The Unwelcome Mat - How Not to Attract Tourists - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/the-unwelcome-mat.html <comment><USER2> I'm British. I visit the USA 2-3 times per year and travel elsewhere quite frequently. I would rate the "welcome mat" as rather less welcoming than Yugoslavia during the Cold War (a Communist dictatorship).

One annoying note: my wife and I did not change our names when we got married. On a couple of recent occasions we've travelled separately via different airports/on different dates, to rendezvous subsequently. If entering the USA separately on such trips, she usually gets the third degree: "why aren't you travelling with your husband?"

There's serious institutional sexism at work in the immigration system. (Not just the discrimination against middle-easterners that we all know about.)

One point to note is that ICE personnel live and work locally. So your reception varies quite dramatically depending on your port of entry. At Portland and Seattle, for example, they're generally polite, friendly, and about as reasonable as it's possible to be while working within an unreasonable framework. On the other hand, I actively try to avoid entering the US at Newark. The _least_ annoying US immigration clearance experience I've had was in Dublin, Ireland -- the US immigration staff screen travellers by special arrangement on Irish soil (as on Canadian soil) and they've pretty much gone native. Alas, that means flying via Aer Lingus or Delta, which add other drawbacks ...

<comment><USER3> The only time I travelled into Yugoslavia during the Cold War (July '88) was _rather_ scary - we were on a train from Italy and it stopped in the middle of nowhere and a troops appeared and surrounded the train. I distinctly remember watching them set up what looked like an enormous machine gun of some kind, which was pointed directly at our compartment.

They then did whole "papers please" routine down the length of the train. Things got quite amusing when they got to my travelling companion as he had grown a beard since having his passport photo taken - so his facial hair was given a rather close examination and a sound tug or two.

In my typically rather naive way I thought it was all quite exciting, at least until they got to some harmless old lady who clearly did _not_ have her papers in order and the soldiers all got really very angry indeed - to the point where one took out his pistol and started waiving it around rather a lot. They probably shouted at her for the best part of an hour.

Eventually the train moved on, but it took a _long_ time and was very unpleasant.

<comment><USER4> At US airports there are also soldiers or guards carrying big scary automatic weapons in plain sight, you get your fingerprints taken and a picture shot from several angles like you're some sort of criminal and if they decide your papers warrant "special attention" you'll get not only yelled at, but fondled _quite_ a bit more than just a few tugs on your beard.

It's also the only place that made me take my shoes off before the metal detector, which I found quite humiliating--maybe sounds weird but there is something about having to partially undress and being made to walk around on your socks for a bit in front of very unfriendly looking officers trying to decide whether they shall give you an additional pat-down or not that just screams WELCOME TO AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE.

I dunno, it was good to have visited the place once but I'm not sure if I want to go there again. My US friends can come to Europe next time :)

<comment><USER5> > At US airports there are also soldiers or guards carrying big scary > automatic weapons in plain sight

When I was in Frankfurt in the 80s, it looked like every airport and train policeman carried a submachine gun.

In both Germany and the UK, I saw ordinary police carrying submachine guns outside the airport. (The UK surprised me.) Again, the 80s.

Has that changed? (I saw a couple of Italian police outside of airports with submachine guns post-2005.)

I've never seen more than a couple of automatic weapons in a US airport (and I spend way too much time in them). (BTW - M-16s aren't "big scary".)

I've seen maybe 10 US police outside of airports with automatic weapons in the last 30 years.

I was surprised how well armed the Indonesian airport police were in 2010.

<comment><USER6> _The UK surprised me_

I'm surprised at your surprise. The thing to remember is that terrorist groups has been a real and continuous threat in many European countries since at least the 60's. So airport security is something they've been taking seriously for decades and as such serious men with sub-machines guns have always been part of the scenery in most major European airports.

<comment><USER7> The UK thing is gently surprising. It's only reletively recently that they've started openly carrying guns.

Metropolitan Police were first permanently stationed at Heathrow in 1974. Boundary and operational conditions meant that most airport police could not carry arms; a law change in 1974 made it possible for them to do so.

But they openly started carrying machine guns in 1986.[1]

The UK had domestic terrorism for a long time before that happened. (Also, after.[3])

([http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-09/news/mn-14156_1_machi...](http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-09/news/mn-14156_1_machine- guns))

([http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19860109&...](http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19860109&id=e7dAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=x6UMAAAAIBAJ&pg=5735,1145611))

[3] ([http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ira-bombs-on-runway-as- jet...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ira-bombs-on-runway-as-jets-land- mortar-attack-at-heathrow--new-campaign-fear--terrorism-act-renewed-in- commons-1428076.html))

As an off-topic aside, my recent web searches include things like [heathrow mortars] and [machine guns heathrow] and so on. It says something that my totally innocent searching for information has left me with some anxiety.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My country is not a US "ally", so what I say may not apply to every one.

One thing we get used to is the "step aside" treatment. When a border agent sees my Lebanese passport with "arabic gibberish" they usually react the same way. There's a little hesitation, (one time the agent even called her supervisor), then I'm asked to "step aside", go to a special lane, get a full body search from an extremely cold person following protocole to the letter. They will go through all my stuff, literally everything and after making sure I'm "clean" they let me go.

I don't complain much though, it's just a funny ritual. And more often than none, the "step aside" lane is far less crowded than the regular one, which means that despite the intensive search, it's still takes me less time.

On the other hand, one of my closest friends studying at Purdue University had a mandatory two hour stop in an interrogation room, every time he passezd by the airport of Chicago, because he has the mention "born in Beirut" on his French passport. "Randomly selected" they said...

<comment><USER9> It's a well written article, good to see on a site like nytimes.

I have to also agree with your statement. I have been to the states 3 times, first in 2006 where I flew into JFK and was "randomly selected" (woooo, I won!) and then detained for additional questionning for 5 hours.

What did they ask me? Name, DoB, place of birth (all info IN MY PASSPORT ALREADY!), fathers/mothers name, address, what job I did, where I was staying. I have no problems them asking me, but it's the way they treat you. I got put in a waiting room, told to sit down and answer these question in an "application" form. Having filled this in they just told me to sit down. When I got up to ask what was taking so long, "Sir, would you please sit unless you are called". As if the sir makes it polite. Eventually they stamped my passport and I was through.

Flash forward to July 2010, first stop Atlanta. Same deal. I'l also been backpacking for 6 months. That raised an eyebrow when he looked through all the stamps. I hadn't gone to any of those "terrorist" countries though. I was born in Bangladesh and have in the UK since I was a year old. I did get asked though \- Did you have any military training before you left? \- Have you been to country X, Y, Z \- Why did you go to X, Y, Z. Do you not have a job? How did you get time off? \- I even got asked why I left Bangladesh. Really?!? I was a year old mate, didn't really have a say in the matter!

The last time I went was December 2011. That time was a breeze. Flew into Newark, I was already on the system now (I had a change of passport between first 2 visits). I STILL however got briefly questioned in the queue to the counter, I have no idea why, but colour of skin is the only thing...

My brother went to Peru a few years back, he a his girlfriend had a stopover in Miami for a couple hours. Note they were not "entering" America, this was a compulsory refuel stop I guess. He gets hauled in, his girlfriend is sitting outside WTF is going on. He misses his flight due to the delay, they barely get him on the next flight but now his girlfriend has no fight since she was not hauled in. The airline to their credit were good, swapped their flights and his girlfriend took his flight and they gave him another flight yet several hours later. The most ignorant part of this though, when questioned "where were you born" my brother said "London, UK", "But your passport says Kingston", "Yes, Kingston Upon Thames, near London, UK", "Well the only Kingston I know if Kingston, Jamaica". This delayed things a bit. Yes, the world is bigger than that corner of the earth!

</rant>

But the people their are some of the friendliest and hospitable people I have met, and I've travelled around a fair bit!

<comment><USER5> > What did they ask me? Name, DoB, place of birth (all info IN MY PASSPORT > ALREADY!),

They ask because folks using false papers occasionally don't know what their papers say.

<comment><USER9> They didn't ask me this face to face, they asked me to write it down after they had told me to sit down. If this was the case, I would have just copied it from my documents... yes, they had taken my passport, but I would have a photocopy in case it got lost right....?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm a white middle class U.S. citizen. The only country's borders that I get nervous crossing are America's. I've gotten harassed quite a few times. I'm at the point where I wonder if I'm on a watch list.

Last time I was in Germany for 3 months before flying back to the U.S. Questions I was asked in an unfriendly, brusque manner:

Why were you gone so long? Don't you work? What do you do for a living? Why would your employer let you be gone so long? Why did you pay so much for that?

I wish foreigners would stop visiting the U.S. Maybe then we would change our policies.

<comment><USER11> I dread crossing through American border control at the airport every single time. I use O'Hare, and they literally look and talk to you like dirt. I'm doing nothing wrong, I'm visiting America for legitimate reasons, yet I'm barked at like an army recruit.

Last time, I couldn't tell what the guy behind the glass screen was actually asking me to do, which irritated him immensely. "Lef'and." "Lef'and." "LEF'AND." It took a few tries for me to realise that what he was trying to say was "Can you put your left hand on the scanner, please?"

Maybe it's because I'm British, but I find the British border and security people far more pleasant, which is strange because on the whole, I find British people colder than Americans. Even when something goes wrong, they're apologetic (I was randomly picked for a full pat-down last time I flew out of Manchester, and it was all done with friendliness, good humour, and apologies for delaying me slightly.)

"Please" and "thank you" cost nothing, and would likely be quicker than these repeated barked orders. I like the American people--on the whole, I find them pleasant, polite, good-humoured, decent people. I mean, I _am_ marrying one! So where do they find these people who work on the borders? Every single time I go through, I'm incredibly nervous of doing something slightly wrong, which makes me more nervous because I look nervous and worry they'll think I'm up to something. It's terrifying.

<comment><USER12> Coming into the UK through Heathrow, as a non-EU citizen, can be quite unpleasant. It's less so nowadays than before, and it was also highly dependent on where you are coming from and what passport you are carrying and when you are landing. That said, they tend to warm up the more you seem to know the drill and the more stamps for entry you have in your passport. For first time visitors the experience can be pretty aweful as they play Jeremy Paxman on you after you've just spent 10 hours on a flight. That said, if the immigration officer is of an ethnic minority they are usually much nicer. It's one of the times I don't feel bad for racial stereotyping, when I have a choice of desk after 40 minutes of queuing and aim for the non-white officer.

I find the other UK airports to be much friendlier in general, they even say 'please' and 'thank you' and even have a sense of humour.

<comment><USER13> I really like London City airport.

Last time I landed there I literally blitzed through immigration and boarded a DLR train like 15 minutes after landing.

A beautiful approach, too.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure how keen Londoners are on being blitzed.

Even now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For Canadians, it is infinitely easier to enter communist Cuba than the United States. I passed through extra screening in Cuba once, because I had previously worked there, which made them nervous. The _secondary_ screen was more in than speaking to a normal American guard.We had a great conversation, actually. We laughed, and talked about my work in Cuba.

In the USA there seems to be a no laughing rule. In Amercan airports, you're treated as if you're doing something wrong by being there. The guards glare a you - it's very strange.

For some reason, land border crossings are usuall better. So I try and enter by train or car if possible. While i've had 1-2 bad experiences by land, the guards are usually quite nice.

The TSA seems to be the main problem, and their toxic culture has infected other airport personnel.

I like Americans, but I avoid traveling to the country.

<comment><USER16> I fly into the US via YVR Vancouver approximately 18 times per year, and it's almost always a terrible experience. ICE officers are surly, impatient and unpleasant, even when there's no lineup and no urgency. There are exceptions, there is one officer who knows me on sight and always asks how my previous visits were. The majority can't even be bothered to make eye contact or do anything beyond order me through the fingerprint scans and photographs. Once, one accused me of hating America for living in Canada but doing business in the USA.

By car, however, the experience has almost always been excellent. One border agent told me an extended anecdote about why Andrew Jackson was called 'Old Hickory' when I paid my VISA fees with a $10 bill. Another greeted me with 'you know weezy? good times?'. They seem relaxed, friendly and happy in general.

There definitely seems to be a difference in culture between the airport personnel and the land border personnel.

<comment> excuse-me I think there is a natural air of doom over everyone who works at an airport. But US immigration at YVR is the worst. I think it's because they are forced to be in Vancouver while still working for ICE. It's like being forced to work at a soup kitchen inside a Purdeys chocolate shop!

<comment><USER17> Airports are the most soul-sucking places to be for anyone. I feel like crap after spending a few hours in one... I can't imagine working there every single day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My (German) perspective on this:

I've traveled to the US (always to Boston) a few times over the recent years. While all of the "take your shoes off" stuff is annoying, it's really not that big of a deal.

The ESTA process can be done online and you can pay with your credit card. It takes about 15 minutes and 15 minutes after that you get an email.

It's all a little bit annoying, but I don't feel personally insulted and so far it worked without a hassle. The border security people have always been nice to me and it felt more like a chit-chat rather than an interrogation.

A lot of the process seems useless, but seeing as it doesn't take away all that much time, I'm fine with it.

I've been treated way worse traveling to eastern european countries by car.

<comment><USER19> Part of this may be your country of origin, part of it may be because you have ESTA clearance, and part of it may be because of the airport you fly into.

As a US passport holder I'm pretty much done using LAX, MIA, and EWR.

<comment><USER18> I don't think you can actually enter at all without ESTA clearance

<comment><USER20> You only need ESTA if you want a WT/WB (visa waiver) visa. If you already have another non-immigrant or immigrant visa and you meet the conditions of the visa, you don't need an ESTA. Also you don't need an ESTA for WT/WB if you're crossing the US border on land from Canada or Mexico.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm a Swedish citizen and I travel to the U.S. a few times a year (to Silicon Valley mostly). I _always_ dread going through customs. The TSA must have been rejected from _any_ other job, including flipping burgers, before landing this gig. They are usually _very_ rude and assume you are a terrorist until you persuade them that you're not.

That said, it varies _a lot_ between airports. I've flown through many different airports on my way to SFO, and the closer you get to the west-coast, the friendlier the agents (with individual exceptions of course). SFO and Seattle tend to be the most friendly ones in my experience. Yet, you're in a constant fear that you checked the wrong box somewhere, and they'll send you on the next flight home.

For a civilized country, this is simply unacceptable. I wish all politicians would be forced through this process every time they flew, and I'm confident that this would change in no-time.

<comment><USER22> Just a small note—US customs and immigration is handled by the Customs and Border Patrol, not the TSA (which handles security screening only).

<comment><USER21> Good point. You're right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I am a dual citizen (this includes US citizenship) and I was always amazed at how I'm treated when entering the US. It is as if the border guards were deciding whether to let me in or not! (Actually, I think this is exactly what they're doing) I mean, what does it matter where I'm heading in the US, where I work, or where my family lives? How is that anybody's business? I'm entering my own country, after all!

As a comparison, in most European countries the passport control does two things, and two things only: a) determine whether you are a citizen (e.g. passport control), b) determine whether you are a criminal that needs to be arrested immediately. There is no other option. If you are a citizen of the country you are entering and they don't arrest you right away, they can't detain you, question you, harass you, or do anything else. There are no questions about where you're heading, where you work, what you do for a living. There would be no point in asking: as a citizen, you have the right to be heading anywhere, working anywhere, or actually not making a living at all.

Land of the free, indeed.

<comment><USER24> They are probably trying to figure out if you are who you say you are by asking all kinds of questions that you know the answer for and an impersonator would struggle with. Not condoning they behavior, just pointing out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I met and married my wife overseas. When we moved back to the States, I went with her while she was cleared through immigration in Newark Airport, NJ. We waited in an area with other people going through the same process.

The immigration officer walked in with this disgusted look, sighed heavily, and proceeded to process everyone. It was appalling how he treated people, yelling at them to place their hand properly for fingerprinting, telling people not to talk unless asked to, etc. He proceeded to treat my wife like crap as well, until he looked over her paperwork and noticed she was travelling with me, and asked her where her husband was. She pointed at me and his demeanor changed immediately. He obviously wasn't used to being observed by a fellow American in his day to day work.

I wish I had had the balls to say something to him, but as far as we were concerned, he was holding the keys to the kingdom.

</comment><comment><USER26> I made my first trip to the US this week, Austin via Houston from UK to sxsw.

I had read various reports on the state of entering America, but it was far worse than I expected.

I tried to find info about visas, but it said I didn't need one for what was practically a holiday. It was only when I got to the airport that I was told I needed a visa waiver. I fired up the iPhone and spent the best part of 30 minutes trying to fill out what is probably the worst multipart form I've seen since 2003.

On arrival at Houston it seems a couple of other planes turned up. The end result was a 3 hour wait in line to get through passport control (Americans were caught up in this equally). Fingerprints, photos, 3rd degree about my visit - if they don't want me here, they should have said before I booked my ticket.

After checking-in to the US, I had to go back through "security". That was another 1.5 hour queue. I opted out of the scanner, and they were pretty good about it a Houston. However, on the way back at Austin they make you stand in a ridiculous perspex shout it about the place and really make you pay for not going through the scanner.

Over all, the experience I had is summed up pretty well by this article. I felt totally unwelcome, kind of like an 18 year old trying to get into an over capacity nightclub past a couple of bored bouncers who already took a dislike to me...

</comment><comment><USER27> I deliberately avoid planning any trip to the US because of this. The only reason I'll travel to the US for at this point is if I have an overwhelming business imperative to do so. For example, I'd probably travel to the US to be interviewed by YC, if I ever applied. For pleasure? Not a chance.

<comment><USER28> > The only reason I'll travel to the US for at this point is if I have an > overwhelming business imperative to do so. For example, I'd probably travel > to the US to be interviewed by YC, if I ever applied. For pleasure? Not a > chance.

Don't fuck up your visa application though, a colleague did that (he got a business visa but the wrong one), was refused entry and — because it was during the Eyjafjallajökull event — had the chance to visit the US's penitentiaries for a week before they could put him on a plane back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> While the card-filling and pointless questioning is a pain the worst aspect of arriving in the US is the state of the US airports, specifically the facilities in arrivals.

On my first visit I was unable to find a working ATM, was insulted by a surly woman running an info desk who was more interested in talking to her boyfriend and was accosted by numerous taxi drivers none of which seemed to be properly licensed.

The experience was no different to arriving in a 3rd world country.

<comment><USER19> LOL, have you been to CDG (Paris) yet?

<comment><USER29> I've flown to Nice many times and it's fine. Although, on the way out last time (when I had a proper beard) I was pulled aside by the security guy and had the following whispered in my ear:

"I know who you are…"

 _panic. heart in mouth. I'm about to be locked up_

(beat)

"Nice to meet you Santa Claus!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The comments in this thread are really eye opening. I like the YC forums because they're very entrepreneurial and not full of a bunch of whiners.

The fact that there are so many negative complaints regarding US border security is more than noteworthy. The TSA and Immigration are just so way out of control.

Overall, I think that this is the result of a lack of consistent and sane policies regarding immigration and border control. On the one hand, we do relatively little to stop illegal immigration on some of our borders for political reasons. Then on the other hand, we flail madly in the authoritarian direction by having this massive and unchecked TSA bureaucracy.

We really have no idea what we're doing on a national level. As ineffective and counterproductive as border security and immigration is here, I can bet even without looking at the numbers that it isn't cheap.

</comment><comment><USER31> I recall reading somewhere that the reason that these ESTA forms exist, or the travel cards for Britain and Australia is that if you arrive and they found that you really _had_ a criminal record when you ticked the box that said you didn't, is so they can throw you out of the country for providing false information on the document, rather than for having a criminal record.

<comment><USER32> Sounds rather pointless to me, but if that is the case, how about moving to two questions: "Have you read all the rules?" "Are you breaking any of them?"

Much quicker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is very accurate. As a Swede going to visit the US, a country which I love dearly, the last summer my main fear was filling out forms incorrectly or the airports security procedure. And Sweden is more or less a total ally to America, if unofficial, and a major trading partner. It's hard to find someone less threatening than a Swedish citizen.

Which really is a shame, because in general Americans are a friendly bunch of people.

<comment><USER34> At least you don't need green cards. Poland is more or less USA troyan horse these days (see Afghanistan, Iraq, missile defence, etc), and still to go to USA you need to participate in lottery..

I think it's somehow playing out for Poland good - it makes brain drain a little slower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This was interesting because, as an American who has traveled abroad, I was not aware that we make even our closest allies, the British, pay a fee online before entering America. I would love to hear from foreigners on their border experiences.

<comment><USER32> Compared to flying somewhere where you need an actually approved visa, like China, ESTA is both conveniant and cheap. Given that until not long ago we Brits needed a visa to go to America, it's a hell of a step up.

<comment><USER36> That's true. Chinese visa procedures are nightmarish, and can change without warning. But it's a bureaucratic and paperwork nightmare, not an inter- personal nightmare - there's no third degree. And once you land on Chinese soil, border control is a breeze. I'd much sooner take the grief weeks before the trip than when I land, tired after a long haul flight.

<comment><USER32> Last time I went to China I and several colleagues were placed into quarantine (biohazard suits around us) for about an hour, and later had to bribe a customs officer to get the tech. equipment we had shipped seperately out of the airport.. not always a breeze!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> _Mark Vanhoenacker is a writer and airline pilot based in New York._

I read through the whole interesting submitted article, and the one question I have is about actual numbers of tourist visitors to the United States.

After the worldwide recession, tourism to the United States from other countries declined,

[http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Foreign-Tourism-Drops- in...](http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Foreign-Tourism-Drops-in-United- States-92774799.html)

but the number of tourists has since recovered. The United Nations World Tourism Barometer

[http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights1...](http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights11enlr.pdf)

reports that the United States is second only to France in the number of foreign tourism visits, and that the United States enjoyed growth in visits from the 2010 reporting year compared to the 2009 reporting year. The submitted article didn't mention statistics like this, but reported on anecdotes.

I'm an American who has lived overseas. I haven't crossed an interational border in a bit more than a decade. (All other members of my family have crossed international borders since 9/11/2001.) I hope to travel to Canada by car with my whole family this summer. I fully agree with the author's premise that the United States ought to look as friendly and welcoming as the people in my community when foreign visitors first encounter a United States border official. But I can't help but wonder if this really matters a lot from the "attract tourists" point of view, if the United States has a continued growth in the number of tourists, and it is second only to a Schengen Area country that has a land border and rail connections with other Schengen Area countries in the number of foreign visitors it enjoys every year. Maybe most visitors understand that annoying security measures at the border are part of what make the freedom of movement inside the United States borders a palatable policy for many Americans who are more worried about terrorist attacks than I am.

<comment><USER38> It's also possible that word hasn't spread enough among potential foreign travelers of the pain of the U.S. Border control. A lot of foreign travelers to the US may have not experienced recent border control at all, and so they decide to travel without any real knowledge about that.

The "unwelcome mat" may be damping tourism growth by discouraging repeat visitors rather than outright discouraging all visitors.

<comment><USER39> > The "unwelcome mat" may be damping tourism growth by discouraging repeat > visitors rather than outright discouraging all visitors.

I agree 100%.

I managed a hostel in Ecuador for 6 months, and most visitors from Europe had a forced stopover in the US on their way to Latin America. The horror stories were amazing, and many people vowed to never again cross into the "land of the free".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Here's some more anecdotal evidence about the nonsense of the ESTA form. My g/f is British, we live in Toronto. We flew to the US and her ESTA application from a few years back had expired. (Every 3-4 years I think, you have to renew). So at the airline check in, we're informed she'll have to re-apply. We though we were screwed but no, she just had to apply right there on the spot using my iPad and the airport's free wi-fi. Went to the ESTA site, filled out some info, paid the fee with a credit card and then proceeded to US immigration (which in Toronto, is in the airport itself).

How much security could that form be adding if you can apply for it literally minutes before travelling to the US.

<comment><USER13>
      How much security could that form be adding if you can apply for it literally minutes before travelling to the US.

I heard from an American work colleague that a main point is traceability. You pay with a credit card and can fairly easily be tracked by that, while you're in the country.

I'm not sure how true this is and I'm not a believer in whacky conspiracy theories, but it seemed rather plausible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> On my recent trips to and through the US, I've been pleasantly surprised by how I've been treated at the border.

All of the staff were extremely friendly and helpful - they seemed as though they were actively trying to create a good impression and reverse this perception.

I'm a Brit, usually travelling via NYC.

</comment><comment><USER42> I've avoided all conferences and work trips to the U.S. since 2003. Next year my wife's cousin is getting married in NY and I really don't want to go -- purely because of the hostile airport security

It's generally not about the practical implications (there aren't any, most tourists pass through fine) but about the theoretical possibilities and the implication that I'm only visiting so I can blow something up, or that I've strapped C4 to my 4yo daughter who must be xray'd or patted-down.

</comment><comment><USER43> I am an American citizen. My race is not white though. I have traveled all over the world, and have visited over 30 countries. There is no country that I am more afraid to enter than the United States of America, my own home country. When arriving in the United States I am rudely interrogated and treated guilty (of what?) until proven innocent. When I arrive in other countries, I'm told "Welcome". It makes me sad.

</comment><comment><USER44> The painful part of the whole entering the US thing is not the bureaucracy or the security theater. It's the people.

The whole system seems to be filled with people that are trained to make entering the US an unpleasant experience. Even when everything goes smoothly, rarely are people at the border being nice, polite and helpful as they are in most other countries.

This is all the more remarkable since it is so distinctively un-American. Americans are probably the most friendly and open people in the Western world. Once you get past the border, it's a breath of fresh air compared to most European countries.

So regardless whether or not the entire process is really justified, my main question is: what the fuck is wrong with these people?

</comment><comment><USER45> Every once in a while I daydream about a government full of rationalists who one day say to themselves, "Hey, um, you know what would be a better thing to spend our money on preventing than terrorism? Cancer."

</comment><comment><USER46> I can't even find the words to explain just how much I agree with this article.

There are several times when I've been absolutely amazed at how horribly I was treated while going through boarder control, and I'm an American. --They even treat us like criminals, so the bullshit foreigners have to go through with ESTA, getting their fingerprints and photos taken and whatnot is beyond embarrassing. I live in Norway now, and when people I know are headed to the US, I actually feel the need to apologize about the treatment I know they'll receive, even though I wrote to my senators protesting a lot of these policies that our government voted in. I can only hope that one day they'll realize the injustice of what they've done.

I'm thankful that most countries - especially countries in Europe, haven't been vindictive and forced the same treatment on Americans, although I wouldn't blame them if they did.

</comment><comment><USER47> I have thought for a long time that part of the US tax code ought to be devoted to getting people to travel outside the US. A nice tax credit for foreign travel would open the eyes of our citizens to what lies beyond their town borders.

I would see this as an investment in culture and not necessarily a subsidy. Maybe it's something you can use once every few years and not every year.

This would do wonders for both the average US citizen's view of the world as well as the world's view of the US citizens.

My hope is that something like this might just lead to more sensible behavior towards other cultures and peoples. What happens when entering the country is but one small example of the problem.

<comment><USER48> The American government just _handing out money to foreigners_? Get out of here, you filthy liberal.

Of course, sarcasm on my part, but I'm pretty sure that would be the kind of reaction you'd get. You think of "investment in culture" as a good thing, many others see a liberal conspiracy.

<comment><USER47> The funny thing is that I am not a liberal. I'm not a conservative either. A sensible mixture, maybe.

Traveling really opens your mind in ways that can't be quantified. I really think that our countrymen can be very egocentric to the point of bordering on ignorance. Understanding and knowing about other cultures is very important. I'd gladly support such a tax incentive because I am sure that it would pay dividends many times over in amazing ways.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I don't want to pile on with my complaints about travelling to the USA, so I'll just mention that I will not fly there for leisure or if it can be avoided. Living in Toronto allows me to drive across, which will suffice in most occasions. I came to this conclusion after a few unwelcoming treatments.

</comment><comment><USER50> CDG airport in France has awesome security. One time through there after having put my passport through a washing machine by accident, when I asked if this would be a problem they just laughed and said no, no, not at all, it's very clean.

Meanwhile, under no circumstances would I even consider visiting or transiting the US.

<comment><USER51> I recently had to change Airports in France from CDG to Orly when travelling to Barcelona for the Mobile World Congress. I had a Schengen Visa and on mentioning that I was on transit to Barcelona, they started demanding to see the invitation (Lucky I had it printed), whether I had some cash to take me Orly Airport, my credit card and a load of bullshit questioning by a guy who I could hardly hear because he was speaking very fast in a low voice behind the glass. I felt like asking him to speak up but felt like that wouldn't have ended well. After some moments he stamped the thing and threw it back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Even as an American, border patrol officers scare the crap out of me. I'm totally worried about stumbling on some dumb question and getting detained.

I'll never forget my return from Mexico on the day before 9/11 where I was greeted by a border patrol agent with piercing blue eyes, leather gloves with cut-off tips and a big nasty snot bubble protruding from his right nostril.

</comment><comment><USER53> > At Beijing's glittering airport, travelers are invited to electronically > rate their immigration agent.

They do that in every gov't office in China and every (gov't owned) bank. All have these little things with buttons, where you can rate the service with one to five stars. I highly doubt that anybody ever looks at those numbers. More likely that a very well-connected dude has a company producing these machines.

</comment><comment><USER7> "They" will say that they're under constant threat of harm; there are people (not necessarily terrorists) trying to smuggle stuff onto planes or into the country, and that they have to maintain constant vigilance and being gruff, grumpy, aggressive is a technique they use to unsettle people carrying illicit items.

There are obvious problems with that. Interestingly, the (much mocked) TSA blog lists some items they find each week. Very roughly, about 20 guns per week are taken as carry on onto planes.

(<http://blog.tsa.gov/search/label/Week%20In%20Review>)

I have no idea how many people go through TSA each week. Nor how many guns (loaded or otherwise) they miss. I have no idea if any of the weapons they stopped would have been used for violence. But that feels like a very small number, when compared to the direct and indirect costs of the system.

Note also the mission creep - they're very happy to list any drugs they find. (They do say that they're not looking for drugs, but if they happen to find them they have to report it.)

</comment><comment><USER54> "The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" - Plato

</comment><comment><USER55> I like the article, but the conclusion is wrong. Hiring even more border staff is not the solution. Common sense and logical decisions are the correct approach. Scrap everything else.

</comment><comment><USER56> My parents want to move to the States from Canada (long story) and it's staggering all the paperwork they need to fill out.

One of the requirements is to document everywhere you have lived for the past 16 years, including home addresses. With all the places they have lived in Canada, it's taken them weeks to Columbo up the information.

Myself, I've lived five places in 6 months about 10 years ago (another long story). Recollecting those times and places is something I'd rather not do.

</comment><comment><USER57> My name is on the no fly list (well, mine and a million others). I get 'randomly' stopped by customs every time I re-enter the country through an airport. This doesn't happen at passport control but rather at customs. I've started leaving notes addressed "Dear TSA" in my luggage just to laugh at the expression on the agents face as they go through my dirty clothes.

</comment><comment><USER58> Isn't that called Xenophobia?

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

<comment><USER8> Imho, it's not xenophobia as much as "foreigners don't vote, who cares about making things better for them".

<comment><USER29> Tourists bring lots of money which they spend in the shops, hotels, restaurants, taxis, etc of voters.

Voters should be voting to encourage this.

<comment><USER9> Especially given the current economic climate, you'd think they'd want every dime they could get!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> There could be some value of filling in the questionnaire beforehand, namely to make you aware of certain restrictions ahead of time. Like the fact that you shouldn't be a genocidal terro ... OK, there really is no justification for THAT kind of question.

But, for example, I recently smuggled a packet of Spanish Jamon into a Latin American country which completely bans bringing that kind of thing in. But I only found out on the plane, and there's no way I was going to flush 400gr of prime Iberico (which on top of it was a gift) on arrival.

</comment><comment><USER60> This is a good idea. I have not visited the US in more than 15 years, so has not been subjected to fingerprints or this online form.. Do you think it is wortwhile for me to wait until rules change, or should I get used to the idea that the rest of the world will hold enough of interesting scenery for me to visit during my lifetime.

</comment><comment><USER61> Leaving the US equally difficult.

I went to a conference in Orlando and was planning to fly through LA to SYD.

However, the DHS told me I had to report to the LA office before I leave during office hours, so I had to change my flights to one day earlier and spend the night in LA just to check in at the DHS.

</comment><comment><USER62> I don't know if it still exists but for Germans the most "fun" question is wether we are Nazis.

</comment><comment><USER63> I get nervous every time I cross the border back in to America, and I'm an American citizen.

</comment><comment><USER64> I wonder, did citizens immediately prior to the existence of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany sit around in bars and have the exact same rational discussion that we're having here?

Surely it can't get that bad, but it did before.

</comment><comment><USER65> It's not an unwelcome mat, it's a go away mat. As an American who travels a lot the biggest hassle I've ever had to deal with when entering another country was putting my bag through an x-ray machine and filling out a form about fruits and vegetables. Whenever I get back to the states I see hours long lines of non citizens waiting to get through customs with way too few customs officers stamping passports. That alone would be an unwelcome mat, but put on everything else we make people go through and we're pretty much just saying "Go Away".

Along with the fee and abusive questionnaire at this site <https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/> we've also got this lovely informational site <http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1262.html> and tons of other fees <http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1263.html> . Then of course after you've paid all your fees and told the US government all about your diseases, mental illness, and intention to spy on them, you still have to give them your fingerprints, photo, submit to a search, wait in line for 2 hours, and answer many more questions about the same stuff.

It's not xenophobia. It's full on we think we're better than you and you pathetic humans get to deal with us 'cos we said so. The whole system wreaks of 'cos we said so. Every citizen and border patrol agent knows it's excessive and ineffective, but we keep on truckin' cos hey, they're all just doing their, trained to be overly aggressive, jobs.

</comment><comment><USER66> I tried to look at the ESTA form, but at the point where I read and agreed to the disclaimer, after I clicked on the Next button it wouldn't go any further.

Not a good start!</comment>


An Analysis of Minecraft-like Engines (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://0fps.net/2012/01/14/an-analysis-of-minecraft-like-engines/

<comment><USER2> Optimizing voxel data read times is a small part of the puzzle.

The primary challenge of voxel engines is adapting the rendering engine to accommodate for dynamic modifications. Light maps, shadow maps, bump maps, occlusion maps, texturing, LOD geometry... whatever. All kinds of things that are traditionally statically generated, need to be regenerated on the fly or done without. Which is why minecraft went for the retro-aesthetic, there wasn't really a choice in the matter back then. We're only now starting to see full-fledged voxel engines that can support a non-retro look, but they are still a long way behind the aesthetics that can be achieved with a normal engine.

<comment><USER3> > Which is why minecraft went for the retro-aesthetic

I though main reason why MC is retro is that Notch is not really an artist - he just wanted to create graphics quickly. And he brilliantly turned this into an advantage - I can't imagine MC without iconic square pigs and pixelated pickaxes.

<comment><USER2> Well he's not Michelangelo obviously, but low res pixel art is still art. Compare it to some of the clones or infinimer and it's clear that care went into the aesthetic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As someone who has work extensively with both mesh and voxel engines I can say each has its good points. If you want to go for maximum visual acuity. Go the mesh route, there are great tools for generating mesh content, the shaders are well understood. Now if you want to go for maximum interactivity, emergent behavior, and simplicity, the voxel route is by far the hands down winner. The author of the original article only had a superficial understanding of voxel engines and optimization techniques.

</comment><comment><USER5> Talking about voxel engines, I used to follow the progress of a minecraf-like game which, among its particularities, offered a spherical world, thanks to a clever deformation of a large cube. IIRC it also offered basic physics (falling trees). I'd like to check out where this game is at now, but I totally forgot the name. Does it ring a bell for anyone?

<comment><USER6> Not sure, maybe [http://sea-of-memes.com](http://sea-of-memes.com) ?

<comment><USER7> That game reminds me of Shores of Hazeron.

It was a neat little game where you essentially strand on a planet and start building your own city until you can build a rocket to leave the planet and explore the rest of the solar system. Then build a city on the moon so you can create custom spacecrafts to go even further into space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> More like bloxels. Chunky blocks are not same as high-resolution voxels from the point of view of gameplay. You can organize them way neater.

</comment><comment><USER9> Issues of the linked implementation link to great site about voxels in your browser (Free Software): [http://voxeljs.com/#what](http://voxeljs.com/#what)

</comment><comment><USER10> > So, if you believe these estimates are reasonable, then you should be > convinced that iteration by far dominates the performance of a Minecraft > style game.

I'll believe it when I see the profiler results. A good article none-the-less.

<comment> upvote-hero I agree.</comment></comment>


Who was lining up at the Apple store today? - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2010/08/21/whoWasLiningUpAtTheAppleSt.html <comment><USER2> Interesting, I've never heard of this phenomenon.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is odd considering it's a 24 hour store.</comment>


Kanban vs. Scrum: Here's What Your Team Needs to Know - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/kanban-vs-scrum-heres-what-your-team-needs-to-know-mxa23y9v <comment><USER2> For personal projects, Kanban has been a very good way to stay focused on incrementally building features for a minimal prototype of an idea. With free tools like Trello and GitHub projects it seems more for for personal use.</comment>


JavaZone 2014 movies - <AUTHOR> http://2014.javazone.no/ Java movies based on popular TV-shows. <comment><USER2> Previous years movies:

2013: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3418SeWZfQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3418SeWZfQ)

2012: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXvm76e2X1Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXvm76e2X1Q)

2011: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1_KW6ww7Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1_KW6ww7Y)

2010-1: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnqAXuLZlaE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnqAXuLZlaE)

2010-2: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JZnj4eNHXE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JZnj4eNHXE)

</comment><comment><USER3> Lots of nice detail as well.

In the house of code one the protagonist is writing up the HeartBeatMessage class from the bouncycastle tls library: [https://github.com/bcgit/bc- java/blob/master/core/src/main/j...](https://github.com/bcgit/bc- java/blob/master/core/src/main/java/org/bouncycastle/crypto/tls/HeartbeatMessage.java)

in the Breaking Bad one has some java code that evaluates to his name on the tablet.

        public class JavaDoc {
          public String name() {
            return asList('I', 'x',
                          '`', 'u',
                          '`', 'a',
                          'x', 'd',
                          'q', 'f')
                          .stream()
                          .filter(c -> c != 120)
                          .map(c -> (char) (c + 1))
                          .map(c -> "" + c)
                          .reduce((a, b) -> a + b)
                          .get();
          }
        }

[https://gist.github.com/benmmurphy/386be40056bf3a2e263e](https://gist.github.com/benmmurphy/386be40056bf3a2e263e)

</comment><comment><USER4> Just a heads-up, the Game of Codes trailer is / might be NSFW, which makes sense as it's a GoT spoof.

<comment><USER5> I'd amend that to be "is definitely NSFW," and also the least funny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> House of Codes, just because Norwegian dudes imitating an American Southern accent is pretty awesome.

</comment><comment><USER7> The Breaking Bad one was funniest. "I'm the one who was using Lambdas before they were cool."

</comment><comment><USER8> Am I converting wrong or the ticket to the conference actually is 950,830942 Euros ?

<comment><USER9> For anyone else reading; here, the comma (,) is a decimal point, not something like a thousand separator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> These are insanely well produced!

Who produced them? There are no credits.

<comment><USER2> They are made by javaBin, the norwegian Java User Group who are the organizers behind JavaZone: [http://java.no](http://java.no)

The production of the videos are done by the norwegian producer company Seefood: [http://www.seefood.no](http://www.seefood.no)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Writing Bad, because MapReduce that's why.

</comment><comment><USER12> None of the above?

</comment><comment><USER13> Why are all three videos fueled by icky male power fantasies? :(</comment>


How Many Open Source Foundations Do We Need? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/09/how-many-open-source-foundations-do-we-need/index.htm <comment><USER2> Apparently the answer was - as many as are needed. Just why did the author write this - and why did it get posted here?

Am I missing something profound?

<comment><USER3> Obviously hinting at something. Author is ex-Sun, disgruntled with Oracle. Oracle has been offering some open soruce stuff to foundations. Someone who knows more than me could probably elaborate.</comment></comment>


MinimaLT: Minimal-latency Networking Through Better Security [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://cr.yp.to/tcpip/minimalt-20130522.pdf <comment><USER2> Worth a look (authors include D.J. Bernstein):

 _We describe here MinimaLT, a secure network protocol which delivers protected data on the rst packet of a typical client-server connection. MinimaLT provides substantial protections and is extraordinarily simple to con figure and use. In particular, it provides cryptographic authentication of servers and users; encryption of communication; simplicity of protocol, implementation, and con guration; clean IP-address mobility; and DoS protections"_

<comment><USER3> If I hadn't seen DJB's name on this, I would have read the abstract and thought "bullshit!" Now I just assume it's the most brilliant protocol ever written, and the source code is completely illegible :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> While I lack the skill set to fully appreciate the paper, I must say that it is very refreshing to see innovative proposals on this kind of all-important foundational elements.

These are the kind of submissions that make HN worth visiting, for all its problems. ;)

</comment><comment><USER5> One more important tidbit from the paper:

 _We plan to soon release Ethos_ [experimental robust-security OS] _and our Linux MinimaLT implementation as open source software._

<comment><USER6> <http://www.ethos-os.org/index.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone know why there is no affiliation listed for djb? Did he retire?

(Side note: I am not sure why it was downvoted, I apologize if my question is offensive/problematic for people. )

<comment><USER8> It is provided, just typeset weirdly. UIC is centered between the first four authors (Petullo, Zhang, Solworth, Bernstein). AFAIK all four of those are at UIC :)

According to the author's own website[1], his position at UIC is ongoing, as well.

[1]: <http://cr.yp.to/positions.html></comment></comment>


BitInstant hacked: What and how it happened - <AUTHOR> http://blog.bitinstant.com/blog/2013/3/4/events-of-friday-bitinstant-back-online.html

<comment><USER2> From the comments section of the linked blog post comes this quote (apparently) from Ben, the CEO at Site5:

 _To be rather blunt you should have better security questions. You should always put in a custom answer, for example I might use the question mother's maiden name and then the answer is "L@J-289098=a9jaosdjf" which I keep in an encrypted text doc or ecrypted note in 1Password._

Not a bad point.

<comment><USER3> Maybe Site5 should ask better security questions then. If they want users to enter what is effectively a password for "Mother's maiden name" they should just ask for a security password.

<comment><USER4> I agree that the true-to-life reminder questions are probably an outdated model. However there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the maiden name question. There is no server-side code checking in with your mother or running her middle name against a federal database, you can enter whatever you want in the box. Surely people who are savvy enough to be trading in Bitcoin realize this.

<comment><USER5>
      However there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the
      maiden name question.

Asking users to enter their mother's maiden name, when you actually think they certainly shouldn't do that, then blaming your customers for having used their maiden name, seems like an odd way of doing it.

If mother's maiden name isn't a good enough security question, stop asking it! And we all know it isn't a good enough security question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This attack may have been one of the problems, but there is some indication that BitInstant has deeper financial issues than this post would indicate. Perhaps a $12K hit would make a site like Bitinstant go silent and not process most transactions for weeks on end, but if that is the case then they are woefully underfunded.

<https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=128314.1380>

At various points in this thread, people posted saying the company even admitted privately to them that they did not have funds to process orders. FYI their most popular feature, Cash to Bitcoin Address, is still offline - presumably because they have no Bitcoins to deliver. The only indication that they have any funds at all is on the home page of Btc-e.com, which indicates (as of right now) that they have a $475 reserve at the site.

<comment><USER7> I can see that some people have had serious problems with them. For what it's worth, though, I used their service for the first time last week. It worked fine, and only took a few moments for them to complete the transaction after I deposited the cash.

<comment><AUTHOR> Same here. I used the Moneygram service at a CVS, and by the time I got home they had already sent the bitcoins. Great and prompt service. I hope they get back on their feet soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Damn, that must be frustrating as hell when a third party fucks you like that. And why is it always the DNS providers. Shouldn't that entire industry know they are target #1 by now?

On a tangential note, I hate security questions. I do not understand the need for them, or how they keep anything secure, when the questions they asks are always public knowledge.

<comment><USER9> While I agree that they are useless, I don't mind the security questions that are used to reset one's password, provided that proof of email ownership is required. These are just a minor nuisance.

The dangerous ones such as this allow someone to use the security questions in place of your password. These are less secure than if you were to use your place of birth and address as your password.

Their thought process probably goes something like "we can't have users giving us their password over the phone, anyone could overhear that and they would think it is insecure. Lets have them give us something less confidential instead".

Services like this that require verbal authentication via the telephone should generate a passphrase and email it to their uses upon signup.

<comment><USER10> So, when signing up, how do you know what the security question is going to be used for? And how do you know that won't change?

Any service that is sensible enough to give you that information will hardly make use of "security-questions" in the first place...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So they had Mult Factor Authentication, OTP, and Yubikey all and they still used his mother's actual maiden name and place of birth. With all of that you would think they would do what everyone else does or should do on that. !@3f49 for place of birth and Erjsh99 for her maiden name. Using real information is just a weak point in a weak system.

<comment><USER12> The problem with the latter would be when you call in and try to convince some service rep that your mother's name is actually Erjsh99.

<comment><USER9> As long as it matches the name they have on record, why would they care?

<comment><USER13> They probably shouldn't but I had an instance with an ISP back in the day where they wouldnt accept my answer to a security question because the answer was ridiculous. The question was "in what city was your high school?" I put "Upyourassville." The ISP thought there was a problem and wouldnt accept the answer. These days I use my grandmother's maiden name as my mother's maiden name to answer these questions. There are people in my own family who dont know the answer to that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have very little sympathy: "Reached Thursday, a VirWox representative said that the exchange has had multi-factor authentication since September 2012. "Bitinstant was not using it (they learned and do now)," the representative said in an email message."

If you're going intentionally fuck yourself and your customers over by _not_ using _real_ multifactor authentication (not just "a password and some security questions"), then I don't even know what to say. At this point it's on par with having a startup and not having any on-call tax or legal guy-- the inherent ignorance is almost incomprehensible.

</comment><comment><USER15> Are there any monitoring services, like Pingdom, that do external 3rd party auditing of current DNS endpoints for a domain and offer alerting whenever a change is made?

That service (being external from the registrar or DNS provider) seems sorely needed by everyone in our industry because this method of attack is starting to become the standard.

</comment><comment><USER16> A lesson we can take from this is just because they are supposed to be security questions based on private and personal information, doesn't mean you should play along.

Why should the answer to where me and my spouse met really be where we met? Why couldn't my answer be where Lucille Ball met Ricky Ricardo? Why couldn't my childhood street address be Evergreen Terrace?

Add a layer of security by creating an entirely different alter ego with a whole history behind it, and use their birthday, maiden name, etc, instead of what somebody can look up in public records, or find out from people close to you.

<comment><USER17> I usually just generate additional random passwords to put in those fields, and store those in the password manager right alongside the primary password.

Sure it defeats the purpose of those fields as a secondary layer if you should lose the password (if I lose everything in my password manager I have bigger problems) but at least an attacker has no more chance of guessing those than of guessing the primary password.

<comment><USER18> Is there a best practice for keeping a secure copy of one's password manager database? USB key in a safe? Single use Dropbox with an anonymous email? Encrypted file container by yubikey?

<comment><USER19> I humbly suggest leaving it with a friend _but only if the friend understands security_ sufficiently well, e.g., a competent professional sysadmin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Whatever happened to "Name your own security question?" You used to be able to do that with many services, but now it seems every service I use forces me to a small set of easily guessed questions.

A security feature that requires me to lie to maintain its security is NOT a good security feature.

</comment><comment><USER21> It all depends on your risk profile as to whether this type of authentication is sufficient. Sites doing anything remotely involving money are at greater risk of being hit therefore their security needs to account for this. Putting passwords on the internet which is equivalent to having details you use for authentication in public records, would be a bit silly.

I don't buy the argument that a security system you need to lie on is not a good one. Security is an onion, it comes with many layers you can't assure a third party service easily so you've got to add layers to that onion, even if that means being a liar.

That said security is also a trade off with the lowest common denominator - user.

</comment><comment><USER22> Site5 have given a response: [http://www.site5.com/blog/s5/security-and- social-engineering...](http://www.site5.com/blog/s5/security-and-social- engineering/20130307/)

</comment><comment><USER23> The russian origin of the attack and the perseverance shown by "them" may be a sign that international organized crime is very much interested in bitcoins now.

</comment><comment><USER24> Always allow your users to opt out of a security question during signup. Give them a friendly warning that you won't be able to assist with lost accounts, but allow them to make that choice.

</comment><comment><USER25> They should get BitInstant added to the HSTS list. It'll prevent attacks like this.

<comment><USER26> HSTS would not make a difference here. They redirected the DNS for email to take over the email accounts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> ridiculo</comment>


My miserable experience pre-ordering a Surface Book - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgBdDNm_WmI <comment><USER2> Is there a text equivalent?

<comment><AUTHOR> I've written a bit about it on the Surface Subreddit; but not really in a single point.

The gist:

MS Announced on the 6th; I pre-ordered on the 7th [with a ship date of the 26th] On the 19th; Amex flagged the charge with their fraud prevention system. I authorized the charge with Amex, but the MS system for re-authorizing orders was rejecting it without attempting authorization again. My order was cancelled.

~8 phone calls w/ MS support later ; the order was replaced and I was guaranteed my initial order would ship based on my original ship date, by most of the support techs. The 26th came and went and no sign of the Surface Book and MS Support stopped following up.

The short video is an aggregate of the ship date promises.

I tried to make the video under 4 minutes; but there is also a longer, unlisted, video on the account which I sent to MS Support.</comment></comment>


Mossberg: The Disappearing Computer - <AUTHOR> https://www.recode.net/2017/5/25/15689094/mossberg-final-column <comment><USER2> I'll admit I've never read much by Mossberg. Is it worth going through his older columns or not really?

</comment><comment><USER3> This is the end of an era in Technology.</comment>


Life Without Children - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@sanwali/life-without-children-efde0d434252 <comment><USER2> >It's not a great world to be raising kids right now.

It's never been a great world to raise children in. Years ago the child mortality rate meant every family had a Jimmy that wouldn't make it to age 5.

It bugs me no end when people assert without citation that the world is worse than it ever was. One thing to keep in mind is that our awareness of the bad things in the world has certainly gone up due to our digital connectivity but that is not the same thing as actual crime, sickness, etc., going up.

<comment><USER3> Forget crime, sickness, and the like. Let's look at stagnating wages [0] in the face of spiraling education, healthcare, and housing costs; anthropogenic climate change (which even the oil companies have known about since 1977) [1]; and the continuing trend of corporations being allowed to socialize losses while privatizing profits. Having children is also one of the worst things an individual can do in terms of carbon footprint. [2]

Children are expensive, even in the best case. I don't have a source for this one offhand, but, I seem to recall that the median cost of day care in the Bay Area today is around $2k/month, which is a significant sum even for someone on a software engineer's salary. [3] As the article mentioned, having a special needs child can absolutely annihilate a family's finances.

My GF and I have been together long enough to have this discussion, and we decided against children. We'd be jeopardizing both our retirements, bringing a new life into a world that's looking worse and worse by the day, and adding to the problem, all at once.

\---

[0]: Yes, yes. "Total compensation" has gone up, but mostly driven by health insurance costs. I'm talking about money in peoples' pockets. If you bring this up, you're essentially making my point for me.

[1]: [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew- about-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about- climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

[2]: [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce- your...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon- footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about)

[3]: And, it's not going to go down in real terms, either. Childcare suffers terribly from Baumol's cost disease: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease)

<comment><USER4> _Let 's look at stagnating wages [0]_

When they stagnate to the point that I need to send Johnny to the coal mines (it's amazing the tight spots he can squeeze into) to make up the difference, get back to me. That is, if we don't all die from lung disease from this "London fog".

IOW, yeah, there's always something to make it look like this is the worst it has ever been. But it isn't a tough argument to say that it is no less "a great world to be raising kids right now" than it has been any other time.

<comment><USER3> Take those stagnating wages and compare them to what the cost of higher education would be in ~20 years if it increases at the same rate as it did the past 20 years. I'd be fitting Johnny for miner's helmet as soon as it was legal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This article sits weird with me. I am not having kids, nor is my partner. We are both medically unable to do so. I never really wanted to have kids, however this article is full of cons and almost zero pros to having a kid, something OP seems to have not even thought of.

Are kids a massive responsibility? Yes. Can they be a burden? Yes. Can they also bring parents an immense amount of joy, happiness, pride and adjacently a sense of accomplishment? Yes. One of my favorite memories as a kid was going to Disney World with my parents, and seeing them enjoy mine and my brothers reactions to something they both enjoyed. That gave them so much joy.

I won't judge people for choosing to have kids or not. But this whole childfree/look at me and all my money & less responsibility attitude is lame.

<comment><USER4> It's the reason I quit hanging out with the "child-free" folk at a major software company (they even had an internal distribution list). For many it seemed, their whole identity seemed wrapped up in not having kids, and dinner conversations turned into "can you believe parents?" and conspicuous consumption because you're not spending it on kids.

I like kids well enough, and though they stress her after a while, so does my wife. We just don't feel the need of any of our own. And _that 's_ what it boils down to. You think you're going to talk your spouse down when they have Baby Fever because the economics don't work out? Because you value "your freedom"? Just get the divorce over with now, or get used to the idea of kids. You needed to start working on being less of a selfish prick anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > It's not a great world to be raising kids right now.

I was born in the late 60's and lived through 20 years of nuclear weapons proliferation fearing all out nuclear conflict (when Reagan won the US presidency my nuclear apocalypse anxieties stepped up a gear). My parents lived through the Cuban missile crisis as early 20-somethings wondering if the world had just bitten the big green banana. Add to that the destabilising proxy wars and games between the Soviet Union and the US around the world.

Was that a great world to be raising kids? Probably not but they still went ahead had me and then my brother. The world has always been a dangerous place but it shouldn't prevent you from bringing kids into the world because that generation might be the one that nudges the world towards being a better place. It's a bit of a failure of imagination to think the way the author does. Also I suspect the author is much younger than me, perhaps with parents around my age, they wouldn't be here if their parents had thought the same way, lucky (I hope) for them they didn't.

That being said, I don't have kids, not because of any of the reasons listed in that somewhat flawed article, I just never got around to it and I'm terrible at sustaining relationships that last long enough for me to have been comfortable being a dad. There is a part of me that wishes I did, but I don't obsess over it.

</comment><comment><USER7> > It's not a great world to be raising kids right now.

This seems to be like one absolutely weird and baseless moral panic.

What was good time then? During medieval times/WW1/WW2/60s/80/90s? If any, world's been the same all the time. The have-nots being looted by those who have 'em. Just that the tech makes it a lot visible, is all.

<comment><USER8> The older I get the more I see very real parallels between maladies of the human brain and maladies of human society.

The way I see it, all this weird and baseless moral panic you've identified tends to resemble clinical depression in an individual. People through their own analysis abstract out what they perceive to be problems, then they market and promote their perceived problems to others and all the hope and despair that comes from learning to perceive those things as problems. Next thing you know, society starts looking like it is clinically depressed and you get people spouting viewpoints like "this is the worst time ever to raise children".

In a similar vein, the experience of schizophrenia seems to parallel the authoritative information "dilemma" known as "fake news" that we're struggling with as a society. Fake news is now pervasive on both the left and the right either in the form of outright lies at worst to deliberate omission of counterbalancing information to serve and agenda. I'm reminded of this Quora question where people with schizophrenia describe what it's like to be schizophrenic:

[https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-have- schizophrenia-...](https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-have- schizophrenia-1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Having kids is definitely a major inconvenience and huge financial burden, that's for sure. If you look it from that perspective, then there are almost only cons and no pros. But if this the only perspective you can look at this, then you are probably not ready to have kids yet.

<comment><USER10> You're right. One person's major inconvenience is someone else's great delight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The biggest reason not to have children may be missing: responsibility. Raising a child is a massive responsibility, and one not everybody is well- equipped, or willing, to bear. It's no easy task, and it takes precedence over everything else. The news is filled with stories involving parents who probably should never have had children.

I have two children, and I'm really glad I do, but I would never judge anyone for choosing not to.

<comment><USER12> Hey, I agree with you. I feel as though I should've included Responsibility instead of Freedom because that's exactly the point I was trying to make. Not having that responsibility is what gives you the freedom. I'm so glad that someone who has kids can be honest enough to say what you said. Usually people with kids become really defensive if I talk to them about my reasons to stay child free. Thanks again!

<comment><USER11> I also encounter that kind of defensiveness in many other areas. A lot of people seem to crave validation that their life choices are the only correct ones. A lot of people see other people making different choices as some sort of threat to their own choices or lifestyle, whether it's religious, political, or 'alternative' lifestyles, or even dress style. The reality is that there's plenty of room for different choices, and we can give each other space to make those different choices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What's strange to me is how the insecure the child free crowd seems to be regarding their choice. The seemingly never ending need to patronizingly justify that choice, to the point of moralizing the issue (as the author does), is bizarre. It comes off like the individual is seeking reassurance for their life choice. This isn't the 1950s. No one cares if you decide to have children or not.

<comment><USER4> _What 's strange to me is how the insecure the child free crowd seems to be regarding their choice._

Why would it be strange? The ones with kids have the same issue.

"It's the most important job in the world."

"Children are our future."

Just as touchy is religion. Oh, my, the mental hoops I see folks jumping through just to maintain a narrative.

Etc. People sometimes go to great lengths to rationalize their choices, and though you might find it strange, unusual it is not. If there is anything to be learned, be flexible and give up on that narrative when it no longer works for you. Feeling obligation to a 25 year-old you from ten years ago is unwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Parenting isn't for everyone so I don't judge.

But for me it happened to be most amazing thing in my life so far.

Clearly, the posted article is not very serious, the list of cons seem very shallow as compared to the deep lifelong joys that may come of parenthood.

My first child was unplanned and unwanted by me anyway. Having a child in college was definitely not part of my Grand Plan. I wasn't on speaking terms with his mom but thankfully she still invited me to his birth. As soon as I saw his bloody little head my life changed for the better forever. Then I went home to get some sleep before a calculus final.

Now, thirty years later, with only one daughter remaining in college, my wife and I have plenty of time and money to enjoy our freedom. Though not a second goes by that I don't miss my babies.

</comment><comment><USER15> These aren't very strong arguments because the decision to have kids is a very emotional one.

You'll have more freedom and a bigger wallet without kids. This has been known since forever. That's why my wife and I aren't having them (at the moment).

You'll also have someone to teach and grow with kids, which _can_ help make the world a better place. That's why several of our friends have families.

</comment><comment><USER16> this article has to much soy milk

<comment><USER12> Thanks :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> TLDR: This article is written by someone who never had kids, someone who never asked her parents if they'd ever regret having her.

</comment><comment><USER18> I have children, and I enjoy them. Both my wife and I have well paid jobs in the tech industry.

Having children requires sacrifices. As with any decision, there is an inevitable cost of opportunity, but what we get from caring for these loved little human beings... Is priceless!

I understand the narrative of the author. This is a narrative of an individual whose core values are "success", material accumulation as proof of it, and individual freedoms. It is true, having children will require a lot of "operation expenses", and much of the time available for "yourself" needs to be invested into your children. I respect that for some people it is not a sacrifice that they are willing to do, and I don't think people should have children because it is the next step.

But I see a problem in this narrative, and it is that it describes having children as a mistake. Again, it is a mistake for the author, but I can hardly see how it is a "universal mistake". It reminds me a bit of game theory, and the idea of "Nash's equilibrium": Players are the society as a whole, some choose to have kids, some choose not to have kids, both have a penalty, yet in the long run they both benefit from their choices (individually and mutually).

I am also concerned about empathy. Daily I realize how difficult it is for some people without children to understand my choice, and the sacrifices it requires. Yes I am happy with my choice, but lack of empathy makes it particularly difficult to avoid choices with a larger cost than it should: Should I stay with my kids when they are sick? Or go to that meeting that is (as most meetings) better done as an email ;). My kids need me, emotionally. If I am with them, I am making a world of a difference for them... and in the future for society, because they will have safe attachment!

The reality is Humanity needs people to choose to have children, not all of us, some of us. We, having children, need empathy, recognition, and help from society. I don't think science and technology are going to solve the need for childhood anytime soon.

But I understand, you don't want to have kids. Good for you! Some people will even thank you, don't succumb to the pressure to have them "because it is next", and most importantly... Please don't forget you are here because someone did the best they could to bring you to this world (and probably made some mistakes, but mostly, they just wanted the best for you).

PS: It also comes to mind "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind" by Yuval Harari... Not so much on topic, but I like the door it opens for empathy via the understanding of different narratives, and how they are just constructs.

<comment> 08-15 > what we get from caring for these loved little human beings... Is priceless!

And yet you can't express what it is that you get. All the arguments brought forth in the article are objectively true, and you counter by saying "Yeah, that's the price for... well... you know?" That's not much of an argument. Depending on what exactly it is you call priceless, others may well think it's worthless.

> Daily I realize how difficult it is for some people without children to > understand my choice, and the sacrifices it requires.

Childfree people fully understand the sacrifices your choice requires. They just aren't obliged or inclined to subsidize it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Children are the only future we have.

</comment><comment><USER20> Anyone who finds themselves tending towards this nihilistic, fatalistic worldview desperately needs to recognise the extremely harmful predicament they find themselves in and work instead towards a life of meaning and purpose. I would further urge them to reflect on who is playing the fiddle that is leading them down this terrible path so that they can go forward with knowledge of their enemy.

Children are your purpose. Not your travel or dinner dates. Not your goddamn career. Your Excel spreadsheets will not be there holding your hand on your deathbed. Your dinner dates with equally-unproductive and increasingly-ageing friends are little more than a coping mechanism. They will mean nothing compared to the memories of childish giggles over the family dinner table.

You didn't come this far to just shrivel up and die. Your ancestors didn't build you a nation, defend it with their lives, bestow upon you and awe- inspiring culture and history just so that you could hit your sales projections and get drunk in Ibiza.

Your employer will hire someone else, your friends will move on, your clients won't even remember you. All that matters is family. And in your children, and their children after them, you will live on forever. Just as your ancestors do in you.

Don't be these forty-somethings realising they've left it too late and now have the last 50 years of their lives to twiddle away doing meaningless junk. Don't be that pitiful retired couple trying to fill the void with cruises and musicals.

You know that pang in your chest when you see the beautiful family walking down the street? You know the one. Bright, happy kids full of life, parents full of the pride and joy that can only be found in love and family. For god's sake don't deprive yourself of that, not for the shallow hedonism of a pay packet and extended youth.

You want that too. You know you do.

<comment><USER21> While I don't disagree with you, I also don't find it particularly useful to try and change these people's minds. Anti-natalism can be a self-correcting problem. Just let the anti-natalists die off (as they inevitably will, by definition) and they will be replaced by people who made better choices.

<comment><USER9> I agree with you totally. There is one problem, however. That those will be our children in which we invested, who will have to take care of them while they are old. That is not fair.</comment></comment></comment>


Why so many front end developers obsessed with React/Angluar? - <AUTHOR> I really care about a simple question, why most of frontend developers, which one i know, obsessed with new frameworks. In fact React / Angular / Backbone / Knockout are born and die again in a couple of years. Everyone can see some interesting things (virtual dom (simply wonderful!)), and begin to write / rewrite their applications using the new framework.
At the same time, most of the projects, which you can see would be just fine by simply using server-side rendering and for example PostCSS.
The development would be simpler, code usually much simple and without MBs of JS libraries.
And, important for business, time to market, hiring of developers i suppose would move faster.
I understand that this is all very interesting things, good to be in trend and understand whats going on, but to be aware of technology and immediately implement it in production system...hm, not so sure about this.
Now I look at ClojureScript as an acceptable replacement for JS development, because after release of ES6, and reading ES7 specs, there is a feeling that the direction in which the ecosystem moving is wrong one.
So, the frontend world is changing a lot quickly and in different directions,
but which one is right one, i have a serious doubts. <comment><USER2> I do not work directly with React.

I do however, work in ClojureScript, using Reagent, which is an opinionated binding to React with a special emphasis on functional reactive programming.

I discovered the FRP approach through Hoplon, and then soon moved to Reagent, and I must say that it was an absolute godsend.

It is the first real alternative paradigm to interface development in years, and the first one that actually interfaces well with functional programming at the most basic level.

FRP allows you to write an interface in a declarative, functional style that is easy to follow, and largely easy to predict. State is kept to a minimum, and can be organized and localized in sane ways. View updating is basically automated, left to the underlying mechanisms of the virtual DOM.

With CLJS' Hiccup syntax, even defining and passing HTML values becomes painless.

Discovering FRP was basically the same light bulb moment for me as a programmer that discovering Lisp and FP themselves were. I only wish I could find a framework for developing desktop applications that was as easy to learn and use.

</comment><comment><USER3> Angular was nice because two way data binding greatly simplified a lot of user-interface management code, and dependency injection made it easier to cleanly factor your code. Unfortunately, the boilerplate involved in creating directives tends to result in monolithic html templates that do way too much (and are hard to maintain), and the digest cycle/dirty checking ends up causing a lot of issues when things get complicated.

React makes it easy to create small components, encouraging maintainable, reusable software. On the flip side, passing data around in your application is a lot of work, and even the best current solution (unidirectional data flow with something like Redux) is very oblique and involves significant boilerplate.

In my opinion the React/Redux model is pretty good, and the libraries are well designed, there is just a need for a good framework to deal with the indirection involved in unidirectional state flow. I'm currently working on something in this space, it just needs some additional battle-testing so I can settle on the interface and work out all the kinks.

</comment><comment><USER4> Speaking of React/Angular - they are obsessed because they never used 10-years-old computers and slow Internet connection and don't actually know how users feel when their weak machines are thrown all that stuff at.

I'm not against new _concepts_. Client-side rendering is awesome, reactivity is awesome. But I'm against all that _bloatware_. If a new concept can't be implemented without bloatware (hint: it can), we don't really need it.

But these things _can_ and _should_ be done in a different way. For example, all my JS stack (Z5 + DaBi) targets ES5 and is under 4 KB altogether. Yet it provides:

\- DOM manipulation and auto-polyfilling some DOM essentials (only for the stuff that's _really_ uncomfortable to do with native APIs - Q.js);

\- reactive in-memory storage (with an ability to easily populate from external objects or remote requests - Zen.js);

\- easy data-to-DOM and DOM-to-data binding (DaBi library);

\- ability to easily build DOM and CSS styles from JS native constructs (XT.js and XS.js - never go through escaping hell again);

\- client-side routing (R.js).

And while I agree that React/Angular are the bloatware (even jQuery is), I disagree that server-side rendering is any better and that throwing in another bloatware like ClojureScript would solve this issue. Like I had said in my article about client-side development ([http://clientside.surge.sh/](http://clientside.surge.sh/)), go native or go home.

</comment><comment><USER5> There are a bunch of factors in play here, but I'd guess that the reasons are mainly two-fold: a) developers like shiny new things (myself included) and b) Angular and React offer opinions on how to build front-end apps, which can be very hard.

Angular and Ember never quite did it for me. I don't agree with all the design decisions they've made. I do however enjoy using React a lot. It fits my mental model much better when it comes to building front-end apps. It's simple to learn, focuses on building modular components and I really like how it manages state (either via components or Flux/Redux.) That said, it's not something I use for every project. But I had something that just wouldn't work as a traditional server-side rendered project and React was a godsend.

I'm hopeful that ClojureScript continues to gain traction and improved tooling. I really like the language, and feel that it offers enough to replace JS for most of my needs. I've played with Reagent and _really_ liked what I saw there.

</comment><comment><USER6> For me, using React makes it possible to write UI code like I am writing UI code for the desktop (e.g. .NET). When I first saw it my reaction was "Finally! I can stop pulling my hair out!". And the more I use it, the more I like it. I am working on a highly dynamic UI right now that I started building with Knockout, got pissed off, tried React, and haven't looked back.

React really is different than everything else that has come before. I don't know if React will be the final, new framework most developers use. But whatever is the final framework will almost certainly borrow many of React's ideas.

</comment><comment><USER7> I totally agree with you. I'd love to see more technical expertise/resources into improving backend technologies like ElasticSearch/Lucene, Redis, etc.

There's only so many incremental improvements to front-end development left.

</comment><comment><USER8> Angular is over-engineered and I doubt what they are doing is the right way to go. React, on the other hand, simplifies the stack a lot actually.

I don't think we will seriously find a consensus until we get WebAssembly.

<comment><USER9> Is WebAssembly going to solve anything though? Most of what I've read about it is that it will be an accessory to JavaScript. Things like databases, video encoding, 3D rendering, etc.. Will we really be interfacing with the DOM APIs in C?

Even if that is how it plays out, we'll still have a dozen frameworks to decided between, at least one for every language that targets WebAssembly.

<comment><USER10> Agreed. WebAssembly won't make the JS framework landspace stop from changing. But it maybe he meant to say that with WebAssembly, other languages will be able to be used in the browser, so maybe JS will see less rapid changes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is code valuable because of conciseness, clarity, and speed, or because it can provide business value that can be monetized? The prevalence of Angular and React would suggest it does indeed provide the latter and that the latter is more valuable to many companies.

<comment><AUTHOR> IMHO there is always a balance of power, in abstract world the code by itself without business or academical value have no sense.

Asking to your topic: >conciseness, clarity, and speed.

Clarity, conciseness and simplicity is matter. I mean it all that matter in the code, but in our world, in normal one, there not all topic. Sometime is good to agree with bad architecture decision or with lack of clarity of code, cause there is importance to release a feature, cause that sales person deponds on you, you need to make a revenue, etc.

but, what i tried to say, but cause thats my english is not native language, is not the same thing.

I was thinking that most of frontend world current steps is completely wrong, its brings only: complexity, unmaintable piech of crap. that you need to know 100s libraries like left-pad, and that you need to follow last trends not in technology but in frameworks, instead of doing some great UI/UX experience fast and easy maintainable one.

<comment><USER11> Like most things the answer isn't one or the other. The answer is a compromise based on the situation at hand.

Sometimes Angular (or any other SPA framework) is the right choice, sometimes it is not.

And if it means anything, I agree with you. I think the internet could use less SPAs. Developers aren't some super evolved subset of humanity, we get seduced by shiny new toys (in the form of libraries, frameworks, etc) just like anybody else.</comment></comment></comment>


Scraping Craigslist for sold-out concert tickets - <AUTHOR> http://www.gregreda.com/2014/07/27/scraping-craigslist-for-tickets/ <comment><USER2> FYI: This is against craigslist's TOS.

> Robots, spiders, scripts, scrapers, crawlers, etc. are prohibited

</comment><comment><USER3> I've used craigalerts.org for months for things like this.

</comment><comment><USER4> Any ideas of a workaround if you use Google 2-factor auth?

<comment><USER5> [https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/185833?hl=en](https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/185833?hl=en)</comment></comment>