The Patent Office is "adjusting" to a Supreme Court ruling by ignoring it - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/05/patent-office-adjusting-supreme-court-ruling-ignoring-it <comment><USER2> I like the EFF's mission, but I find many of the EFF's posts like this to be awful and quite propaganda-like in style. They present an issue and spend time talking about how it's bad, provoking an emotional response of anger or righteous indignation, and leave out the most important details.

In this case, the USPTO released new guidance on how reviewers should consider the Supereme Court's _Alice_ decision. EFF thinks this guidance is bad. They have metrics and talking points. But the EFF fail's to deliver the single most important information:

 _What did the new guidance say!_ \-- EFF is silent on this.

WHY? I think in this case it's because the EFF doesn't like software patents at all. They know much of their audience feels the same way. So they don't care about actually explaining what the new guidance says-- All they care about is presenting metrics about increased software patent grants that show how bad the new policy _must_ be, because it's doing what the EFF hates: granting more software patents. I find it emotionally manipulative, and the more time goes on the more I avoid their articles.

 _They used to be better than this._

<comment><USER3> This EFF release isn't about what technicalities or creative interpretations USPTO used to avoid the complying with _Alice_ because that guidance isn't new, what's new is a report that shows the dramatic effect of their avoidance, and that's what the article is about.

If you really wanted to know what the guidance was, literally the first link in TFA leads to an EFF backgrounder that explains it, including linking to the actual source.

EFF's mission is to effect positive change in technology. If you disagree with their views on software patents, you should expect to not like what or how they have to say. Their mission is not to convert you, it's to drive support and engagement for their ideals among their supporters and undecideds.

I personally do agree with them on software patents, and so I approve of their methods because I can see that they optimize for _effectiveness_ of their campaign, as they should.

<comment><USER2> The entire article is about how new guidance had a negative impact. I don't think it's a responsible presentation of the topic if the only way you can find out exactly what they're objecting to is by finding another article, which you don't know whether or not it will have that very relevant information, read it, and then link to a third piece of writing to actually get anywhere.

The EFF clearly knows what the guidance says, it would have taken little effort to give an abstract of it. But more and more they seem to have little interest in generating reasoned agreement with their cause, only reflexive support induced by anger and indignation. The cynic in me says it's because they realized it works better, gets more donations. But regardless if their intentions, it comes off as a bit scummy.

<comment><USER4> > it comes off as a bit scummy.

And patent trolls? They're hardworking American businesspeople? Last I checked, their tactics were vexatious litigation, bullying, browbeating, and buying support.

In short, if you're going to fight a pig, you're going to have to get in the mud with it.

If you just stand there making reasoned arguments as to why the pig should lie down, the pig will just look at you, shit on the floor, and continue doing what it was doing.

<comment><USER5> Not everyone trying to patent a computer-implemented invention is a patent troll. Some of those applicants are actually creating a product/service. Some of them are spending b/millions creating things that were previously not considered possible. Should they be rewarded for the effort if in fact it is determined to be possible?

<comment><USER6> Not everyone, but statistically, the majority.

If you want to be a "good guy" patent holder, why don't you get involved in fighting patent trolls?

...no? Well, that's because, unfortunately, the distinction between a troll and a "good guy" is a fine, often blurry line.

There are other ways to monetise research, like, actually building things.

Why not try that?

<comment><USER7> Based on my experience as a patent examiner and a patent attorney, it's definitely not "the majority" of applicants that can be considered any kind of "troll." Like many other fields and aspects of life, it's a highly vocal and visible minority that you're mostly aware of, because the mundane players are, well, mundane.

<comment><USER6> [https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2018/9/28/q3-2018-pa...](https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2018/9/28/q3-2018-patent- dispute-report)

> High Tech companies, both large entities and SMEs, face a disproportionate > number of NPE-related threats as compared to other sectors.

[https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/annual- report?year=20...](https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/annual- report?year=2018)

I suppose, to be fair, if you are an NPE asserting a claim over what is legitimately your invention, are you a troll?

Perhaps, since NPE enforcement is basically a game of threats and legal costs, _you_ don't see what is actually happening?

Opinions vary.

My position is quite simple: if you are an NPE, you're a troll.

Use it, or lose it.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I pretty much agree with much of that. Just pointing out that a majority of patents and patentees aren't really headline-grabbing or anything. Just boring paper shuffling that will never have any impact on anyone, good or bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I like and trust the EFF, but that's not my lived experience, and so I don't believe the stats say what the EFF claims they mean.

1) My patent lawyer, following Alice, told us to not even try for most patents we were previously considering, because patents like that would just get rejected. I'd believe acceptance rates have gone up, but that's because people aren't filing as many frivolous patents.

2) The back-and-forth process with the patent office the EFF advocates for is a really bad idea and bad deal. Big companies can hire specialists who do this. For individual inventors, the costs here get astronomical.

Now, the bar for patents is still way too low. But Alice did bring it up. If I had my druthers:

* The bar for patents would be high.

* The processes for applying for patents would be straightforward, quick, and easy.

There would be an appeals process, but it'd look much more like sending a plain-language letter than one couched in byzantine process and baroque terminology.

<comment><USER9> So why do the drops in rejection rates line up strictly with new Patent Office guidance? Remember, Alice was in 2014. Rejection rate didn't drop until 2019, where it suddenly collapsed after the guidance was issued.

Individual inventors are already not applying for meaningful patents. That's political folklore to tell a warm story around patents.

<comment><USER10> It is completely understandable that Alice rejections will go down as new guidance is provided. This is because people drafting patents react to the same new guidance and draft patents accordingly.

Guidance documents often come with examples, language from the Alice- overcoming examples will be included in patent applications and in arguments against Alice rejections. Often, word for word if possible.

Note, there have been several rounds of 'new guidance' since Alice came down. Most of them (maybe all?) include examples from courts showing claims invalidated under Alice and examples claims that made it past Alice in court.

It doesn't take that much effort to draft patents or arguments that match the good examples. Note, this doesn't change the scope of the inventions, it simply puts magic words into applications or claims to get around Alice if needed.

<comment><USER5> You almost got it. SO close. But you are completely wrong about the following "this doesn't change the scope of the inventions, it simply puts magic words into applications or claims to get around Alice if needed."

This is wrong. The scope of the claims that result post-alice are completely different. And this is something the EFF post simply ignores. Just think about it. YOu are an inventor and invent some amazing new idea in the year 2000 like location track a plurality of requests for transportation, location track a plurality of transportation providers, use a novel form of graph theory to optimally match requests with providers with an optimized price that maximizes utility for driver and requestor (think uber-like service). You try to patent that. The patent office POST_ALICE says NOOOOO!!!!! That's just a concept. Abstract concepts are not patentable. But you, you smart cookie, you know that there are only a few practical ways to have a sufficiently fast database- lookup architecture to actually implement this at scale and that implementation and all its details is what you actually patent. Because you had the guidance, you knew what you could get and you went for it.

<comment><USER10> Alice was about subject matter, not novelty. The Alice game was drafting/amending claims to look more like a machine. I talk about it more below in my response to your other comment.

Often that can be accomplished by including claim language that doesn't limit the novel aspects of the invention. In other words, prior art is not a really a consideration when getting over a 101 rejection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not sure what the EFF is trying to get at here.

After the decision, it says rejections rose 31%, but now they have fallen back down.

The EFF contends this is because the Patent Office is ignoring the law, but they don't offer any evidence to back up this assertion. Another likely explanation is that patent applicants are adjusting their applications to be in line with the decision, and thus the rates have gone back down.

This assertion by the EFF would only make sense if patent applicants didn't know about the rule change. But applicants do know, and have adjusted their applications accordingly in the intervening time.

<comment><USER9> This article is just missing two pictures to tell the story.

Rejection rates immediately after Alice (2014): [https://imgur.com/veW7vQ7](https://imgur.com/veW7vQ7)

Rejection rates immediately after new Patent Office guidance (2019!): [https://imgur.com/ylqD5sx](https://imgur.com/ylqD5sx)

Apparently patent applicants were entirely unable to to adjust their applications in line with the decision for a whole 5 years where rejection rates were consistently >30% (and rising!). Then, immediately after new guidance, they all "get it" and rejection rates drop below 20%?

Remember, guidance is just a summary of applicable law and precedent. It is training material. If there is a significant change in rejection rates, it means Alice was somehow misapplied for 5 years and no one ever meaningfully contested it.

<comment><USER12> I definitely can imagine that after the Alice decision many patent lawyers would still intentionally try to push through applications contrary to the court decision - if there's a reasonable chance that it might get through, and you can afford it, why not try it? Any actual change in patent application behavior would come only when the Patent Office would assert that yes, they mean it, and they will deny these applications, and they did it only in 2019 (and issued the guidence along with it).

So yes, your suggestion that "it means Alice was somehow misapplied for 5 years and no one ever meaningfully contested it" seems quite plausible for me, it's not easy to meaningfully contest it (you need an actual situation where such a misapplied patent gets abused and gets contested) and it takes years to do so.

<comment><USER10> One of the problems with Alice is that it provides very little useful guidance to anyone. The EFF argues that Alice invalidates all software patents. Others argue that it doesn't. In fact, the only sure thing the SCOTUS said in Alice was that they are not invalidating all software patents just the bad ones, while providing no workable standard for distinguishing the bad from the good.

While the majority of Justices agreed that the Alice patent was invalid, a majority did not sign on to one opinion. There were multiple concurring opinions that agreed on the result but not the reasoning. The decision provides at best an "I'll know it when I see it" standard.

To say, lawyers are deliberately or intentionally acting contrary to the decision is not accurate. Lawyers will work to draft patents that comply with Alice, and they will argue that the applications they draft comply with Alice.

Unfortunately, very little in the Alice decision can be used to reason for or against any particular patent because it is so incoherent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Clear guidance is a good thing.

Clear guidance should result in fewer rejections, because with good guidance fewer people should be filing bad applications to begin with.

The real test will be whether the applications that issue survive challenges in the courts. The courts do not consider the PTO's guidelines in determining whether the patents are valid.

In other words, the PTO can't change the actual standard. All they can do is reject patents that don't meet that standard, and if they fail to do so, the patents will be found ineligible by the courts when they are asserted.

The PTO's guidance is only useful in helping attorneys and examiners shepherd through patents that will then be tested in the courts. Bad patents will still be shot down if they survive the PTO (as they should be).

In short, I love the EFF but I'm not sure why they are complaining about this.

</comment><comment><USER14> 1500 is not a lot of people. If that's the best EFF can come up with on its mailing list then I think this may be an issue they should rethink. Not that I disagree, I completely agree, but it doesn't seem like they are going about it the right way.

<comment> jagged-chisel 1,500 out of how many who interact with the USPTO for some reason (e.g. filing a patent [via attorney], researching patents, etc.)? I can't expect large portions of the general population know enough about the patenting process (or even patents in general) to contact the USPTO over this issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Edit: new guidance is from 2019 so my comment is not relevant, but we haven't had a chance to analyze much published data from this period anyway

<comment><USER16> The new guidance came out in 2019.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "...examiners practically never make final rejections based on Alice. "

I beg to differ. I have seen cases that get multiple final rejections based on Alice. Usually based on garbage reasoning.

Alice was such a terrible holding -- it was based on a crappy patent so we got bad law. Well drafted and well prosecuted patents don't often end up in court, let alone in the Supreme Court.

Over coming Alice is/was easy if the patent application was drafted after the first Alice based rejections came out. That is an indication of the weakness of the holding, including meaningless details or structure in the form of "magic words" often could get around early Alice rejections.

Until recently, the main driver for stubborn Alice rejections were particular art units that seemed to have an informal policy to never let anything through.

<comment><USER17> Interesting. My sense is that valuable patents end up in court almost 100% of the time (e.g. CRISPR).

<comment><USER10> Generally, if the patent is high quality, people settle because there isn't much to argue about. At most they do some preliminary hearings (claim construction) and then to a summary judgment hearing.

The Alice case opened the door for awhile because practically any tech/computer related patent had a good change of being invalidated at summary judgment.

I don't practice in bio so I am not familiar with CRISPR patents.</comment></comment></comment>


Lessons Learned from Digg: A Story of Love and Hate - <AUTHOR> http://sokkz.com/2010/09/25/lessons-learned-from-digg/ <comment><USER2> I don't really know why this is still a discussion - Digg failed because its an old dinosaur that had a high amount of upvote politics, superhuman power users...ALL voting on useless content or content that was pushed by major news publishers. Reddit is open and curtails to its users..how is this still up for debate?

<comment><USER3> I wonder if Reddit is susceptible to the same kind of gaming that top users did on Digg? Or is this something they've planned for? Methinks Reddit has been spared since it's been out of the lime-light until recently.

<comment><USER4> Reddit is somewhat susceptible. I have no inside track on my info, but the admins seem to have built some sneaky mechanisms for dealing with problematic users. My favorite is the practice of "ghosting" accounts, where it looks to the account user like their comments, upvotes, etc. are being counted when in reality they are invisible to the rest of the community. It seems to work.

Of course, for all Reddit's antipathy toward Digg, they had the advantage of learning from Digg's mistakes.</comment></comment></comment>


State of Multicore OCaml [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://kcsrk.info/slides/mcocaml_gallium.pdf <comment><USER2> I was tickled to see that the multicore memory allocator they're implementing is based on the multithreaded memory allocator I worked on in grad school ([http://www.scott-a-s.com/files/ismm06.pdf;](http://www.scott- a-s.com/files/ismm06.pdf;) [https://github.com/scotts/streamflow/](https://github.com/scotts/streamflow/)).

</comment><comment><USER3> The author of the talk here. I am excited about the Multicore OCaml upstreaming plan.

We're going to phase it into 3 distinct phases. First, we will upstream the multicore runtime so that it co-exists with the current runtime as a non- default option. This will give a chance to test and tune the new GC in the wild. Once we are happy with it, it will be made the default.

The second PR would be support for fibers -- linear delimited continuations without the syntax extensions (exposed as primitives in the Obj module). This will help us test the runtime support for fibers and prototype programs.

The last PR would be effect handlers _with an effect system_. Any unhandled user-defined effects would be caught statically by the type system. The effect system is particularly useful not just for writing correct programs, but to target JavaScript using the js_of_ocaml compiler where we can selectively CPS translate the effectful bits à la Koka. As a result, we will retain the performance of direct-style code and pay extra cost only for the code that uses effect handlers. In the future, we will extend it to track built-in OCaml effects such as IO and mutable refs. At that point, we can statically distinguish pure (as Haskell defines it) functions from impure ones without having to use Monad transformers for the code that mixes multiple effects. I'd recommend Leo White's talk [0] on effect handlers for a preview of how this system would look like.

[0] [https://www.janestreet.com/tech-talks/effective- programming/](https://www.janestreet.com/tech-talks/effective-programming/)

</comment><comment><USER4> There is also a report on discuss.ocaml.org thanks to gasche: [https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a- june...](https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ocaml-multicore-report-on-a- june-2018-development-meeting-in-paris/2202)

</comment><comment><USER5> What really surprised me, that Facebook with so active usage of ReasonML doesn't push/sponsor Multicore OCaml. Surely that will improve performance in their high-load setups.

<comment><USER6> ReasonML has only very superficial changes to ML using the ppx AST extension framework. Multicore GCs are not really what Facebook planned on contributing, or at least has shown signs of contributing yet. It is also a bit outside of the scope of their project since they (mainly) market reason for compiling to JS VMs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Now between fibers and effectual types one could implement an Erlang interpreter pretty readily. That'd be interesting!

Or perhaps port or create a system similar to OTP using the effects, fibers, and threads.

</comment><comment><USER8> The next two years or so will be really exciting.

Rust is beginning to understand that they need more stability and LTS versions, and libraries are blossoming nicely.

Ocaml already has a very mature module ecosystem and is now becoming safe and modern.

I think rust will still have an edge in adoption due to its portrayal as C++ unfucked, but ocaml is definitely the easier tool to work with, imo. And maybe that will change.

I don't think even linear types and multicore would be enough for ocaml to make any significant dent in the systems programming world. Rist and C/C++/D/Zig all do memory management too conveniently, and it opens doors too close to the bottom for ocaml to keep up.

Any ocaml hackers: would you want to write system drivers in ocaml? Why/ why not?

<comment><USER9> Hijacking this thread to ask you this.

What should I learn if I want to develop desktop apps and I like functional programming? I feel like most of the cool 'new' programming languages are OOP (rust, go, scala).

<comment><USER10> after some functional programming experience, you may learn that functions just compose more elegantly than objects. "Objects are a poor man's closures" (NN)

<comment><USER11> I can't do OO anymore after I learned FP!

<comment><USER12> Aren't these things orthogonal to each other?

<comment><USER13> OOP as described by java and C++ involves a graph of objects changing each others' state. This is not an orthogonal pattern to functional programming.

If you're thinking of functions operating on immutable objects and returning new objects then that is not typically what we refer to as a OOP pattern though technically it may fit the definition.

<comment><USER14> Java and C++ are just one way of doing OOP.

More universities should spend time teaching BETA, Self, CLOS, Smalltak, component based architectures.

<comment><USER13> I know. The dominant paradigm has changed the definition of the vernacular. Right now the default definition of OOP is the Java and C++ way unless you explicitly state otherwise.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Ruby app to find photos you haven't uploaded to your Flickr account. - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/seven1m/flickr-upload-set

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys, this is something I built in an evening. It needs some more work (ability to upload straight from the app would be nice), but it's already helping me to find hundreds of photos I failed to upload to my Flickr account.

Feedback (and pull requests) welcome.</comment>


Foundations of Mathematics (2015) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.mathetal.net/data/book1.pdf <comment><USER2> A substantial portion of this text appears to be concerned with traditional Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (and its extensions).

I have gradually come to believe that ZF theory has received a disproportionate amount of attention on account of the fact that it serves as the "official" foundations of mathematics, but that it is not an especially beautiful, or useful, structure.

I believe that ZF theory is an interesting object, worthy of mathematical study, but _not_ the best candidate for the foundations of mathematics! I am very happy to see that this year's Chauvenet Prize [1] was won by Tom Leinster's "Rethinking set theory", in which he highlights that Lawvere set theory looks like a much better candidate. I cannot do better than recommend you look at Leinster's superb article.

[1] MAA, Chauvenet Prize, [https://www.maa.org/programs-and- communities/member-communit...](https://www.maa.org/programs-and- communities/member-communities/maa-awards/writing-awards/chauvenet-prizes)

[2] Leinster, T., "Rethinking set theory", [https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6543](https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6543)

<comment><USER3> Tangential question. Is there a mathematics curriculum out there that focuses on constructive foundations? Or is it possible to assemble one?

I feel this would be much more adequate for then following up with pure CS studies on topics such as [1-6].

Classical math bootcamps, like Math 55, are typically algebra plus analysis and they don't even focus too much on classical foundations.

[1] [https://www.elsevier.com/books/lectures-on-the-curry- howard-...](https://www.elsevier.com/books/lectures-on-the-curry-howard- isomorphism/sorensen/978-0-444-52077-7)

[2] [https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/](https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/)

[3] [https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/tapl/](https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/tapl/)

[4] [https://www.springer.com/gb/book/9783540654100](https://www.springer.com/gb/book/9783540654100)

[5] [http://www.concrete-semantics.org/](http://www.concrete-semantics.org/)

[6] [http://adam.chlipala.net/frap/](http://adam.chlipala.net/frap/)

<comment><USER4> You might be interested in the works of Gérard Huet! [http://gallium.inria.fr/~huet/PUBLIC/FSCD16.pdf](http://gallium.inria.fr/~huet/PUBLIC/FSCD16.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Thanks. I know about Gérard Huet, but not about this particular publication.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not a mathematician. If the goal is simplicity why can't you use Peano's axioms?

<comment><USER6> The Peano axioms don't do very much, they just help model the natural numbers. You still need something to model the logic and provide foundations more complex subjects like analysis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It would be interesting to learn about some new (unified) theory that can formalize the notion of infinity. Apparently, this can hardly be done on the basis of the classical (Cartesian) view of space which is essentially a box with points (elements).

<comment><USER8> Then John H. Conway's Surreal Numbers might be of interest to you. Donald Knuth wrote a book about the subject and it's actually in the form of a story with dialogue, not your typical math book. I'll attempt a summary. It is possible to build all number systems at once including all integers, rationals, algebraic, irrational, infinitesimal, hyper-reals and transfinite all at once using a single procedure which resembles Dedekind cuts. From that foundation one can recreate many of the results of non-standard analysis. Conway discovered his Surreal Numbers while investigating Combinatorial Game Theory. He wasn't even trying to create a new foundation for mathematics, he was just playing at his games which many of his colleagues looked down upon as useless. Apparently playing games and having fun can occasionally result in extraordinary discoveries.

Conway's left and right "cuts" look like sets but then again I'm not really sure what they are. Is this alien mathematics accidentally discovered on Earth by perhaps the most intelligent Earthling who ever lived. I don't know. All I can say is I took a detour from my usual math studies to look into Surreal numbers and it was an interesting trip. I'm quite conservative when it comes to math. I don't go around preaching Surreal numbers are the way to do math but it is a curiosity none-the-less worth at least the small price of reading Knuth's short book about it from cover to cover.

<comment><USER9> If you listen to Conway talk about the Surreals you'll note that he considered it a game (in the game theory sense). He was interested in games of a certain kind and what properties they had, a long the way he stumbled upon this game that we now call the surreal numbers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I like Godel: "this sentence is unprovably true".</comment>


Maybe you don't need Rust and WASM to speed up your JS - <AUTHOR> https://mrale.ph/blog/2018/02/03/maybe-you-dont-need-rust-to-speed-up-your-js.html#getting-the-code <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16413917](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16413917)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure that this was already HN-ed 6 months ago.

Nick Fitzgerald's reponse was published here: [http://fitzgeraldnick.com/2018/02/26/speed-without- wizardry....](http://fitzgeraldnick.com/2018/02/26/speed-without- wizardry.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Reading all of that makes fighting with the rust borrow checker sound like a walk in the park in comparison.

Does _anyone_ think that stringifying a function and re evaluating it in order to manipulate the compiler sounds like a good way to write code?

<comment><USER5> Yeah the main benefit of WASM is being able to open up more languages to in- browser execution. The fact that some of the languages can be a lot better than JavaScript for some purposes is icing on the cake...

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This was all discussed before. The TL;DR conclusion was: yes, you can get very fast javascript, but only if you are a V8 expert and know how to avoid the performance cliffs. If you want _reliable_ performance, WASM is a better bet.

</comment><comment><USER7> Suggest changing the URL to remove the anchor.

<comment><USER2> Well then it wouldn't pass the duplicate checker :)</comment></comment>


Shedding Too Much Light on a Microcontroller's Firmware Protection (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.aisec.fraunhofer.de/en/FirmwareProtection.html <comment><USER2> The tl;dr is that researchers found 3 weaknesses in an STM32's flash protection scheme. For those not familiar, these chips offer three protection levels:

RDP 0 - unlocked, all flash/ram is accessible via the debug interface

RDP 1 - flash locked, you can connect a debugger and read out RAM/peripherals, but not flash. This is intended to prevent you from dumping the flash firmware image, but allow you to perform some diagnostics via the debugger.

RDP 2 - everything's locked down. The debugger cannot access RAM, Flash, or other peripherals.

The 3 exploits are roughly:

* In RDP 1, you can't read flash directly, but you can read anything that the firmware puts in RAM. The researchers were able to extract an entire flash firmware image by watching the results of a CRC self-check that the firmware performs upon boot. By resetting the microcontroller and very precisely controlling the amount of time it's allowed to run before halting it and dumping RAM, the researchers were able to back out the firmware image by observing the CRC progression in RAM.

* The researchers noted that the bit patterns used to represent the different RDP levels in flash were sub-optimal in that only a single bit needs to be flipped to downgrade from RDP 2 to RDP 1. By deencapsulating an RDP 2 microcontroller and exposing it to UV using a carefully-constructed mask, they were able to perform such a downgrade.

* The researchers crafted their own SWD debugger interface that performed less initialization than ST's stock debugger and thus didn't immediately lock down a microcontroller in RDP 1 mode when the debugger was attached. With this modified debugger, they discovered that they could issue a flash read that would lock down the micro as expected, but would also occasionally result in the protected flash data actually appearing in the read buffer (likely due to some internal race condition bug in the microcontroller's hardware). Thus it's possible to automate a brute force extraction of the entire flash in RDP 1 mode.

Edit: Changed RDP 2 to RDP 1 in description of 3rd exploit.

<comment><USER3> Mostly correct, except for a few points:

1\. RDP2 completely disables the debug interface. The microcontroller doesn't respond to debug requests in this mode.

2\. As the third attack requires the microcontroller to have a working debug port, it requires it to be in RDP1. (Which could be accomplished using the second attack.)

<comment><USER2> Ah, you're correct. I did think it was odd that they were able to make the debugger do anything in RDP2, but I misread it. That attack was indeed performed in RDP1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It looks like many of STM's newer chips (at least STM32F4, STM32L1) use a fuse to protect RDP level 2 (per e.g. [https://www.st.com/content/ccc/resource/technical/document/a...](https://www.st.com/content/ccc/resource/technical/document/application_note/89/12/c5/e2/0d/0e/45/7f/DM00186528.pdf/files/DM00186528.pdf/jcr:content/translations/en.DM00186528.pdf)), making the downgrade attack significantly harder to pull off. It would be nice to know if this was indeed the case, because then there would be a viable mitigation for these exploits (move to a different chip family and enable RDP 2 there).

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure there's actually any difference. The language describing memory protection in the reference manuals for STM32F0 and STM32F4 is largely identical; the only difference is that the F4 manual mentions that JTAG boundary scan is disabled (which is irrelevant to F0, as that family only supports SWD).

Some newer ST parts, like the F7 series, have OTP fuses which can be programmed in addition to the flash option bytes (which control read protection, among other things). However, the OTP fuses have no hardware effect -- they're just for use in user applications. Additionally, it isn't even clear they're truly OTP, or if they're just flash with weird write protection.

<comment><USER5> SWD and JTAG are both disabled in RDP2. The OTP bytes were there on the F4 too.

<comment><USER3> Right; the specific quote I'm referring to is:

> The JTAG port is permanently disabled when Level 2 is active (acting as a > JTAG fuse). As a consequence, boundary scan cannot be performed.

(RM0385, page 89)

I'm pretty sure that this quote is only intended to mean that setting RDP2 disables JTAG boundary scan, _as if_ a JTAG fuse were blown. I don't believe there is any actual fuse involved; AN4701 (the document you're quoting) may be the result of another ST employee misinterpreting the reference manual as a statement that there is an actual fuse.

<comment><USER4> That's too bad - I would call that misleading documentation. Is there a reliable way to check for sure whether they mean a physical fuse, or a "virtual" fuse derived from the flash bits?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I believe the escalation attacks and especially the race attack is both novel and fascinating, but the UV bitflipping attack for STM32 specifically has been known for quite some time - see for example this 2015 StackOverflow comment: [https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/198395](https://electronics.stackexchange.com/a/198395)

<comment><USER7> Bunnie Huang made a nice post describing the UV process for a different micro: [https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=40](https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?page_id=40)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> With the ARMs I use, once you enable code protect, the entire JTAG/SWD interface goes dead. Only a hardware erase triggered by a auxiliary pin can clear it and re-enable the interface. And its not just reduced functionality, its complete disabling of the debug interface that occurs.

<comment><USER9> But this protection is meaningless if "code protect" is a single bit flip that can be downgraded with a clever mask and UV light.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is pretty cool. I expect to see many proprietary firmware for many projects released on github soon.

<comment><USER11> Eh, it still requires to de-encapsulate the controller, make a mask and expose the controller to UV light, it's not a super easy process.

<comment><USER3> I know someone who's able to reliably perform the deprotection attack in their home lab. It takes some practice, but it's well within reach for an attacker with even modest resources.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Multiplayer Brain games - <AUTHOR> https://www.brainturk.com/web/wars <comment><USER2> It would be great if you can add a few of those word games you have on the games page to the wars page</comment>


What Information Do Facebook Advertisers Know About Me? - <AUTHOR> https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/data-and-advertising/ <comment><USER2> "If I'm not paying for Facebook, am I the product?

No. Our product is social media"

Hahahahaha

I'd give this propaganda a 1 out of 10 on the honesty scale, and 10 out of 10 on the sociopath scale.

If facebook were a person, would you want that person to have access to your life and your interpersonal connections, and to be a party to your communications? Or would you think to yourself, geeze, this guy is a psycho, I don't want anything to do with him.

... but hey, Farmville.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's not just advertisers that are the issue, but third-party developers. Cambridge Analytica (and many others like it) got all of that data as a third- party developer, not as an advertiser.</comment>


The new land of opportunity for immigrants is Germany - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-new-land-of-opportunity-for-immigrants-is-germany/2014/07/27/93464262-7eff-4931-817c-786db6d21ec8_story.html <comment><USER2> The various sides of the immigration debate are talking past each other. This article describes a German program that takes high skill people like the architect profiled in the article, while those opposed to immigration are mainly concerned about the large numbers of low-skill people who are not interested in assimilating. The anti-immigrant folks in Britain and France aren't worried about Mr. Pinol. They're worried about the people who want to self-govern according to Sharia law inside a western country.

As for the U.S., the key difference with Germany is that our fertility rate is 1.89 (over 2.1 during the boom). Theirs is 1.36 (under 1.4 since 1990).

<comment><USER3> The article does talk about African laborers and Bulgarian demolition crews. Not high-skilled work. Also "Angela Merkel... has spoken out against immigrants relocating here merely to tap generous domestic welfare benefits."

You're right that masses of low-skill immigrants is a problem, especially when they are not integrating with society. It seems Germany has this problem too ("And many Germans still call the lack of assimilation among Turkish immigrants a leading national problem.").

Your score is bouncing quite heavily, indicating that this is a controversial comment. You're not wrong though. The question I still have after reading the article is, how is Germany dealing with the low-skill immigration (or how effective is their vocation training and welfare system)? Can the US or UK implement similar plans with any success?

<comment><USER4> The Turkish "problem" is longstanding and kind on both sides as well. Many Turks are not that sure if they want to integrate into German society, and many Germans are not sure if they want them to either (though this sentiment is weaker than it once was). That produces a self-reinforcing situation.

Many of the current Turkish residents came during the 1960s as part of a guest-worker program [1], or are descended from those who did. The expectation was that they would be temporary workers (no path to citizenship) and eventually go home again. The program was closed in 1973, and the government spent much of the late '70s and '80s trying to encourage them to leave, more than encouraging them to integrate. There are many kids who've grown up 100% in Germany (some _grandkids_ too) who aren't German citizens, and until very recently, were not encouraged to become citizens. (Germany does not have _jus soli_ citizenship, and before a reform in 1999, it was also very difficult for someone not of German descent to naturalize.)

The fact that many Turks in Germany come from poor and highly conservative regions of Turkey (generally not Istanbul) doesn't help assimilation, of course. But it also doesn't help that the message for decades was that they aren't German and can't become German. And non-integration is complex, too. When Americans think of unintegrated Mexican immigrants, for example, they think first and foremost of Spanish speakers who can't speak English. But almost all the Turks considered unintegrated do speak German. Some (especially younger generations) don't even speak Turkish fluently (or at all), but _only_ German.

Lots of these aren't German-specific problems, though. Since at least the late 19th century, European counties have been based on the ethnic nation-state, and transitioning to some idea that people can change nationalities, or even have more than one (and what that means) is slow and produces opposition.

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

<comment><USER5> As a Turk, I don't see the "Turkish problem" as being Germany's fault at all. These people went to Germany on a temporary basis, and decided to just not leave when the guest-worker program ended. In other words, they overstayed their welcome.

Imagine inviting a guest to your house for dinner, and them liking your house a lot and deciding to just move in permanently. Are you then expected to encourage them to put their name on the lease (i.e. become a citizen)? I don't think so.

<comment><USER6> >As a Turk, I don't see the "Turkish problem" as being Germany's fault at all. These people went to Germany on a temporary basis, and decided to just not leave when the guest-worker program ended. In other words, they overstayed their welcome.*

Here's how it went down. First, Germany slaughtered and exterminated millions of people, invaded tons of countries, destroyed their infrastructure, commited heinous crimes, etc. What we know as World War II.

After the end of the war, West Germany, as a valueable ally of the West against USSR, got all kinds of help and special treatment to rebuilt its economy. And they started a program for bringing in workers from places they invaded and decimated, like Greece. Those workers, like the involuntary "arbeit mach frei" workers before, were brought to serve as cheap immigrant labor, under exploitative conditions, to assist the very people that had unprovoked invaded their countries and killed their relatives and fellow citizens a decade or so ago. The guest-workers, besides being exploited with lesser wages than Germans and fewer opportunities for advancment (like b-rate citizens) they were also treated with extreme racism and prejudice.

Now, the problem of the Germans (the "they overstayed their welcome") was that these people didn't just disperse when they were done with them, but instead felt that those hard working years in Germany gave them a right to stay and be integrated as full citizens.

Such nerve, huh?

<comment><USER7> "a program for bringing in workers from places they invaded and decimated" \- against their will?

<comment><USER6> I don't really understand this notion -- I usually get this kind of question from Americans: that if you consent to something, it makes it OK, regardless of the circumstances under which you gave your consent. I think this ideas usually comes from people playing life in "easy mode" (white, well educated, middle or upper middle class), that have never been forced to consent to humilliating or exploitative demands of the kind billions of people often have.

If I burn down your house (and kill your cousin and your Jew neighbors), and you or your kid, starving, accepts to come work for my company, and I treat you like shit on top, that doesn't make it OK in my book.

<comment><USER7> Maybe my knowledge of history in this area is not sufficient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder how many of us commenting on this article read past the headline to take a look at the chart (displayed on the left side of the article text, as I view the article in my browser) titled "More Immigrants Moving to Germany"? That chart shows very plainly, based on OECD statistics, that the United States has a higher absolute number of immigrants each year than Germany, as it has for a long time. The striking thing about the very recent statistics is the recent higher percentage of immigrants in relation to the total population of the country (313.9 million for the United States, 81.89 million for Germany), if I'm reading the chart scale correctly,[1] although other statistics sources continue to report that the United States has a higher rate of immigration.[2] If that trend is sustained, Germany will indeed be noteworthy as a country receiving a large percentage of immigrants year on year, but let's see what happens as the immigration trend interacts with economic growth trends in Germany and in Europe generally.[3] The economy has to stay somewhat healthy in German for immigrants to desire to move there.

[1] [http://www.dw.de/immigration-to-germany-at-its-highest- rate-...](http://www.dw.de/immigration-to-germany-at-its-highest-rate-in- nearly-two-decades/a-17363452)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate)

[3] [http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-14/europe-s- ec...](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-14/europe-s-economy-is- broken)

<comment><USER9> there are more immigrants moving to germany <compared to the past>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It should be noted that Germany is only a land of opportunity, if you intend to study there, have a university-level education or are wealthy enough that your education becomes irrelevant.

Furthermore unless you are doing software development, research or something similarly internationally focused you will have a bad time, if you don't speak German.

</comment><comment><USER3> What is the chance of moving to Germany from the US without a college degree, but rather with five years industry experience and a handful of certifications, plus a good grasp of the German language? Would companies generally go for that, or would German authorities allow that?

<comment><USER11> I'd say it's possible. I had colleagues with no grasp of the German language, minor English skills and no degree because the IT Industry in Germany is terribly hungry for employees. This was in Stuttgart (southwest), but I assume it's the same accross the country.

<comment><USER12> Sorry for the dumb question, but how would I find these employers?

I did study four years of German in highschool (so I can hold a conversation with a toddler. Maybe) and have a degree in mathematics from UIUC.

<comment><USER13> look on monster.de for english speaking jobs, or thelocal.de - there are also facebook groups for startups in berlin who are looking to hire. Your best bet is to be here and look for something though - the odds of getting hired sitting in the US are slim to none unless you are really highly qualified / have tonnes of experience. If you're looking to get hired in tech get in touch.

<comment><USER12> Hey! I appreciate the intel, but...

Sorry, I'm less than entry level. My studies were general math, though I did get 'supporting coursework' in CS (~half in CS theory, half 'applied:' Java, C++). I can't find any entry-level/junior positions that don't require 3-5 year experience in X.

I'm willing to spend my free-time (in addition to working early/late hours) learning whatever technology you work with, but no one feels like giving me a chance.

I have a resume link in my profile if you don't mind giving advice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> aaron-lebo Berlin has been talked a lot about on HN, but what is the situation like now? I know for awhile it was relatively cheap which was one of the big perks, but housing costs have gone up due to people moving there. What level of experience would you need as an American programmer to move to Berlin and find work? Is it a realistic option?

An example of a past thread: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3221799](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3221799)

<comment><USER10> Rent prices have definitely exploded and there are no signs that the upwards trend will stop anytime soon. Nevertheless they are still low compared to cities like London or Paris.

Furthermore software developers in Berlin are in very high demand. If you speak English fluently and are a good software developer, getting a job in Berlin should be no problem.

<comment><USER14> What are examples?

<comment><USER15> If you mean examples about rent prices, a 1-room apartment in Charlottenburg (nice location) costs around €600. Similar apartment in Wedding (a bit further north) is around €500.

For reference, a regular programming job should be around €1500 per month after taxes, while a month worth of supermarket food costs around €250 (although the right habits can shave almost a hundred from that). Add another €100 for a month of unlimited public transport, and you are set.

<comment><USER16> 1500€/month after taxes sounds very low. That is like 27k yearly before taxes (Steuerklasse 1 / no church taxes). Eastern europeans get paid that, because you can lowball them so easily. But as far as I know 40k is a lower bound for cs graduates.

For reference I got 56.5k/year base salary at my first job after graduation (small company) and that were 2770€/month after taxes. I even have two friends that earn more than I do. Quit that one after half a year though (russian offshore programmers communication hell).

Your rent/food prices are correct though. Small hack: your employer can pay you 44€/month tax-free for the public transport ticket (geldwerter Vorteil Freibetrag).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Excerpt:

 _"Berlin is different than other parts of Germany, and that's why I think I can make it here," he said. "It is more relaxed, more accepting than other German cities, and there is no pressure to behave a certain way."_

As I understand it, that would be something of a holdover from the cold war days when the culture there was unique due to it's odd political situation.

<comment><USER18> Largely due to the high numbers of young counterculturalists who moved to West Berlin in the 70s and 80s. (Unlike the rest of West Germany West Berlin didn't have conscription.)

<comment><USER19> That sounds unlikely, because I think counterculturalists have very strict ideas of how you should be.

<comment><USER18> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Germany#Conscie...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Germany#Conscientious_objection_in_the_past)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't have much information about Germany apart from a couple one-week holidays, so I can't really comment on those.

On the other hand, I've moved to Britain 2 years ago (with a secured job that I'm just leaving for a new one this week) and in my experience this isn't far away from "The Land of Opportunity". The Greater London area and, to some extent, the M4 corridor is just the paradise for skilled IT workers. Heck, even some towns have almost nil unemployment in general (Reading, I'm looking at you).

Seriously, IT companies struggle to find skilled and experienced people and often hire from the rest of the EU just because it is a bigger pool and many >35 y.o. people already speak decent English so, why not?

<comment><USER21> Isn't the London real estate market as pricy as S.F., though?

<comment><USER20> Yes, it is. Hence my comments about the M4 corridor as well... Worth checking it out (surely not as cheap as Berlin though).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> An architect (known HERE IN GERMANY to be an over-run study-topic with too little jobs or low pay (until you made it)), a social worker, which is now a dish washer. Highly qualified foreign workers (which we highly need)...

even if the article portrayed a university guy... where are we (Germany, Europe, rest of the world) on a global ranking on universities?! (We are well behind Berkley, Stanford and Harvard!)

There were only 170 "expert workers" coming in the first year [1]. Also on that link a more in-side discussion (german residents) with much more critical tone (Google translate may help).

And I am not against that all the Russians, Rumanians and now also the people from the recent crisis come here because of hard economic problems in their country. But... you know... let's keep the church in the village.

People are having less and less offspring because live gets more difficult here (work opportunities only in big cities, living costs (esp. housing FOR A FAMILY), taxes, requirement to travel, etc.). And then arguing "we need people/imigrants"... it's just twisting everything... like a german politician said "I make me my world as I'd like it to be"). There is even the debate here, that "Germany gets rid of itself".

And then YC summer "batch" consisting of 68 groups, which received funding (some, then "B", "C", what 1 Mio, then 21 Mio)... wow... there is not much here (sorry, no it's not!)

Ignorance is bliss ("ja ja ja, the Americans are just more risk-friendly", end of personal horizont)

It's good to be called a "SF based company"

"Made in Germany", yeah... cars... and cars and cars (I wouldn't wonder if Google or Apple or a StartUp (Tesla?) would crush these next)

Europe, welcome to the old world!

But what will it look like in 10 or 20 years?

[1] [http://m.welt.de/print/welt_kompakt/print_wirtschaft/article...](http://m.welt.de/print/welt_kompakt/print_wirtschaft/article131322266/Im- ersten-Jahr-kamen-nur-170-Fachkraefte.html)

<comment><USER19> I think the universities are really good. I agree on the cars issue. Makes me really nervous that everything hinges on the car industry and they don't seem to get the future at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What's the endgame for propping up population numbers with immigration? Surely the whole system falls apart once the net fertility rate falls below 2. What then?

There's good reasons to be immigration-friendly, but dealing with the endgame of the inevitably shrinking population like the Japanese are doing seems like a better long-term strategy than the temporary band-aid solution of solving the problem in the short-term with increased immigration.

</comment><comment><USER24> So immigrant-friendly that sometimes it even comes to you!

<comment><USER25> Immigrant friendly, sure. Refugee friendly? Not so much. Berlin is having some massive issues right now with how to handle them (1).

Then again, I'm in Australia, so I can't really talk.

(1) [https://news.vice.com/video/berlins-refugee- crisis](https://news.vice.com/video/berlins-refugee-crisis)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Immigrants" from Italy and Spain? Is the author joking or just ignorant? People within the EU can live and work wherever they want. No "immigration procedure" necessary. Just pack your things and go.

<comment><USER27> > immigrant, noun.

> 1\. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.

I think he knows exactly what "immigrants" means.</comment></comment>


No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1870) - <AUTHOR> https://readtext.org/misc/no-treason-constitution/ <comment><USER2> I love Lysander Spooner, and I'm a little surprised to see his works show up here on HN. I'm not sure how "on topic" this really is, but still kinda glad to see this. I think everybody would be well served to read Spooner, even if you don't agree with all of his positions. At the very least, his way of thinking may challenge some of our pre-existing notions about the nature of government and authority.

And, of course, I can't say enough about Bastiat's _The Law_ either. Definitely worth reading if you haven't read it yet.

</comment><comment><USER3> Spooner's essays on the Jury representing the whole people (not merely the majority), and the criminal intent, are among the most important political writings. Comparable to Bastiat's "The Law." I recommend "The Lysander Spooner Reader" \-- and make sure you read it all.

Frankly I don't really believe anyone is educated enough to even have an informed discussion on politics if they aren't familiar with the arguments presented in those two books.

</comment><comment><USER4> I didn't read the whole thing ('tis long) but I think I got the gist from skimming it.

One main point is that the US government was meant to be a purely voluntary contract between men:

"The Constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.

It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still "make his mark," before he is bound by a written contract."

The second main point is that government debt is the factor which has shifted the government from "servant of the people" to the more typical "ruler of the people":

"On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty, or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates of interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war were accomplished.

And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villainous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and the South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest—enormous as the latter was—are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further—and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid—by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war."

I'm in favour of a minarchist state, and, not being American, I find the US from its founding to roughly WWI something close to my ideal of a government which acts more as a mutual protection agency, rather than as an entity with an eternal claim on its citizens labour. Some of the Greek city-states also came close to this ideal.

I don't have time to give a detailed opinion on the argument in this article, but there's merit to the idea of every citizen having to formally recognise their constitution. E.g., at age 21, to become an official citizen you voluntarily sign a contract agreeing to uphold the constitution. (Obviously this wouldn't work in any current society, I'm talking a capitalist utopia with voluntary ~5% tax rates to pay for the police and army).

<comment><USER5> The Constitution is not binding, in that people can leave its jurisdiction at any time--by renouncing their U.S. citizenship. If a person doesn't like the contract, they can terminate it.

It is a contract, though. That means that terminating it will also terminate the many benefits of U.S. citizenship. This is a point that, IME, is often lost on people who want to talk about how the Constitution doesn't bind anyone. They want to live in the U.S. with all the rights and privileges of a U.S. citizen, but opt out of taxes, rules, regulations, fees, etc. at their discretion. That's not how contracts work!

So how do people enter into this contract? They are entered into it by their parents when they are minors. Minors cannot execute contracts, but can be subjected to contracts by their parents.

If one wants to look at U.S. citizenship as a contract, then here is the answer. Just like swim class, summer camp, or private school, your parents get to tell you what to do, and that includes being a U.S. citizen. Once a U.S. citizen is 18, they are free to terminate the contract as described above.

<comment><USER6> > It is a contract, though.

I didn't sign it.

> Minors cannot execute contracts, but can be subjected to contracts by their > parents.

They didn't sign it either. Not one of my ancestors did.

> That's not how contracts work!

That's the point?

<comment><USER5> A person does not have to sign anything to accept a contract and be subject to its terms.

Anyway, I don't believe that U.S. citizenship is literally the same as a business contract. My point is that people who _do_ try to make that equivalence, usually don't understand contracts well enough to make any sort of logical point.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


LulzSec takes down Eve Online, Escapist Magazine, and Minecraft - <AUTHOR> http://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/80695749393920000 <comment><USER2> Minecraft is still up for me... is a short-lived DDoS news?</comment>