufficient; there need to be consequences for those who did it and who authorized it. The defendants are only incentivized to argue as far as necessary for their own defense; it is up to the judges to censure the parties responsible.

<comment><USER3> Read Glen Greenwald's book Liberty and Justice for Some.

The rule of law is largely a joke that the powerful trick the weak into accepting. The constant drilling away at the supposed sanctity of the legal system is evidence that the people who run things really don't care so much about attorney client privilege or due process.

<comment><USER4> If this really is what Greenwald is saying, than he's pretty solidly turned into the Glenn Beck of the left.

The rule of law might not seem always fair, but it hampers the powerful much more than the weak. As an example: None of the billionaires in my city have set up their own duchy pressed us into an army, enforcing their own laws. Their taxes, while not as high as I would like, in fact pay for much of our city budget including city services. Even the poor in my city have access to clean water and the library system.

Just because we have to fight to maintain the sanctity of the legal system and because every actor isn't perfect, does not mean that it's entirely corrupt and captive. I would ask you to take a moment to compare the current rule of law, rule of law in a developing country, and rule of law without the rights guarded by a nation-state.

<comment><USER5> Are you kidding me? Prisons are filled with poor black drug offenders. If you're wealthy you can literally be a convicted paedophile sex offender and not do time.

The fact you attribute clean water as a sign of a functioning justice system shows how low your bar is.

Edit: I will say we have rights that exist. You just need to able to afford high power attorneys to prove such.

<comment><USER6> > Prisons are filled with poor black drug offenders

How is that an example of the justice system not functioning? 80-90% of people think drugs other than marijuana should be illegal. 32% see drug abuse as a "crisis" and another 55% as a "serious problem": [http://www.people- press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-pol...](http://www.people- press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-policy-landscape).

People thinking drug use is dangerous and making it illegal, and then putting people in jail for trafficking in drugs (which accounts for the vast majority of sentences), is not a failure of the justice system.

EDIT: Since people seem confused by certain FUD on this subject. The vast majority of "drug offenders" filling prisons are there for _trafficking_ not _possession_ : [http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs](http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs) (only 5.3% of federal drug prisoners are serving time for possession; 91.4% are serving time for trafficking). And 80-90% of people support keeping cocaine and heroin illegal: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/drug- legalization-p...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/drug-legalization- poll_n_5162357.html).

Also account for the time lag between changing public opinion and changes in policy. As recently as 2001, 45% of people polled (and probably a much higher percentage of actual voters, who skew older and more conservative), opposed getting rid of mandatory minimum sentences for _non-violent drug crimes_.

<comment><USER7> Probably due to the inequality of enforcement. If everybody agrees something should be a crime but offender group A gets a 5 year sentence and group B gets 10 years or one gets community service and the other gets jail there's some kind of problem.

Study controlling for type of crime and circumstances finds ~10% more severe punishment for crimes black to white: [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985377](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985377)

Evidence that despite approximately equal occurrences of consumption of narcotics black citizens are arrested much more frequently than white citizens: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-b...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the- blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's not perfect but I'd much prefer this plaintext than that garbage website any day: [https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anonymous/2a3fda72943396a...](https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anonymous/2a3fda72943396ac11b1/raw/a52e4bc82154c444bd1bdc61f01b78ca6c445976/gistfile1.txt)

<comment><USER9> For those ctrl+f'ing for "non-paywall", see above.

<comment><USER10> Or, just click on the "web" link, right before the article title, at the top of this comment page.

This functionality is built-in to Hacker News.

<comment><USER9> Some of us have ethical issues with Google, and prefer not to give them traffic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "According to court papers filed Friday, federal agents placed secret recording devices in at least three locations around the entrance to the San Mateo County courthouse in Redwood City without first getting judicial approval."

The part of not getting a warrant is really the problem.

<comment><USER12> I don't disagree, but isn't it also a problem since they'll be indiscriminately gathering a lot of irrelevant data? It's not like bugging a suspect's house; they're bugging a lot of unrelated people.

<comment><USER13> Recording cameras on buses also catch plenty of indiscriminate random conversation. These recording devices were placed in a public space, so you have no expectation of privacy. However that doesn't mean that they should be permitted in court or is that the FBI isn't quite rude in having placed them.

It really is up to the judges to prevent tainted evidence and flat out fishing from being made cases of. The method is not unreasonable, in the right circumstances, but the justification and building of a case makes all the difference.

<comment><USER14> They also don't record sound which is a huge difference. You can try and read people's lips but that's a whole different ball game. Recording voice without explicit consent in California is illegal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The title doesn't paint the full picture of what happened. The bugs were placed near the courthouse entrance at public auctions held at the courthouse. The defense "maintain[s] that their clients had a reasonable expectation of privacy when they gathered to speak in hushed voices away from other auction participants."

Unsettling nonetheless.

<comment><USER15> But, I still dont understand ___why_ __they felt they needed to record anything? Can you explain their motive?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Google link to pass registration [https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAGoVChMI-o3Vv5CYyQIVBJmICh1GWgxl&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecorder.com%2Fid%3D1202742595279%2FDefense- Claims-Courthouse-Was-Illegally- Bugged&usg=AFQjCNEpnNa24zWZT6lhv7yeHkAIlPvqoQ&sig2=YS7IclkDtIr6ytEDSQg0DQ)

<comment><USER17> FWIW I tried to register and it wouldn't accept any password I tried to register with. So thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Out of curiosity if I wanted to place microphones in random public places and record could I? Isn't it legal to take someones photo in public? So could I also place a camera where I'd like and record people?

<comment><USER19> While it's legal to take someone's photo in public, because they don't have an expectation of privacy, it's generally not legal to record audio without their knowledge.

It depends on states, but almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party. In one-party states, at least one person being recorded must be aware of the recording. In all-party states, all parties being recorded must be informed.

These laws were originally written for telephone tapping, but my understanding is that they have been used in cases of bugging as well, even when no phone was involved.

<comment><USER20>
      almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party.

Doesn't that apply to _wiretap_ laws (e.g. phone recordings, like the Monica Lewinsky case) rather than open-air conversation? For example, I could see how a hack activating their phone microphones and listening _that_ way would be illegal, but open-air conversation?

<comment><USER21> Yes, that applies to wiretap laws. Everyone (varies with state as mentioned) has to be informed and accept that they are being recorded for the call to be admissible as evidence in a court of law. Without that permission, it will be discarded.

I should add; if this were not the case, then manufactures of modern gadgets would be much less likely to have active monitoring of your microphone, for fear of how that action could be interpreted in court. Siri, what are your thoughts on this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The bugs were planted to catch people colluding at public foreclosure auctions held at the courthouse steps, it had nothing to do with recording lawyers, juries, or judges.

I like how they start some huge investigation to to try to fix the auctions instead of just building an auction website and opening it up to the entire US public. This would probably make collusion impossible and get better prices for the property.

<comment><USER23> _it had nothing to do with recording lawyers, juries, or judges._

Even though it probably did that as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Does anybody know what the technical specs of the bug microphone is? Is there some equivalent piece of equipment a civilian can buy?

Do the recorders have their own power supply? Their own cellular connection? Are they essentially phones with giant batteries and a good external microphone?

As an aside, it's always annoyed me that cell phones don't all come with built-in call recording capabilities.

<comment><USER25> > it's always annoyed me that cell phones don't all come with built-in call > recording capabilities.

Oh but they do! Haven't you read the Snowden docs? You just don't have access to the recorded files ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Read "Enemies" by Pulitzer Prize winner Tim Wiener. This is not that out of character for the FBI really.

[http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim- Weiner/dp/0812...](http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim- Weiner/dp/0812979230)

</comment><comment><USER27> Sorry, won't register just to view the article. I also really enjoy how the full site link takes you to a full site of ads and clickbait with zero content.

</comment><comment><USER28> >To continue reading, become a free ALM digital reader.

Requiring registration to view even a limited number of articles is a great way to get me to never read your articles.

<comment><USER29> [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fD4utpl...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fD4utplPmmMJ:www.therecorder.com/id%3D1202742595279/Defense- Claims-Courthouse-Was-Illegally-Bugged+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ar)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Though I'm all about civil liberties, and very wary of the surveillance state, this was public property outdoors. I mean no, there really isn't an expectation of privacy there, and no warrant is or should be required in that situation.

EDIT -

Yeah, that's right. Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down. Dear (non- existent) God, echo chambers everywhere, with just different brands of stupid.

<comment><USER31> Having an agent standing there would be entirely acceptable. Use of surveillance equipment, especially the hidden kind, has always had a higher standard, even in public. So much so that one of the main ethical questions right now regards the use of publicly placed microphones that supposedly can only hear gunshots, in order to triangulate where those gunshots took place.

> _Don 't respond or disagree, just vote it down_

It's faster to produce bullshit ideas than to respond to them civilly, as anyone who has an incompetent coworker can attest to. You aren't owed anything.

<comment><USER30> This can come back to bite you. Protect recordings in public places from admission and suddenly the only law enforcement is able to admit such evidence, as only they could ever get a warrant before hand (not private citizens). Letting public spaces be fair game for admissible recordings will protect the public because it can be used by the public.

A clear example here being a drone you're flying in a park. With that interpretation only law enforcement's drones' recordings would ever have a chance of being used in court. This is about protecting your right to have equal footing with law enforcement for evidence.

<comment><USER31> That's grasping at straws. What are the chances you're going to happen to need an alibi for the very moment you were filming yourself with a drone, and your drone just happened to be small enough not to be observed?

I would also submit that the critical factor in this case was the _state 's_ use of a _hidden_ camera. We've already agreed that there is no problem with the FBI posting an actual agent on the steps.

Finally, this type of law applies much more to audio than to video. I am allowed to record video to my heart's content. I am only allowed to record a conversation with consent of all parties in my state. But even if I did so, no sane court would prevent me from using such a recording in my own defense.

<comment><USER30> No sane court? Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible. That's not how the law works. You can either force law enforcement to get warrants for public recordings (which isn't much of a barrier considering the rubber stamping happening now), or you can allow the public to also make such recordings admissible.

I want to have just as much a right to record law enforcement in public as they have to record me. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm arguing for openness rather than privacy in public, which I think is a much better and more achievable outcome.

<comment><USER32> > Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible. That's not how the > law works.

It really does depend alot on _who_ is making the recordings and _for what purpose_. Incriminating evidence obtained illegally is always bared because the state is in the business of snooping into people's business and needs strict boundaries set. Exculpatory evidence collected by the neighborhood busybody can be allowed even if the recordings were made illegally.

Of course, the Busybody's lawyer may try and get it struck as admitting it would make any civil and/or criminal trial harder to defend against, but that wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing so. Makes it more complex if the Busybody is also the defendant, but then you're trading admission of guilt for a lesser offense (illegal recording) to get you off from a higher offense, like anti-trust type stuff.

And that's also assuming that the people you are recording decide they _want_ to press charges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > FBI agents caught bugging courthouse.

> the _recorder_.com

<comment><USER34> Do you also point out articles in the _Free_ Press about people in _jail_?

<comment><USER35> Or New York Times articles about events in Syria?</comment></comment></comment>


Patent troll tales: Lee Cheng, Newegg - <AUTHOR> https://blog.unpatent.co/patent-troll-tales-1-lee-cheng-newegg-5188505a5f2f <comment><USER2> Wonder if it's possible to have a 'NATO like' alliance among the smaller companies that pools the resource together to fight patent trolls, and basically make it clear that these are the companies that will never settle with you, and will utilize pooled resource to fight against the patent trolls to the end.

<comment><USER3> We all hate patent trolls so much because there's no way to know whose patents we're violating before we get sued. But there are also cases where, whether or not we _approve_ of the patent, everyone at least knows it exists. Like Apple patenting magnetic laptop chargers. Everyone knows that if you start selling a MagSafe competitor, Apple is going to sue you.

So one of the problems you have to solve if you create a NATO-like network of companies, is that one of your members might decide they want to go up against Apple. Now your organization has to decide what counts as a "troll" case and what counts as "you should've known". And since some industries are at a higher risk of trolling than others, those more expensive members will inevitably drive out the safer members who foot the bills but don't benefit very much.

So in the end you have problems somewhere in between an insurance company and...NATO :p

<comment><USER4> But, I mean, NATO must also make very similar decisions, right?

If a NATO nation gets 'attacked' by somewhat provoking a war, NATO must ultimately make some sort of decision about whether or not to jointly act (and foot the bill).

<comment><USER5> Yes but the treaty itself is pretty precise. You can look at it, but basically : if it is not a direct attack on the North Atlantic country sovereign soil, NATO do not have to do anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > It is not just in this century, execution has always been king, in fact many > kings have been executed by future kings.

He certainly has a way with words, this made me laugh.

</comment><comment><USER7> What software is even patentable anymore? Some light reading of articles and wikipedia[0] makes it appear that post-Alice Supreme Court ruling anything mathematical, or anything that is an abstract idea implemented by a computer, is not patentable. I'm struggling to think of what is left. Cryptography is pure math, as is data compression. Is a specific type of UI patentable?

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law#What_software_patents_will_survive_Alice_analysis.3F)

<comment><USER8> Alice/Mayo are more complicated than that. Those cases lay out a two-step process:

(1) Is the patent directed at an abstract idea or law of nature? If not, it is subject-matter eligible.

(2) If the patent is directed at an abstract idea, does the patent add any "inventive concept" so that the patent isn't just an attempt to monopolize the abstract idea itself? For purposes of this second step, simply performing the abstract idea on a computer is insufficient. If the patent adds something extra, it's subject-matter eligible.

"Abstract idea" almost certainly means something narrower to the courts than it does to many programmers. The Supreme Court declined the opportunity in _Alice_ to rule that all algorithms are abstract ideas that are patent ineligible.

Say I come up with a circuit that controls engine timing to minimize emissions. If I use an electronic circuit, that's definitely patentable. Under broad definitions of "abstract idea," if I replace the circuit with a general purpose processor, then suddenly that's not patentable. The Supreme Court has tried very hard to avoid that result. Something isn't patent eligible just because you run it on a computer, but something also isn't patent- _ineligible_ just because it runs on a computer.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for your detailed response. I'm still confused unfortunately. So my algorithm needs something more that is subject-matter specific. As a contrived example, let's say I take the quicksort algorithm. If I add something extra, like quicksort applied to data objects tagged in a very specific way that I design, that could then be a patent?

<comment><USER8> To be fair, the Supreme Court's standard is pretty confusing!

As to your example, I suspect he answer is still "no." It's not enough to just "add something" to the abstract idea--the thing you add has to have an "inventive concept." Field of use limitations ("quicksort to sort birthdays") or post-solution activity ("quicksort then you do something else") do not make the abstract idea patentable. Routine activity--and arguably, adapting algorithms to different data formats is routine in programming--aren't sufficient either.

One thing that's left unsaid in the cases but that matters in practice is that the patent has to "seem like a real invention" that produces a useful result. Courts deny that they do this, but post- _Alice_ there has been a tendency to inject elements of obviousness and novelty into the issue of patentability. If your algorithm doesn't seem like it was hard to come up with, or it just produces numbers that are not directly useful to the end user, it's going to get labeled "abstract idea."

E.g. consider an algorithm for distributed reference counting. That'll get dinged as an abstract idea. However, if you come up with a way to manage image/video resources in a distributed cache that happens to use a distributed reference counting algorithm, that might pass muster.

Finally, the law has changed _a lot_ in the last 6-7 years. But there are still lots of patents out there from back when the law was laxer that are getting litigated (and often invalidated in light of _Alice_ ).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We had the pleasure to interview our advisor Lee Cheng on his experience fighting trolls.

If you have any questions or comments let us know and we will put them his way!

<comment><USER9> What makes going to court on patent cases so expensive?

<comment><USER10> Hourly billing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _They will tell you, "you know the cost of litigation is this number". Which I unfortunately know the cost of litigation is like that. "All we are asking for is a percentage of that cost and then the risk of punitive damages will go away"_

It still amazes me that extortion via lawsuit is legal.

<comment><USER12> I know lawyers who do this on a regular basis and they, amazingly, think of themselves as good people. They even go to church, amazingly enough.

I guess my point is never underestimate "incentive-caused bias"

<comment><USER13> What does a group spewing incorrect non-sense about reality have to do with morality?

Many times these groups takes immortal stances because of their detachment from reality. For example there is a huge correlation in people who don't care about the suffering global warming causes and religion. Its not really hard to understand either, many modern day american think Jesus will come in their lifetime, so why bother caring about 100 years from now.

It even works for things directly against rules in the book. Churchgoers are more likely to be for the death penalty even "thou shall not kill" is most of those religious books.

I am not saying all religious people are bad, just that religion does not filter out bad people or bad behavior effectively.

<comment><USER14> > Churchgoers are more likely to be for the death penalty even "thou shall not > kill" is most of those religious books.

...and the ones who are against death penalty for criminals often support abortion. So much for the idea that life is "hallowed".

(FTR: I am personally against both.)

<comment><USER15> Given that you made a link between killing and abortion, it was pretty obvious that you were against abortion. Pro abortion people do not believe abortion is killing anyone.

<comment><USER14> If you read up on the way it is practiced there is a fat chance you will see the link as well. (Hint, they aren't always dead when they come out. Recently (2 years ago IIRC) even nurses who work with this day in and day out started objecting to the practice because as they said; it is completely crazy that on one room they are fighting to save the life of a premature child and on the next they are throwing a towel over an equally old babys face so their mom won't hear it crying before they finally bleed out/and or suffocate.)

Also : we are way off topic and I don't want to continue this thread.

<comment><USER16> These episodes could only happen in late-stage abortions which are very rare. You can call it murder but that doesn't inform the debate about abortion in general.

<comment><USER17> Yes it does, you focus on the harm. If late stage abortion is wrong, it needs to be outlawed, and hence that would be the focus of the debate.

<comment><USER16> The way I read it the parent comment portrayed all abortions to be of this type. ("If you read up on the way it is practiced there is a fat chance you will see the link as well.") To me there is a big difference between the original "abortion is murder" and your "this rare form of abortion is murder."

<comment><USER17> Looking at this site: [http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics...](http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/)

there are ~1m abortions a year, 3.2% after 18 weeks; Which is about 32,000.

In absolute terms, this is dwarfed by pre-18wk abortions, more than half happen before week 8.

Hence it may be relatively rare, but:

a) The law allows late-stage, hence 100% of abortions are _allowed_ to be late stage.

b) those figures might change, but in absolute and % terms. Early abortions are the more common now, no guarantees how that may change.

I think the many pro-lifers see the distinction as a slippery slope.

<comment><USER14> >> The way I read it the parent comment portrayed all abortions to be of this type.

Clarification since there is a misunderstanding about my understanding: No, I know most of them are not this type. I also think there is a difference between late and early although I _personally_ would advice against both. I am not a lawmaker though.

A little background: yes, I grew up in a pro life family and while I was always personally against I didn't really start bothering until that piece of news struck me from one of the major newspapers that day. Knowing this kind of cruelty actually happens on a more or less regular basis (well known by nurses even in the small country I live in) and on the scale of 88/day * botch_factor it is now hard not to care.

That said, yes, from a pragmatic perspective just getting rid of _most_ of those 32000 late ones would be mighty good. I would believe a number of you could agree with that.

There is now and has been for some time a somewhat healthy debate around death penalty. Unfortunately IMO it seems that the right to kill innocent children before (or, if necessary because procedure failed, after ) birth is somehow sacred and cannot be discussed publicly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> All the more reason to shop more at NewEgg.

<comment><USER19> Their prices are usually quite close to Amazon, and for me it's worth just sticking to NewEgg to reward their customer service and anti-troll work.

<comment><USER20> I'm shopping on Newegg because most other websites have awful category and filtering capabilities.

Edit: But yes, their anti-patent troll activities are something I appreciate.

<comment><USER19> One of the beauties of a niche site like Newegg is that they actually understand which products are interchangeable or related.

If I search for USB splitter by price on Amazon, I'm going to get flash drive cases, then USB cables, then flash drives, _then_ I'll get into splitters. Newegg knows I didn't mean that, and that "products like this" shouldn't include everything with a USB connector on one end.

<comment><USER21> That's a great point, I never thought of searching for accessories on Newegg... even if I end up buying elsewhere, their accessory/peripheral search has always been _one of the best_ on the internet for a long time.

<comment><USER19> I only noticed it when I tried Amazon and got slammed with a hundred pages of "it has a similar name!" matches. You can buy a laptop there fine, but peripherals and internals just aren't arranged in any coherent way.

I'm not sure what Newegg is doing (apart from specializing), but it works damn well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is why I buy exclusively from Newegg. You can get things marginally cheaper on Amazon, but you are feeding the patent troll fighting machine when you buy from Newegg. And the costs aren't hugely more than other places. It's a few bucks here and there, and I think probably the _most_ important few bucks people like us could spend when buying new hardware.

</comment><comment><USER23> Thanks for sharing this!!

I like --> "Execution is the most critical element to success."

time and time again in high stress environments I see that there are people able to continuously execute and implement and those who tend to freeze or request help.

I think thriving under pressure is critical as well.

</comment><comment><USER24> Isn't the whole point of Musk opening Tesla's IP to be able to sell more batteries? It's not charity, it's a business strategy.

<comment><USER25> But it's still true that Musk believes he would out-execute anyone who takes his IP to try to copy and out-execute him, his cars, AND his batteries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> > You look in contrast everybody who is basically going "mine, mine, mine". > Look at those companies, they are laying people off all the time. They are > on the down slope of their corporate cycle. Some of them are huge multi- > billion dollar companies but innovation is not coming out of them.

A lot of smaller startups seem to fit this description. I wonder which large companies he has in mind though. He named Alcatel as one, I guess. Maybe AT&T as well? IBM? Oracle? I don't know. Oracle is making a ton of cash.

</comment><comment><USER27> Good video of a presentation from Lee Cheng earlier this year here:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-yUZW-v0io](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-yUZW-v0io)

</comment><comment><USER28> If there was ever a time for federal intervention, this is it.

<comment><USER29> To do what exactly? The federal government created this problem with its asinine patent policies over the past few decades. Do you think all three branches of government will suddenly overhaul this because its upsetting some people in technology? Think of all the lobbying that makes sure this doesn't happen. I also think companies like Google, Apple, and MS play up the "evil patent" narrative but privately like the power their own patent portfolios have over competitors. Either as a defensive tactic or, sometimes, as an offensive one. These companies have also written the "Litigation will cost this much" letter against others many, many times. They're not against the patent system because it works in their favor almost exclusively. The exception are these patent trolls, which usually get shot down in court or get settled for a fee that's very affordable to big players. In fact, I'd go as so far to say that a lot of the press and "grassroots" anger towards patent trolls come via these companies' PR departments. They hate patent trolls but they do not want to give up on their own patent abuses and want to indoctrinate you into that belief system (Google/MS/Apple patents good, everyone else bad).

I can't see any realistic reform here. Its not even an issue in this or the past few elections. I suspect this is going to be the status quo for a very long time. The system as-is serves big companies and the government.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree change is not coming in the political front. Lobbying power defending the patent status quo is enormous, and reviewing Patent Law isn't in any political agendas.

Big tech companies take advantage of the system. Microsoft has made billions of dollars out of licensing Android related patents, Apple applied for a paper bag patent recently and Google has "patent parties" when (as I have been told by Google friends) they encourage engineers to work with attorneys in filing patents on anything they worked on that could be patentable.

<comment><USER30> Perhaps companies like Google should really consider to move up reforming the patent system to encourage innovation on their dont-be-evil list.

<comment><USER30> Downvote for what? Anonymous coward please stand up.

<comment><USER31> Perhaps because Google ditched the "don't be evil" maxim when they floated and started being "evil" if it pays better?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Lee Cheng:Patent Trolls::United States:Barbary Pirates</comment>


'TSA Arrests Me for Using the Fourth Amendment as a Weapon' - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/18/1027775/-TSA-Arrests-Me-for-Using-the-Fourth-Amendment-as-a-Weapon-(Tales-from-the-Edge-of-a-Revolution-2) <comment><USER2> During the Cold War, there was this mentality held by leaders on both sides that said you could not show weakness to the enemy. It was this mentality that caused the Cuban Missile crisis, and that allowed it to be resolved by secret communication along privileged back-channels (all the while keeping public posturing such that neither side had to reveal any weakness). As idiotic as this mentality has always seemed to me, as I get older (and hopefully a bit wiser) I've come to understand there is some merit to it.

I travel overseas frequently. One of my favorite airports is Istanbul's Ataturk International Airport. I like it because I can sit in a cafe waiting for my plane to New York, and I can listen to the PA make announcements for flights to Nairobi, Dubai, Singapore, Moscow, Pairs, and Sao Paulo. Istanbul literally connects to the entire world. And yet, there is only one gate in the entire terminal that has "secondary screening", the one for the New York flight. The thought that somehow the threat of terrorism is greater in the United States than anywhere else in the world is laughable to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to world events. Yet, it is only the United States that feels the need to have extra security precautions.

I wonder how many Americans see the TSA, the Patriot Act, etc. as evidence of the greatness of America. "Our country must be the greatest in the world if it requires so much effort to protect," I imagine them thinking. "Why would so many people be against us if it were not the case?" In reality, the rest of the world sees a frightened bully, and they're not falling for it any more. They go to places like Istanbul's airport, or any of the hundreds of other airports around the world that have extra screening set up exclusively for US bound flights, and they see weakness.

What's really almost funny about all of this, is that the 4th amendment is uniquely American. It is not at all uncommon in other countries for police (or the Gendarme) to be authorized to stop pedestrians and perform a search without cause. The mere existence of the 4th amendment has, traditionally, been a sign of strength. As if to say: "We're so confident of our security and the resolve of our justice system that we will give our citizens this extra right."

By reducing 4th amendment rights, the US is not gaining security, it is showing weakness...and that can be dangerous to the long term health of a country.

<comment><USER3> Note that the American disapproval rating of congress sits at 86% and an approval of 11% and dropping (Gallup polls).

<comment><USER4> I call bullshit on that poll. People are not morons. If disapproval rating at congress was so high according to a representative poll group, then why aren't people voting in people that they do approve of? House terms are short. Senate terms are long but I don't think this 86% number would have happened overnight.

<comment><USER5> These days you're virtually guaranteed a disapproval of nearly 50% on the day you step into office.

(warning: oversimplification ahead, but I think it's a reasonable model to start with)

With the subtlety of the political chess match, the parties first choose polarized candidates in primaries. That's because it's generally the party hardcore who vote in primaries, not the moderates. Then in the general election, they play capture the centrist vote. When they're both at top form, the election margins are going to be razor thin.

Because the candidates were chosen in such a polarizing manner, they will largely be toxic to those on the other side of our imaginary single left-right dimension of political discourse.

(of course, this breaks down in gerrymandered districts where the political machine has ensured a safe seat)

EDIT: Now, factor in the typical model for marketing most high-profile candidates (at least this is how it seems to me). It seems that most people don't have the opportunity to vote for candidates they like anymore. Instead they're frightened by the bogeyman on the other side. "If you don't vote for the guy from our party, look at who's going to get the post instead -- and that will tilt the majority in Congress toward that other party of anti- Americans". The result, I submit, is that most people despise the guy from the other major party, but they don't like the one they _did_ vote for, either. So it's not hard to push that disapproval rating even farther.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Lots of people commenting here seem to think that just because something appears to have no effect that it was a failure of an exercise and should have never happened. God forbid it cause a minor inconvenience to other humans.

PEOPLE HAVE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT. Even if the effect it has seems insignificant. It doesn't matter if your an ass for doing it. It doesn't matter if some people think you were trying to cause trouble. If you don't stand up for what you personally think is right what do you stand up for?

Was she right? Were the officers wrong? That's for you to decide but it doesn't really matter. She had a conviction to do what she thought was right, and hopefully inspired others to do the same. And I can't imagine not respecting her for doing so.

If the only time you could complain about SOPA was in airport security only the brave and scared would complain about SOPA. And you can bet others would find them annoying.

<comment><USER7>
      > PEOPLE HAVE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT.
      > Even if the effect it has seems insignificant.

If a common civilian wishes to help, she can probably find a better way than standing up to some scripted peons.

I wonder what her court costs are going to be. I wish she had donated that money to the EFF. The EFF is in a better position to fight this stuff intelligently, and at the right levels.

<comment><USER8> > If a common civilian wishes to help, she can probably find a better way than > standing up to some scripted peons.

Rosa Parks?

<comment><USER9> Different situation, different level of public sympathy, different level of justifiability based on the shared ethical views of the people. Basically, the situations are not analogous.

<comment><USER8> Analogies aren't copies.

<comment><USER9> But sometimes they are useful, and sometimes they are so far off the mark they add very little to the conversation.

<comment><USER8> Oh, the irony in your post is wonderful. Thanks! Needed a good laugh this morning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When you decide to yell out the words to the 4th amendment at the same exact moment you are being processed through the security checkpoint at an airport, you are intentionally trying to cause a scene. This can and would be construed by any reasonable person as an attempt to disrupt the screening process. The author knew exactly what she was doing. While I'm not sure it was grounds for an arrest, she was maliciously attempting to provoke some sort of response from the TSA.

I hate the TSA as much as anyone, but when you do stupid things on purpose, stupid things happen to you.

<comment><USER11> These stupid things are also incredibly brave and necessary. If you have no other way of fighting what you know is wrong, you have to provoke a response.

<comment><USER10> She didn't accomplish anything besides making herself look like a lunatic. As I stated, I really hate the TSA and all of the abuses that have occurred, but this isn't going to help.

The TSA has been guilty on numerous occasions of violating a person's constitutional rights. They have endangered the lives of some passengers and outright assaulted others. I really do hope that they are taken to task for the things that they have done, but I don't believe they were wrong to call the police. When you aren't sure what to do in a situation, it is best to defer things to a higher authority. If the police decided she should be arrested, they are the ones responsible for the decision, not the TSA. Whether or not what she did constituted a crime, I don't know, but she was disrupting the process.

When I was pulling guard duty in the desert, anyone who acted in an unusual manner would have been detained. I am aware that this event took place in the United States, but the bottom line is you don't mess around with safety. Until the day that the TSA is no longer in charge of airport security, they are responsible for making sure their job gets done. How easy would it be for you to remain focused on your work while someone is standing in front of you yelling out the words to the 4th amendment?

If we don't like the TSA, we need to go through the proper channels every time they do something that violates the law. Don't let them get away with anything. I know that it is extremely difficult to get the government to change anything, but the only way to get rid of the TSA is to put people in office that will side with the American people on this issue.

<comment><USER12> You know, I can understand not being brave enough to do this yourself. I'm not.

But pooh-poohing those who do do it? "Proper channels"? Yeah, I'm sure they're getting right on it.

How bad would it have to be before you stopped saying "Oh quit causing a disturbance"? I mean, this is already violating our most sacrosanct freedoms. Would I have to violate godwin's law to get you to agree with civil disobedience?

<comment><USER10> You seem to think that she is fighting the good fight on behalf of humanity. She is a professional writer who did this as a publicity stunt so she could write about the experience afterwards.

Her biggest accomplishment is that she managed to make one of the scummiest organizations in the United States appear to be in the right. Way to go freedom fighter.

<comment><USER5> _She is a professional writer who did this as a publicity stunt_

I thought she identified herself as a doctor.

But in any case, you're simply building a strawman argument. You don't, and cannot, have any idea what her actual motivations were. Deluding yourself into believing you know what other people are thinking is not a good way to get to the bottom of any conflict.

(sorry, but you've hit one of my hot buttons)

<comment><USER13> PHaus was saying that professional writers have ulterior motives (what ever those are) and that we should discount the communication of people who are professionals. Only amateurs can be impartial.

No wait, I just put words in his mouth AND made a straw man. Now I am confused.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Kinda interesting how being 'arrested' is now a form of punishment or reprimand in itself. It goes on record and it may be used as an excuse to hurt you physically.

Also it seems that people can be arrested (held or detained) without being 'arrested'.

<comment><USER15> In the UK, with some professions it can hurt your career to be arrested, too, such as medical or teaching.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This isn't just a DailyKos story about the TSA on the front page of HN. It's a _stupid_ DailyKos story on the front page of HN. It actually demeans well- reasoned, carefully-considered strong objections to the TSA by presenting a categorically bogus objection.

Here's a person who's memorized the 4th Amendment without actually learning what it means, yelling it at the airport in a one-person demonstration, and then doing a victory lap on a blog.

And here's us on HN competing with each other to see who can more stridently agree with her.

Flagged, of course. You should too.

<comment><USER11> Granted, the way she went about it was borderline retarded. Are you saying you agree with the way she was treated by TSA and police? Or will you concede that perhaps this act of defiance (however misguided) was much more productive than the silent consent all of us give every time we shuffle through the cattle stocks?

<comment><USER16> No, this act of defiance was _counterproductive_ , since it paints reasonable people with the same lunatic brush and is based on an illogical and ignorant argument.

But I don't so much care about ineffective vanity protests as I do about the fact that a DailyKos article about one was on the front page of HN. Which is why I flagged the story, and think you should too.

Stories like this are a trap. Most of us, being reasonable, logical people, have a litany of valid arguments against the TSA. A story like this confirms those beliefs and is conflated with them, so that pointing out that the story (a) sucks and (b) isn't germane to HN is taken as an argument against the beliefs, and not just the story.

<comment><USER11> I wasn't aware I was supposed to flag every DailyKos story (I honestly have no idea wtf that site is). So, i'm sorry for not doing that.

I resent your smug sense of superiority. I am a reasonable, logical person but I don't have a carefully structured and researched legal paper to present as to why the TSA's policies should be reformed. I just know they're assholes and they fuck with me for no good reason. Clearly this woman realized that too and she decided not to stand for it. The fact that she didn't do it _well enough_ does not discount the action in itself, nor does it prove or disprove any other argument against the TSA.

Furthermore, by flagging this story with the reasons you listed you're basically saying the HN readership is so stupid that by reading this article it will debunk any other arguments they have heard or will hear. That basically you're protecting the brainless HN readers from the ideas presented therein, or are protecting people from reading this and forming a negative view of "valid" TSA arguments from "reasonable, logical people."

There is a deeper lesson to take away than just whether her argument was legally valid. For example, take the reasons that you feel are right and take a stand the way she did.

<comment><USER16> You should read the site guidelines before deciding that I'm commenting out of a sense of smug superiority and not out of general concern for the quality of the site.

I think you should also analyze the fact that this story got you so emotionally invested that the site guidelines didn't occur to you, and that you managed to feel threatened simply because someone questioned the story --- which, again, is pretty obvious vapid. What you're saying in this comment is, "The TSA is bad, so why bother thinking?"

That stories like this tend to have that effect on message board communities is the reason they're proscribed in the site guidelines. There are other communities where a story like this would find a more receptive audience, like Reddit Politics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a very interesting experiment she decided to conduct on what seems to be little to no research. I'm glad that she didn't get seriously injured or harassed or locked up for several days. From what I can tell, once they got her isolated she was treated very well. But it was dangerous. As far as I'm concerned, once you step into an airport (especially an american airport) you are no longer a citizen of any particular country and have no rights.

Unfortunately, she did not simply read the constitution. She yelled it out loud so that others could hear, thereby causing quite a disturbance. Several times she mentioned that people were staring and I imagine all security processing had come to a halt at that point. I think they had no choice but to remove her from the area because of the disturbance. Also, if somebody nearby was planning on doing something, she would have created the perfect time to do it. She could have become an accomplice in a serious crime.

I agree with all of the statements she was yelling out, and it is unfortunate that things have come to this. But please be careful when considering this kind of action. Especially if you have loved ones at home who are going to worry about you.

<comment><USER18> > This is a very interesting experiment she decided to conduct on what seems > to be little to no research.

How do you come to such conclusion?

> But it was dangerous.

In what way? Dangerous as in her constitutional rights might be violated?

> As far as I'm concerned, once you step into an airport (especially an > american airport) you are no longer a citizen of any particular country and > have no rights.

That is just sad. What's the next step? You don't have any rights in a railway station? Subways?

> ...I imagine all security processing had come to a halt at that point.

On a single line perhaps, not all.

> Also, if somebody nearby was planning on doing something, she would have > created the perfect time to do it.

How so? If a simple delay on a check point creates a "perfect time" and it is an actual big risk, then there are bigger problems on that airport.

<comment><USER17> I came to that conclusion because she seemed uncertain about what they could or could not do, and it seemed as though she expected a less severe outcome. Perhaps I was reading into it incorrectly.

It was dangerous as she could have been injured, detained at length, and possibly put on some kind of "harass this troublemaker anytime she steps into a security line" type of list. That her constitutional rights might be violated is almost a guarantee, although that wording is perhaps incorrect since you don't have those rights in an airport.

I agree the situation is sad.

It wasn't just a simple delay. It was a public disturbance. She was yelling out, causing a scene, being dragged around, etc. Seems to me that people planning mischief often set up a decoy disturbance. This seemed like exactly the type of disturbance one would plan deliberately as a decoy for another operation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Some basic Constitutional law would have saved this guy the trouble. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled that travelers do not have the right to refuse searches at an airport [1]. You might disagree with the decision, but if you're going to pull a stunt like this, you should at least be informed on the current state of jurisprudence regarding airport searches.

[1] <http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/08/court-says-trav/>

<comment><USER20> Likewise, imagine if Rosa Park had thought of her day's jurisprudence when she refused to give up her seat back in 1955. "Man, I am tired from all the work today, but the courts say I should give up my seat."

And, surely you meant "this woman," as she does say she has a husband in the article.

<comment><USER21> It is a woman, but simply having a husband doesn't imply that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 'I yell, "Thomas Jefferson said, 'those who would give up their liberty for their security deserve neither.'"'

Actually that was Ben Franklin. But otherwise, bravo.

For all the talk of moving your domains on the 29th to boycott godaddy's support of SOPA, I wish an 'assert your 4th Amendment right while flying' day would work, but I don't think it would because the vast majority of people (even those who are supposedly activist-minded) are only willing to protest when the cost to do so is very low.

That's why godaddy is a whipping boy and the TSA is more powerful than ever.

</comment><comment><USER23> Should the TSA have done this? No.

Should the author have expected to have the glamor of martyrdom without the inconveniences attached? This question is left as an exercise for the reader.

<comment><USER24> The inconvenience IS the glamour of martyrdom. If the TSA had calmly and politely carried out the hands-on search as she recited the constitution, there would have been no effect. No inconvenience, no martyr.

<comment><USER23> Quite. But now rewrite the article to take out reduce it to the facts not including her psychological/physiological state (effects of handcuffs on wrists OK, relevant; perspiration rate not really.) Does it read differently?

<comment><USER24> "But now rewrite the article to take out reduce it to the facts not including her psychological/physiological state (effects of handcuffs on wrists OK, relevant; perspiration rate not really.) "

If you rewrite this to make sense, I'll give it a go :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Very important read for all of us. I now sit hear wondering what I can do - what we can do - to help our country. We are in a scary place.

</comment><comment><USER26> Without citizens like this to assert and reassert our rights in the face of violent psychological bullying at areas of great injustice, nobody reading this would have any rights at all. I don't get to call this country mine as much as she does. The fact that psychological blitzkrieg is the response to holding up a screening line means something is terribly wrong here.

</comment><comment><USER27> I found this all pretty pointless... The TSA people were just doing their job. I will gladly be quiet or even assist them in any reasonable screening duties if it means keeping us safe. That is all they are trying to do, it's not like they have some malicious intent. In my opinion we are not giving up many rights by letting people see if we have any weapons us. If you do not want to go through the new body scanners than thats fine, ask for a pat down but dont make a big commotion about it and start preaching to people that are only trying to do their job.

<comment><USER28> I think you're missing the point. She doesn't fault them for "doing their job," she finds fault with the fact that there is a government job in which she sees violations to the Constitution.

Also, if you would like to let someone look at your possessions, that's your right. But, a government official cannot, without reasonable cause, demand to look at your property.

I'm not saying I would have tried to pull this off, but there is something to be said for her continuously asking "do you have a warrant."

<comment><USER29> >> which she sees violations to the Constitution

If she disgrees then she should organize and conduct a legal protest.

<comment><USER30> Legally, this _was_ a legal protest.

<comment><USER29> How was it legal?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> For people like me who are afraid of flying, this lady is just disturbing the peace. People should be searched before being let on planes. If people are not searched, there will be more plane attacks and global transport will decline. Planes will always be targets for terrorists because of what they represent.

The law is not about technicalities. It's about reason and sense, and sensible is that when someone is behaving like a crazy person, then take the person and find out why. Technical law is when a fixed sentence is applied for a particular crime (like marijuana possession), that is then applied without sense.

Smile and go through the scanner. There is nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers, most of evolution we've been naked.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, disturbers of the peace, like that damn black woman who wouldn't move to the back of the bus. My peace > your rights.

> If people are not searched, there will be more plane attacks and global > transport will decline.

Damn right, brother! I say we take this a step further, and start searching people when they enter the mall. I mean, a terrorist in the mall is just as dangerous. Especially during the holidays.

Or hell, let's search everyone going to the new years bash in Times Square. Just make 'em strip. As you say, nothing strange about being seen naked by strangers.

And we should also start using these scanners at schools. Clearly, with all the school shootings going on, gotta protect the innocent kids, right?

We can also take the same approach online. Have everyone register their computer's OS with their ISP, and only those registered computers can use the internet. I mean, if you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about, right? This can help stop child pornography, you know. And people distributing files they don't have the right to distribute.

Personally, I'm afraid of dying in cars. Did you know, more people die in an automobile accident then a terrorist attack? Clearly, we need to rid ourselves of these terrorists of the road. Make every car require a breathalyzer. If you've had a drink, you can't drive. Keep it simple. Keep it safe. Save lives! It's reasonable. I mean, I'm afraid of other drivers, and they are just disturbing my peace. I mean, the only people that would disagree are terrorists, child pornographers, drunk drivers, and pirating thieves!

<comment><USER32> Actually lots of schools have metal detectors now at all the entrances.

<comment><USER33> Actually lots of _American_ schools have metal detectors now at all the entrances.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Programming Doesn't Require Talent or Even Passion - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@WordcorpGlobal/programming-doesnt-require-talent-or-even-passion-11422270e1e4#.4jee0bkjc <comment><USER2> There's a whole lot to what this article is saying. It's definitely not worth mystifying programming.

At the same time, I doubt sincerely that you want to believe that programming is a trade, like drywalling, or bricklaying. The existence of undecidable problems (general solution to Diophantine equations, anyone?) means that ingenuity will always play a part in programming.

It's a hard line to walk: one one side you make "wizards" and "gurus" out of programmers, on the other, you make downtrodden code monkeys, in over their heads because they don't understand Chomsky's language hierarchy, or something.</comment>


Wolff: Ridiculously small PHP framework for building web apps - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Usbac/wolff <comment> chupa-chups Is this just to promote PHP?

There's about no code at all in this repo :)

This is a typical source file: [https://github.com/Usbac/wolff/blob/master/system/definition...](https://github.com/Usbac/wolff/blob/master/system/definitions/Routes.php)

And this is the largest and apparently the only one having more than 3 LOC, aside from index.php with 7: [https://github.com/Usbac/wolff/blob/master/system/utilities/...](https://github.com/Usbac/wolff/blob/master/system/utilities/Upload.php)

Nevertheless i upvoted your submission, since if this is sincere, it really shows how easy it is with PHP to create an MVP.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is because it is the main repo, the core files of the framework are available in [https://github.com/Usbac/wolff- framework](https://github.com/Usbac/wolff-framework) :) Thanks!

<comment> chupa-chups This looks way more like an actual framework :)

But why is it prone to sql injection?

[https://github.com/Usbac/wolff- framework/blob/master/system/...](https://github.com/Usbac/wolff- framework/blob/master/system/core/DB.php) (Line 294)

(This was the first LOC I randomly picked)

Oh well, I better stop looking further.

[https://stackoverflow.com/questions/60174/how-can-i- pr](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/60174/how-can-i-pr)

<comment><AUTHOR> The table names, column names and conditions cannot be binded into the PDO queries as parameters. The schema functions and fast functions of the DB class are not supposed to be used with user generated input.

But anyway, I updated the framework and now any character that is not a letter, number or underscore is removed from the parameters that represent a table or column name. Also, a warning has been added to those function documentation's thanks to your comment.

Thank you :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Uncovering a Triceratops: Experiment searches for dinosaurs in Wyoming - <AUTHOR> https://experiment.exposure.co/uncovering-a-triceratops

<comment><AUTHOR> This was one of the best vacations I have ever taken! I mean, who knew anyone can just go dig up a dinosaur without any training? :)

</comment><comment><USER2> Experiment cofounder here - we're hiring :)</comment>


Ask HN: 150 beta signups – what should I do next? - <AUTHOR>

I recently thought of an idea then quickly set up an invitation page.so far, approximately 140 people have signed up, this is beyond my expectations as i thought that only about 20 or so people would sign up.I really need advise and suggestions on what to do next.I would like to know whether this is a sign of something that could become a business opportunity for me. Thanks. <comment><USER2> Not a sign of a business opportunity until you have confirmed people will pay for it. You have a long way to go until you have reached that point.

Meanwhile, develop your idea, and grow and nurture the community of interested people by communicating with them. Start a blog. Email your beta-signups. Get started in implementing your idea, in a pre-alpha version.

Keep testing for, and discovering the audience that will actually pay for the service. The minimum viable product merely creates the opportunity to then test for an audience. Minimum means just barely enough to show what's possible to the user, to test on your audience.

<comment><USER3> Yes, what redtexture said. This answer is much more complete than mine.

"Not a sign of a business opportunity until you have confirmed people will pay for it."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You know, if you posted a link to your page here, you'd probably get a few more signups.

</comment><comment><USER3> keep collecting emails, and build your Minimum Viable Product as quickly as possible, then launch it

</comment><comment><USER5> This is subtle egotism/bragging, imo. Show us your landing page and let your product speak for itself.</comment>


Testing the Random Numbers in Racket with Random Sanity - <AUTHOR> https://gus-massa.blogspot.com/2017/11/testing-random-numbers-in-racket-with.html <comment><USER2> I really don't understand how Random Sanity will make any security engineers sleep better at night... Maybe randomness vs complexity is an issue here.</comment>


I have proof that Steve Jobs really does run Apple from an underwater lair - <AUTHOR> http://blog.nelso.com/2010/09/apples-secret-works-underwater-ios-api.html

<comment><USER2> Headquarters: nelso knows about the lair, repeat nelso knows about the lair. Proceed neutralisation.

;)

More seriously, I think the simple reason is probably just that the flash memory doesn't work anymore but the OS and its apps maybe were installed in the ROM which has survived. Dunno... just a theory.

</comment><comment><USER3> Barely related: When my brother dropped his iPhone in a harbor, it took me about 3 minutes to find it with my toes in the frigid, chest deep water, but when as I lifted it to the surface it was still running with it's hello screen glowing.

A quick mechanical dewatering, clean water rinse, and another dewatering followed by a couple days of desiccant and gentle warmth and it mostly recovered. The camera did not survive, and a volume button is flakey.

I wonder if there is a business to had with a scooter, some anhydrous alcohol, and some vacuum desiccators. I suspect most toilet/pool drops could be recovered if you could train consumers to call for the superhero on the scooter to rush in, dewater, clean, and leave a loaner desiccator for the customer.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like a licensing scheme tied in the iPhone to the IMEI number and for the iPod Touch to the MAC address or some other unique chip number...</comment>


The evolution of dog breeds - <AUTHOR> http://priceonomics.com/endangered-dog-breeds-and-the-market-forces-behind/ <comment><USER2> Reading through this, I was kind of annoyed that the author hinted at the fact that today's English bull dog was a bull baiter ("But they didn't quite look like the jowly little gremlins waddling around the world today. Can you imagine any bulldog you've ever met taking on a bull?"). While in fact bull dogs were much more like today's American bull dogs. Further down, there's a picture of an English bulldog with the caption "An American bulldog named 'Spike'."[1]

I find it curious that an article about dog breeds incorrectly identifies an English bulldog as an American bulldog. A simple google search of the two breeds shows the very clear differences.

1\. [https://www.flickr.com/photos/cmichel67/13829224774/in/photo...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/cmichel67/13829224774/in/photolist-8UQVVH-8LXY33-4PdxXP- oUiF89-8rdeVc-8UU1eW-bVsgNW-8xVUh3-oso5br-4P9T7c-gGirxx- gGhK2p-4Pdy3H-4Pdy9T-6ED8NY-4Pdy76-6LcrRv-8rgn7b-8rdeTx-n53oHU-n51GLk-n51H8n-n51yCi- anD6XS-88DC3p-7iDf9j-7izk1Z-6U9ZNP-h4WWBV-8qongJ-8J3XjX-8eP3So- ctmiXj-4jMmtM-9vvEqP-5iVyse-ctmJxG-nRftRW-5eS3ps-4mYarR-WgfJM- jiGGyA-4t7x3C-514PZ-5edaCW-7SLx7C-qCQXh-6viK6J-4kLdXp-dU9ioW)

</comment><comment><USER3> Strange that he mentions a 101 Dalmatians film in 1985. I can't remember that and wikipedia knows nothing about it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Hundred_and_One_Dalmatians...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Hundred_and_One_Dalmatians_%28franchise%29)

The 1961 film was actually rereleased in 1979. That fits better with my childhood memories. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSF3qlTNbOA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSF3qlTNbOA)

<comment><USER4> It says it on the wiki for the actual movie.

>It was re-issued to cinemas four times: in 1969, 1979, 1985 and 1991.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> In some breeds you will still find breeders who, although they are breeding AKC registered dogs, are breeding for function rather than form. Retrievers are the obvious example - there are hunters who are using those dogs for their original purpose still and breeders looking to satisfy them. Unfortunately, in some breeds there is a divergence between "show lines" and "working lines", and a lot of judges are looking for traits that aren't really present in the "working lines" or much more exaggerated in the "show lines". This isn't so much a problem in the breed that I'm in - the dogs are bred just as much to excel in the lure coursing field these days (and, in Russia at least, for running down actual rabbits and other small game) as they are for the show ring. It might be that the breed's relative unpopularity is in some ways an asset - it's not found in either the top 10 or the bottom 50 breeds. Probably because keeping these dogs is not for the faint of heart.

</comment><comment><USER6> Side note: the article contains quite a few language mistakes, mostly missing small words like "of" or "for":

 _> This is probably a side effect over breeding_

 _> you can find plenty of dogs that were simply disappeared economic reasons_

These mistakes are very easy to miss while scanning an article fast, as I (and presumably many other people) are nowadays wont to do with the enormous overload of information on the net.

I would not be surprised if these words would much less used in the middle- term future.

</comment><comment><USER7> There's a v amusing sketch about Crufts and the rise of the dog show by John Finnemore: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG0BGqOKer8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG0BGqOKer8)

I've tried to talk friends out of getting problem breeds such as bulldogs, considering so many dogs are left in shelters, but to no avail. To breed an animal to extinction for fashion is an extremely odd thing to do, when you think about it...

</comment><comment><USER8> Dog breeds are a weird artifact. I don't view it as a bad thing that so many of these human-created breeds are going "extinct". Actually, they go pseudoextinct. The animals do fine, they interbreed with the general canine population and their descendants are mutts. If you've ever met a dog, they're quite OK with that. They have no concept of "breed" as far as we can tell and, if they do, they probably find mixed-breed animals more attractive (not that dogs are selective in that regard). We should be OK with it, too. Mutts live 2-3 years longer and are, unless you're after a specific aesthetic or breed profile, generally better dogs.

I wouldn't mind, honestly, if the practice of breeding animals for profit went extinct. We have too many good animals who are killed in shelters for no good reason. (We should stop that too, preferring TNR, but one issue at a time.) That's far more heartbreaking than the possibility that some weird-looking creature that wouldn't exist in nature and requires almost cruel human interventions (see: English Bulldogs, who now require C-sections) will not have descendants, or will have descendants of a more hybrid nature (pseudoextinction).

I think that dog breed is such a thing because of confirmation bias. So many people say, "oh, I got a French Bulldog and she's the sweetest thing ever" or "my Golden is smarter than I am" and I'm sure that they do have great dogs... but I have awesome cats and they're just regular mutt cats. As long as the animal is properly socialized, mixed-breed is best if you're just looking for a good pet.

<comment><USER9> I had a French Bulldog, and she was indeed the sweetest thing ever. (Still is, in fact, but she lives in California due to a set of complicated circumstances.)

I have never known another dog who was in such _need_ of being in constant physical contact with me. Admittedly, part of it probably had to do with her being a rescue, but still: Frenchies are extraordinarily affectionate.

That said, I would never buy one from a breeder. The fact that bulldogs are so inbred that they require artificial insemination and c-sections to reproduce says that it's time those breeds go extinct. If I had the opportunity (and the proper time) to get another rescue Frenchie, though, I'd do it again in a heartbeat

For your viewing pleasure, my little girl, Moxie:

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8104303829/in/s...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8104303829/in/set-72157630593075360)

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8292373427/in/s...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8292373427/in/set-72157630593075360)

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8403846731/in/s...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8403846731/in/set-72157630593075360)

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8590965099/in/s...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8590965099/in/set-72157630593075360)

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8609317262/in/s...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8609317262/in/set-72157630593075360)

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8658684108/in/s...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8658684108/in/set-72157630593075360)

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8776664388/in/s...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8776664388/in/set-72157630593075360)

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8773349885/in/s...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/8773349885/in/set-72157630593075360)

[https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/10078258256/in/...](https://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrethorst/10078258256/in/set-72157630593075360)

<comment><USER10> Your photos of Moxie brightened my day a little. Thanks!

<comment><USER11> Shameless self promotion, but if you like French bulldogs, we've got a ton to look at on Pack - [http://packdog.com/breed/french- bulldog](http://packdog.com/breed/french-bulldog) :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> PIT OF DESPAIR, Birmingham, Tuesday (UNN) — A South Somerset Atrocity Terrier named Soberhill Black Medik Markenbrow Beatrice Vraibleu has beaten 25,000 canine rivals to win Best of Show at this year's Crufts in Birmingham.

The event, held in the Gladiator Pit at Birmingham's National Exhibition Centre, attracted more than 143,000 freak-show ghouls and failed concentration camp doctors.

Soberhill Black Medik Markenbrow Beatrice Vraibleu is owned by top breeder Diana Mosley-Mengele, 48, of Gloucestershire. "It is unbelievable. This dog has done so well. It is the greatest accolade you could wish for. We may have to think about retiring him now because there is nothing left for him to do. Of course, we can't breed from him, because the genitalia have been entirely bred out of the line in order to allow the extra legs to grow in."

Second place went to a one-year-old pit bull terrier called Thatcher, who, in a virtuoso display of the breed's skills, ate one of the judges.

Dog breeding in the UK is concerned with every detail of a dog's appearance. "The perpetual haemophiliac bleeding from the snout must trickle along approved lines," said Miss Mosley-Mengele. "In addition, the lifelong whimperings of pain must be pitched between 3000 and 5000 Hertz. I had to drown four bags of culls on this point in the last month alone."

Other events in the Arena yesterday included the Flyball Team semi finals and finals, the Agility International Invitational and a parade of Obedience winners. Particularly good showing in the Obedience trials came from those dogs who helped in corraling their fellow canines and assisted their owners in the vital genetic and surgical work needed to further the show-dog hobby.

Victoria Stilwell, star of the TV show Cull The Unterhünd, set a few hearts aflutter around the show whilst filming a special episode of the popular programme and personally chopping up bloody hunks of cull to throw to the aspiring Crufts entrants.

Crufts was established in Argentina in 1946 by public-spirited recent German immigrants who felt their skills and hobbies were no longer welcome in their homeland. This year's event has been overshadowed by accusations that the show is cruel, with animal charities and the International Criminal Court in the Hague expressing their concerns. Show organiser the Kennel Club is putting measures in place to deal with the problem, starting with kidnapping PETA activists and mincing them for dog food.

PICTURE: Soberhill Black Medik Markenbrow Beatrice Vraibleu, the South Somerset Atrocity Terrier who won this year's Crufts. Note the exquisite and much-prized ulceration patterns on the flank.

[http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Crippled_diseased_...](http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnNews:Crippled_diseased_genetic_fetishisation_wins_Crufts)

<comment><USER13> Linking animal cruelty to the holocaust? Really?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm desperately trying to come up with an anecdote that combines DEA raids that begin with canine murder, dog insurance, swatting, gated communities, Michael Picket of the secret service and Aaron Swartz fame, and stem cell research.

I'm usually good at this but the requisite savoir faire eludes me.

*mutt comment. Of course its downvoted./</comment>


Dropbox Spam Attack Tied to Stolen Employee Password - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/dropbox-spam-attack-tied-to-stolen-employee-password/ <comment><USER2> As integrated as DropBox is into major corporate technology, they really need to be careful with this type of stuff. While an employee's error is often unavoidable, security is a cloud storage company's only real asset.</comment>


Todo:  Talk Openly, Develop Openly - <AUTHOR> http://todogroup.org <comment><USER2> I'd recommend seeing the comments from jamesgpearce (of Facebook) and amateurhuman (of GitHub) on this previous thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8321995](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8321995). Also, this Wired piece does a really good job of capturing the origins of the group and what it's trying to do: [http://www.wired.com/2014/09/medieval- style-guilds-will-rema...](http://www.wired.com/2014/09/medieval-style-guilds- will-remake-tech-behind-facebook-google/).

Folks are right that the goals are somewhat vague, and some of that is intentional... we're still working it out. But we realize that we all work at companies that have formal open source programs that are solving a lot of the same problems, but we aren't collaborating with each other to the extent that we could. Particularly when it comes to how we run those programs and deal with the challenges that are unique to medium to large companies using and releasing open source. This group is an attempt to start having those discussions.

</comment><comment><USER3> The goal here seems very vague and not well defined. And the fact that all its members are high-profile companies worries me that their involvement will merely been a facade for publicity more than anything truly constructive.

<comment><USER4> If this web site is any indication of what they mean by "open"... I don't think we agree on what that word means.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I hope this group can figure out a master contributor license agreement. Getting together N bilateral CLAs is not ideal.

</comment><comment><USER6> Publicity stunt? The expression "Empty barrelse, make the most noise" comes to mind.

</comment><comment><USER7> Let's say I worked for Microsoft. Why should we join this, as opposed, to say, putting that energy towards actual open source projects? Assume non-infinite resources.</comment>