Rollover image on your website? That will be $80,000 (please) - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/patent-troll-takes-over-the-web-can-it-be-stopped.ars

<comment><USER3> I'm not a violent person. But patent trolls make me have visions of dungeons and medieval tools...

They're like parasites that try to find the optimal amount of blood that they can suck out of healthy businesses without killing them.

Novartis having the moral high ground in a lawsuit is rare enough that that alone should give you pause as to how low these people really are.

There are times that I wished I was a Catholic so I could condemn types like this - and mr. McBride - to hell.

Failing that, debtors prison would be fine with me as well.

<comment><USER4> it'd be cheaper for Novartis to just have these guys killed. Maybe after a dozen or so patent trolls end up dead, they might go looking for a safer market.

Frankly I think patent law, should be like trademark law. You can patent anything, but you can't sue anyone who is not your direct competitor.

Also it couldn't hurt, to have a clause that in order to be granted the patent, that you'd need to show a fully functional prototype.

<comment><USER5> Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to get by without them. I can see the argument to justify patents--rewarding people who innovate, but so often they are abused by the likes of Nathan Myhrvold and Intellectual Ventures. Without patents, everything would essentially be a meritocracy. Either way, this is another example of how badly the patent system needs reform of some kind.

Here is an article that makes a better argument than I have the time or capacity for: [http://mises.org/Community/wikis/economics/a-world- without-i...](http://mises.org/Community/wikis/economics/a-world-without- intellectual-property.aspx)

<comment><USER6> > Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to > get by without them.

There are several things wrong with your proposition.

First, the food and beverage industries get by without patents because they leverage trade secrets, which is the exact sort of privatized knowledge that patents have long sought to prevent.

Second, fashion survives without patents because _names_ matter. People will buy Louis Vuitton whether it's good or not, simply because it has his name on it. Louis Vuitton has no need for patents because it's not the bag design, but his _name_ that matters.

The problem with abolishing patents is that while it might make it easier for companies, it would make it absolutely impossible for small-time, independent inventors to advance human knowledge. What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less?

The problem with patents in this article isn't the patent itself, but the fact that it covers software, which is 50% math and 50% business process and shouldn't ever have been patentable in the first place.

<comment><USER7> "Second, fashion survives without patents because names matter. People will buy Louis Vuitton whether it's good or not, simply because it has his name on it. Louis Vuitton has no need for patents because it's not the bag design, but his name that matters."

How do you know this is _cause_ and not _effect_? The adaptation of the system to not having government monopolies may have been to go to a name-based reputation system.

It certainly seems to me this would work for software, probably even better than it does for fashion. Arguably it already does.

" What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less?"

Yes, this is the standard argument. Do you have any _evidence_ that it actually works that way? I don't see a lot of small companies making it big on a patented product where they get a lot of protection that works; I do see a lot of companies of all sizes being stomped on.

Goals aren't results. You've stated the goals of the system, but really, who cares what the goals are? What matters are the effects. The effects in reality do not seem to be a net positive for the "little guys", who can't afford the patent process in the first place, especially now that turnaround time is measured in _years_. In fact the horrible outcome you describe in a world without patents seems rather similar to what _actually_ happens in this one.... the little guys won't be able to afford the lawyers, and everybody in the system knows it.

<comment><USER6> > It certainly seems to me this would work for software, probably even better > than it does for fashion. Arguably it already does.

Yes, it would work better for software! I'm unsure why you and my other interlocutor considered this an interesting point to make: my post is clear that I believe _software_ patents should be abolished, but not _all_ patents.

> Yes, this is the standard argument. Do you have any evidence that it > actually works that way?

Yes. The fact that innovation has marched on and that small-time inventors have invented new and relevant products is evidence for my claim.

> I don't see a lot of small companies making it big on a patented product > where they get a lot of protection that works;

Sure you do. Segway is one. Many of the products by Dyson would be others.

> I do see a lot of companies of all sizes being stomped on.

Please, by all means, provide examples.

> The effects in reality do not seem to be a net positive for the "little > guys", who can't afford the patent process in the first place

Tell that to James Dyson or Dean Kamen.

<comment><USER8> Isn't Segway protected by its uselessness rather than a patent?

Edit: if you believe that Segway's lack of success meant nothing, and that many companies want to build and sell self-balancing scooters but the patent system is stopping them, you should argue that point _and_ downvote, not _just_ downvote. I'm annoyed.

<comment><USER3> > I'm annoyed.

Rightfully so.

Downvotes aside, it seems the segway has it's dedicated fans.

I think the biggest thing that's wrong with it was the way it was launched, not the article per se.

<comment><USER9> DEKA is a strange duck. They have some genuinely brilliant people there, working on some genuinely revolutionary inventions -- but they just can't seem to actually bring them to market. Or, they're not interested in bringing them to market.

I've never seen one of their wheelchairs; I've seen some Segways, but they remain more a curiosity and spectacle than a common device; I've yet to hear of the Stirling engine / water purifier being deployed anywhere; and their cybernetics for amputees don't seem to be getting beyond experimental.

I really don't "get" them. The best I can figure is that everyone (influential) there is happy just to be working on these puzzles, and they don't really care if anyone uses them or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Someone PLEASE make a patent trolling incident database that would include cases like that one. Two purposes:

1) you will gather an enormous amount of trolling evidence which will come in handy when this issue will get more attention from government and the public

2) when the troll issues such notes en masse (which I think they do), it will be easier for the victims to connect and pool resources to invalidate the patent.

<comment><USER11> Thats actually a good idea. What would be the requirements? It might be an interesting weekend project for me!

<comment><USER10> You need stuff like patent numbers in question, the companies involved, industries, categories, links to relevant news stories and blog posts, etc. People should be able to submit what they know (you don't want to gather all this info yourself, apart from some initial pile so that the site does not look empty). The website should be easy to use for

1) bloggers/journalists finding out about stories about blatant trolling

2) victims to report their case and find other victims affected by it (automatic search by patent number, trolling company name, etc)

Note that victims will not look for your website in particular unless you're really popular. You have to create a lot of pages for each patent number, each company name, so that google picks them up and they come up on the first page when searching for patent number for example.

This is unfortunately too much for simply a weekend project. The technology is trivial but getting traction with such a website, bringing it to the attention of major blogs and news outlets is the main work to be done.

<comment><USER8> The obvious way to implement this project would be a wiki. I googled a little and found a specialized wiki that already has the beginnings of such a project:

<http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_trolls>

So those of you who really want to help the world could go there and participate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> (Posting from a throwaway account) These asshats threatened to sue the company I work for. We ended up removing the "offending" technology from our site because we were not going to pay their ridiculous licensing fee and we could not afford fighting them in court. I spent three days removing code that made our site easier to use. It was depressing.

<comment><USER13> I really wonder: do they have any power over people except for fear? What if you just say "go screw yourselves." And leave it at that? Would there be serious consequences?

<comment><USER3> I did that to 'acacia', they took a walk when they found out that I could probably invalidate their patent. (and I probably really could, and would).

It's like the mafia, they like to pick on the weak, the slightly stronger they'll go after in court if they think they can win. But they're cowards at heart and they will avoid a confrontation if the other party might damage them.

And if the stakes are high enough and they've been successful in the past with their shakedown they'll sue big companies that are not going to be able to invalidate their patent directly (that's what's happening here, after all Novartis is not exactly a software development company, even though they have plenty of IT).

Think about all the parties you could sue if you had a patent on the hyperlink.

<comment><USER14> > I did that to 'acacia', they took a walk when they found out that I could > probably invalidate their patent. (and I probably really could, and would).

I'd have looked up whoever else they were suing and maybe quietly passed along a tip about where to find prior art.

<comment><USER3> I did that a few times already.

I have a nice fat file for people that are in that position and that contact me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I think the main problem is there are very few consequences for patent trolls.

I consider this a form of extortion that our legal system is not structured to prevent (it actually encourages it). Invalidating and banishing all software patents would be a start.

<comment><USER16> That's what pains me the most. Anyone with half a brain can see that these people provide nothing of value and should be laughed out of court and punished for wasting everyone's time, yet that will never happen and they will continue to clog up the system with their BS.

<comment><USER17> "Loser pays" would help.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1792353>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> >>>According to Law.com, Webvention acquired the property from the great patent gobbler itself, Intellectual Ventures<<<

Why do I have this funny feeling that this is a front for intellectual ventures and lots of people are going to bought off?

<comment><USER19> Indeed, why would Intellectual Ventures sell some of its patents instead of doing the usual, that is using fronts to sue people.

In fact, this case seems suspicously similar to earlier case Intellectual Ventures shell vs. Kodak <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100310/0302518496.shtml>

This way IV can continue claiming that they never sued anyone(themselves).

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Calling all HN types in East Texas:

Make damn sure to show up for Jury Duty.

<comment><USER21> You'll never get selected. In most any lawsuit, if you have a three figure IQ, then chances are that one lawyer or the other doesn't want you on the jury.

<comment><USER22> Incorrect, product liability and patent law both sides want educated people to understand what the hell is happening.

<comment><USER23> > _product liability and patent law both sides want educated people to > understand what the hell is happening._

Not always - if one side looks evil, the other side's lawyers might want jurors who can't understand the technology and therefore will vote based on good-guy-versus-bad-guy. Happens a fair amount.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> A quote about the inventor (found here <http://www.webventionllc.com/about_the_inventor>):

"Dan Abelow is a prolific invetor and an expert on website usability, ease-of- use and assured user performance. He provides ongoing high-level consultation services to large corporations, and improves website usability, ensuring a competitive advantage for his clients."

But then look at Dan's website:

<http://computing2.com/index.htm>

It's hard for me to believe that someone who promotes himself as an expert on website usability would have such an awful website. Is he somehow just a front for this patent trolling, or maybe he just got lucky with one very valuable patent?

<comment><USER25> What IS sad is that he is not even using rollover images on the site! That's hilarious to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Yet another example of a flawed patent system in need of reform.

<comment><USER27> If the patent really is 17 years old, one might be able to forgive the USPTO for letting this one get by, considering nothing like it existed at the time (Gopher was probably the closest thing). Now, on the other hand, I fully agree with you that the patent system is in need of very serious reform.

<comment><USER28> Hypercard?

<comment><USER29> Good old multimedia CDs too.

<comment><USER28> I'm not sure if those predated 1990. From what I can see, in the US multimedia CDs hit the US around 1991.

<comment><USER30> Well, Macromedia Director with Lingo (the software used to produce most of them) was released in '88. (Director is older, but had limited interactivity authoring capability before Lingo.) It definitely had image rollover effects when I was working with it in '89. CD drives may not have been ubiquitous at the time, but deployment via stacks of floppies was going on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This patent is filed February 1990, issued October 1993 - wouldn't that make it expired? Or am I naive?

<comment><USER32> I guess this is the aspect I don't understand. With a lifetime of twenty years, most software patents (a lot of hardware patents for that matter) cover the entire viable commercial lifetime of the product.

In our brief experience of commercial software (what has it been? 40 years? Note: that's 2 patent terms) I can't think of very many software technologies that have lasted as a commercially viable product for 10 years let alone 20.

To my limited understanding of how patents work and how the software market works I would think a patent term in the range of 1-5 years would be a lot more reasonable. It would allow for the patent holder to gain a competitively advantageous foothold in the market (the point of having a patent) and it would destroy the incentive of inventors to sell their patents rather than creating business from them.

I'd be interested to hear from people with more knowledge of these subjects than me as to why this isn't the way software patents are maintained.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Interesting comment in SO thread: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2609936/javascript-css- ro...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2609936/javascript-css-rollover- menus-are-patented-and-subject-to-licensing)

<comment><USER34> Interesting quote from that comment: "A long, legal way to say this patent is public domain on 10/5/2010 and these guys are probably trying to snag a nickel before it goes out."

Meaning the patent troll is trying to turn a last minute buck on something that should have gone public domain last week. At least it sounds like there isn't much to fear from this particular troll in the future

<comment><USER33> I hope he is correct. This group smells like a bad cancer, though. I have a feeling we are going to hear from them until they are stopped.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is very interesting; it's the first time I've heard of an IV patent actually being (almost) litigated. Here are a couple of relevant points:

\- Running this patent as a separate company limits the potential downside for IV etc. Even if the legal system awarded legal costs to the winner of the suit, which it won't, and even if other companies countersued for tortious interference with business relationships, which they won't, the worst that can happen is that the patent corporation goes bankrupt and there's zero return to the investors.

\- It isn't necessary for IV to have control of, or even an ownership stake in, the licensing corporation. They can sell the patent to a company run entirely by third-party investors for its expected licensing revenues, minus some return for the investors. If the payments for the purchase are spread out over a period of time, then IV could charge a higher nominal price by sharing in the risk that the patent won't pan out (and that the corporation will therefore go bankrupt as a result with some payments still unpaid).

\- Webvention, to an even greater extent than IV itself, is immune to countersuits for infringements of other patents.

\- There's nothing stopping IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, etc., from doing the same thing. If Unisys had done this over the LZW patent, they wouldn't have suffered the PR black eye that they did.

</comment><comment><USER24> Why hasn't 4chan ever gone after patent trolls? Seems like an appropriate, worthy target for them. Actually, I guess I haven't heard anything about 4chan for a while, are they done with that kind of stuff?

<comment><USER36> As far as I can tell, the folks on 4chan are concerned about ACTA, but aren't really riled up about any specific cases of patent trolling. There aren't a lot of lulz involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> It's ironic that the USPTO's own site technically violates this patent, unless they've paid the royalties. ;) <http://www.uspto.gov/siteindex.jsp>

</comment><comment><USER38> "According to Law.com, Webvention acquired the property from the great patent gobbler itself, Intellectual Ventures."

Aha.

<comment><USER39> spawn of microsoft.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'd like to put forward the idea that what the anti-(software)-patent lobby needs is more and better patent trolls.

Is it possible that the situation could get so bad that a couple of the big guns would swing behind patent reform?

</comment><comment><USER41> how in hell such patent got issued? Were the patent authors the first to invent menus? Less than 20 years ago? Obviously not.

There is pretty easy solution - don't issue patents when there is previous art.

In addition - lets have the technical patent protection period to be shorter than 20 years. Say 5 or 10 years. That would allow the real inventor of menus ~40 years ago to enjoy the meaningful patent protection when it was making sense.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm kind of glad this happens to Novartis.

Our company (devartis) received an oposition from Novartis against our trademark registration solicitude in Argentina due to the similarity of the names. The funny thing is that they registered theirs in a different category and the similar part is the word "artis" (which is art in latin), and dictionary words can't be owned.

I wonder how many software companies have the word soft in their names.

</comment><comment><USER43> Something of a tangent, but Intellectual Ventures (from whom these "patents" was purchased) was reviewed with gushing admiration in Superfreakonomics - <USER2> geniuses, all wonderful etc. According to the authors they have solutions for many of the worlds major problems (global warming, big hurricanes for example). Glad to hear developing ridiculous patents is a part of this!

</comment><comment><USER44> Here: A method for aiding transportation by erect ambulation using lower appendages. You can not only sue most humans, but primates and meerkats as well.

Seriously, how on earth do such patents get granted? I fail to see the invention in this patent claim. Is the patent office confused by the obscure language?

</comment><comment><USER45> Leave it to patent trolls to make you root for a pharmaceutical company.

</comment><comment><USER46> Is there any way I can patent the process of patent trolling?

<comment><USER47> Too late: <http://boingboing.net/2008/11/17/halliburton-tries-to.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Evil exists in the world.

QED.</comment>


From 25th May 2009 Google is reducing free AppEngine bandwidth to 1GB - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/quotas.html#Free_Changes

<comment><USER2> On May 25th, 2009, along with many performance improvements, we will be reducing the free quota levels for the billable quotas. App Engine will always remain free to get started. We believe these new levels will continue to serve a reasonably efficient application around 5 million page views per month, completely free.

The new free quota levels to take effect on May 25th will be as follows:

* CPU Time: 6.5 hours of CPU time per day

* Bandwidth: 1 gigabyte of data transferred in and out of the application per day

* Stored Data & Email Recipients: unchanged

Several fixed quotas may also change on May 25th for applications without billing enabled. Fixed quotas for applications with billing enabled will not be affected.</comment>


The Sorry State of SSL - <AUTHOR> https://hynek.me/talks/tls/ <comment><USER2> How do you even achieve this fascinating effect where "m" and "T" (and probably many other characters) don't render, making the web site utterly unreadable?

Both IE9 and FF 34.</comment>


Amazon Kindle now available outside US, plus price drop - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/kindle-store-ebooks-newspapers-blogs/b/ref=topnav_storetab_kinh?ie=UTF8&node=133141011

<comment><USER2> That's wonderful news.

It is also on the front page of amazon.co.jp right now, where I hoped to order it from (I get free shipping from them). They have a wonderful letter from Jeff Bezos (translated into Japanese -- some nice touches by the translator, incidentally) and if you click anywhere in it you get directed to the page on amazon.com to buy.

That is, needless to say, written totally in English. And which won't support the payment methods used by most of the customers of amazon.co.jp. (Credit card penetration is pretty low here -- most people I know use bank transfer or payment at the convenience store.)

I mention this just to point out that Internationalization Is Hard, even for big billion dollar companies. I'll be ordering mine by the end of the day.

<comment><USER3> > Credit card penetration is pretty low here

Really? I think the average internet user in Japan does have a credit card. It's just that people don't use it as often as Americans do.

Of course the English interface will filter out most of them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sadly, Canada isn't included.. again. List of countries/coverage/etc here:

[http://blogkindle.com/2009/10/international-release-of- kindl...](http://blogkindle.com/2009/10/international-release-of-kindle-2/)

<comment><USER5> Guatemala, Iceland, Kenya, Mongolia: Check.

Canada: ack pfft.

<comment><USER6> Canada: nak

But they say they'll have it soon. I wonder what the hold up is there.

<comment><USER7> I'm going to guess it's our awful wireless operators, who charge higher data rates than any other place I know of in the world (a few years ago it was 3 to 10 times as much as the second most expensive location).

<comment><USER8> Could this also be about distribution rights/licences?

<comment><USER6> Or having to have x% Canadian authors of which y% has to be in French ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't know... I am still bothered by the idea that Amazon can remotely delete content that is already in my Kindle. I am not completely comfortable with a device that can be remotely controlled by somebody whose interests may not always coincide with mine. What if decides to erase my (legally acquired) PDF magazine collection? I have backups, but, still, it's a major nuisance.

I am also not too happy with the idea of the wireless data connection contract being between my local telco and Amazon. I would be perfectly happy to pay my connection fees in proportion with my consumption.

I also want the DX, not the II.

On the other hand, I am happy they finally made HDSPA/EDGE/GPRS available. It seemed to me a completely stupid move to use a mostly US-only technology.

That also should prompt a move from Sony. I think I will wait for now. Interesting developments will come.

<comment><USER10> I have the DX and have been very happy with it, so far.

Amazon has no control over content you add on to it yourself; they never know about your own PDFs. This is the major reason why I bought the device and what I mostly use it for. I seldom buy Kindle books, and I get those on the Kindle that I just want to read and don't particularly care what happens in the long run.

On the remote erasing feature, I really, sincerely doubt they would ever try that shit again. The amount of bad publicity this earned them, it'd be ridiculous for them to even imply doing it. Bezos personally apologized for it and if they do it again, it would cost him his credibility.

<comment><USER11> They've definitely changed their policy. This is an e-mail I received from Amazon a while back:

Hello,

We are writing to inform you that we need to refund your purchase of the book 'The Little Prince or Le Petit Prince ILLUSTRATED (mobi).'. This book was added to our catalog by a third-party who we now believe did not have the rights to make the book available for sale. We will be removing the book from our servers, making it unavailable for re-downloading from your archived items. Any copies you already have on your Kindle devices will not be removed, but you may choose to remove any such copies yourself.

The total refund amount of $0.99 will be credited to your account in 3-5 business days.

<comment><USER9> The fact they didn't remove it this time has no relationship whatsoever with their ability or willingness to do so in the future. You may call it yours, but, in the end, they control every aspect of it.

<comment><USER10> That's based on nothing. Turn off wireless on your kindle; it's 100% your device that as far as they're concerned, no longer exists.

<comment><USER9> And what happens to pending orders when the network is activated for, say, web browsing?

The device obeys orders from Amazon, period. It also obeys your orders unless they conflict with what Amazon ordered.

So much for _your_ gadget.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Charlie Stross dislikes the Amazon monopsony:

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2009/10/news_fro...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog- static/2009/10/news_from_the_ebook_dimension.html)

Excerpt:

* They're using their monopsony position to fuck over their suppliers (i.e. the publishers) in a manner that threatens a catastrophic crash in author royalties in the medium term (up to 5 years). NB: as a reader, you may enjoy the short term price benefit, but you'll pay for it in the long term in reduction of choice.

* Their actions may start a trans-Atlantic price war between publishers, to the detriment of authors (again, in the medium term).

</comment><comment><USER13> Totally unexpected for me. I thought they were going with countries that have local Amazon stores. No, my country is listed! Now I don't have to wait for two weeks for paper books to be delivered. Very nice move, Amazon!

<comment><USER14> The biggest gating factor in making Kindle available internationally is having to partner with local wireless operator for connectivity. Availability of country-specific Amazon stores have little to do with it IMHO.

<comment><USER13> The thing is, they ship even to countries without wireless connectivity (e.g. Belarus). You have to use your computer to make purchases there.

The reason I though why local Amazon stores are deciding factor is that they already know the market there, have presence, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I and many other people I suspect will be waiting on the sideline a few more months to see whether Apple's tablet offering really does provide a serious alternative...

<comment><USER16> Or the eBook reader form Asus: [http://www.liliputing.com/2009/09/more- details-on-the-asus-e...](http://www.liliputing.com/2009/09/more-details-on- the-asus-ebook-reader.html)

They are different though: e-Ink is way better than LCD for reading outside, in bright light settings. I bought a Sony reader couple of months ago, never expected such a move from Amazon. They must have negotiated with hundreds of mobile operators around the world.

<comment><USER17> It sounds like they just negotiated with AT&T since they already have agreements with operators all over the world.

And I agree that the e-Ink screen is much better for reading than a tablet ever could be. I can use the Kindle anywhere I could read a normal book, including out in the sun, without having to worry about the fatigue you get when using monitors or other backlit screens.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Its too expensive outside US though... if I get it shipped to India - it'll cost me $405! And it won't come with the ability to read blogs and online news...

<comment><USER19> Yes but it works just fine as a book reader though - a little time away from blogs and "news sites" might be good for all our souls.

Still - you are right the price is steep given that you are then going to be buying more product from Amazon over the lifetime of the device (I wonder what this is likely to be).

Could be interesting to see what Apple have on offer later in the year with their new device - could do some interesting things to both the device and content price points.

<comment><USER20> Unfortunatelly, besides blogs and online news, this means that wikipedia won't be accessible also in most countries. The wikipedia feature was the one only thing that was going to make me buy kinde instead of sony readers.

<comment><USER21> The text to speech feature was also pretty attractive. But I ended up with a sony prs 600 though, and I'm really happy with it. So while I guess I might take a closer look if I was getting an ebook reader now, it probably would not have changed my mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> no price drop for the dx :(

</comment><comment><USER23> After UK import and sales tax, the price-drop will mean nothing:

[http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/ar...](http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6864257.ece)

</comment><comment><USER24> Not available in China :( Can't say it surprises me though... I'll get the txtr instead <http://reader.txtr.com/>

</comment><comment><USER25> That's it, I've placed my order

</comment><comment><USER26> So Kindle for the UK and free 3G access....wow very tempting

<comment><USER27> Read the fine print though -- it seems like the 3G access can only be used for books outside of US (I checked UK and Denmark, and both say "Blogs and the experimental web browser are currently not available for your country"). Not sure about e.g. Wikipedia.

Also "Service fees for transferring personal documents via Whispernet are currently $.99 per megabyte." -- but I think that might already be the case for the US Kindle. That's similar to the fee I pay for basic wireless data service.

<comment><USER28> From [http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=2...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200375630&#fees) :

"Kindle (U.S. Wireless) user: We'll send personal documents to your Kindle via Whispernet while inside the U.S. wireless coverage area for a fee of $.15 per megabyte.

Kindle (U.S. & International Wireless) user living in the United States: If you transfer personal documents to your Kindle via Whispernet while inside the United States, the fee is $ .15 per megabyte. When travelling outside the United States, a fee of $.99 per megabyte will apply.

Kindle (U.S. & International Wireless) user living outside the United States: We'll send personal files to your Kindle via Whispernet for a fee of $ .99 (USD) per megabyte anywhere in the world you access Whispernet service."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> this is a dupe by the way:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=866005>

</comment><comment><USER29> No DX internationally? I need that, since I want to read work documents and code.

I still want a Kindle, but hesitate... the FUD from Apple and Pixel Qi is working on me. :-)

<comment><USER13> According to some news resource, DX is coming next year.

<comment><USER29> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should my app's landing page redirect mobile users to App Stores? - <AUTHOR>

I have been going back and forth trying to decide if I should automatically redirect users coming to my apps landing page from a paid campaign.
In short:
- Automatically redirect iOS and Android users to the proper app store
OR
- Leave them on landing page, and hope the extra information and screenshots there drive more purchases than are lost from people not clicking through
I can see it could be annoying, but I am thinking when a user clicks on our paid ad, they are interested in the product. In my mind, the fewer clicks from that point to being able to purchase the better?
Sources:
- http://TakeoffAviationWeather.com (landing page)
- Apple App Store page: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/takeoff-hd-aviation-weather/id603332374?mt=8
- Android App Store page: play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.realcasualgames.shouldifly
Thanks for your opinions! <comment><USER2> IMO, you shouldn't automatically redirect mobile users to app stores. It prevents user from browsing your site. Instead detect the device type/ platform and show appropriate icon indicating you have a mobile app but let users browse your site.

I really find such behavior annoying. I refuse to download any app for sites that prevent me from browsing or annoying pop ups.

In this aspect I like Facebook as they show alert at the top of the page and once you dismiss, it doesn't annoy you again unlike LinkedIn, Yahoo, and Forums with Taptalk.

<comment><AUTHOR> Try to think about it in the context of clicking on an ad for the product. Since the site is just a glorified app store page, I figure I am just reducing 1 click from the purchase flow.

Do I irritate enough people that they refuse to buy because they wanted to view the advertising site? This is a different scenario from a service which also provides a normal web service, but is trying to pawn off their mobile app.

<comment><USER2> Hmm ... interesting that you believe site is just glorified App Store page. You are missing the opportunity to educate and converse with your target audience. Think of app as a product and site as a marketing, education, support, and community channel.

I only have experience with iOS App Store. Things, I always find missing pursuing apps in App Store is decent amount of information about app and typically land up on developer website to learn more. I invariably ignore apps (especially paid ones) that don't provide enough information. You can't make me write check until you convince me that your product is what I need or want.

If someone is coming to your site, they most probably either trying to decide whether to buy your app or looking for support or to learn more. Use this opportunity to engage with your prospects and customers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your opinion! I have removed the redirect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> On Android, depending on how the user's phone is configured, this leads from ad -> Chrome -> Play Store, which is really jarring. In some cases, this leads to a double pop-up to select an application to handle the intent, which is confusing at best.

Use a landing page. Put the CTA buttons at the top; make sure the landing page is mobile-friendly.

Also, if you haven't seen it: [http://developer.android.com/distribute/googleplay/promote/l...](http://developer.android.com/distribute/googleplay/promote/linking.html)

Edit: On iOS, use a Smart Web Banner. [http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/AppleA...](http://developer.apple.com/library/ios/#documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/PromotingAppswithAppBanners/PromotingAppswithAppBanners.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> My backup plan is the iOS Smart App Banner along with a custom Android solution that looks similar.

Good point about the potential double-prompt.

<comment><USER3> Please don't do that. Using iOS concepts on Android devices will alienate Android users.

Please, just stick your "available on Google Play" button above the fold.

<comment><AUTHOR> Curious, what is your rationale for thinking this needs to be an iOS only concept? As an Android user for years, I don't really think twice when I see it, it's just convenient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is very very annoying. I refuse to download an app by force. For sure, there wont by many happy visitors

<comment><AUTHOR> Even if the whole point of the click on the web page is to learn about the app?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For now, I am leaning towards automatically redirecting them.</comment>


Linux 3.17 - <AUTHOR> http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.17

<comment><USER3> _Thunderbolt hotplug is supposed to be handled by the firmware. But Apple decided to implement thunderbolt at the operating system level. The firmare only initializes thunderbolt devices that are present at boot time. This driver enables hotplug of thunderbolt of non-chained thunderbolt devices on Apple systems with a cactus ridge controller. This first patch adds the Kconfig file as well the parts of the driver which talk directly to the hardware (that is pci device setup, interrupt handling and RX /TX ring management)._

Finally. Been waiting a while for this. The fact that Apple designed the hotplugging at the OS-level infuriated me for the longest time.

<comment><USER4> It seems like a legitimate tradeoff; implementing hotplugging at the OS-level gives you DR capability and far more control over the process. I'm not saying they made the right decision, just saying that it appears to be a legitimate one. Obviously the disadvantage is that hot-plugging doesn't work in other operating systems when run on Apple hardware, but obviously that's not Apple's focus or interest.

Intel was willing to certify Apple's devices, so clearly the specification doesn't actually require hot-plugging to be implemented in firmware. So I wonder what the author bases that assertion on.

<comment><USER5> > Obviously the disadvantage is that hot-plugging doesn't work in other > operating systems when run on Apple hardware, but obviously that's not > Apple's focus or interest.

Ah dang! I have an official Thunderbolt to Ethernet adapter on my MacBook Pro that won't be detected in windows 8.1 running in bootcamp* unless I reboot. And now I know why.

* The next Visual Studio looks NICE in high dpi.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Linux systems usually get their random numbers from /dev/\\[u\\]random. This interface, however, is vulnerable to file descriptor exhaustion attacks, where the attacker consumes all available file descriptors, and is inconvenient for containers. The getrandom(2) syscall, analogous to OpenBSD's getentropy(2), solves that problems._

This is the big one for me. No more directly opening /dev/urandom on Linux and it works in chroot. When will Linux distros begin shipping this kernel?

<comment><USER7> You're not going to be able to adequately rely on this feature by itself for years, probably. I'd guess a 5-6 year window before it's widespread.

Considering there isn't even a LTS kernel/system out with it coming anytime soon, I'd suggest you keep your fallback code to check `/dev/urandom`, even if FD exhaustion/chroots are a problem.

<comment><USER8> I had thought Ubuntu 14.04 backports will be running this kernel soon...

However, this isn't really for _you_. This is for your _library_ ; this is what arc4random() is meant to use. (Of course, the name is legacy, you should be using ChaCha20 in that.)

<comment><USER7> Ubuntu is the least of my worries; Ubuntu backports is an even smaller blip on the radar. What about all the software running on CentOS and RHEL 6.x systems? Those aren't going away soon.

And yes, I understand the implications of what this exact system call is meant to do; explanation much appreciated nonetheless (clearly it could have mislead some people).

My only point is this system call is a step forward, and mitigates some known problematic attacks or edge cases - but nonetheless, we'll need adequate fallbacks for unsupported systems for many, many years to come in our libraries.

Thinking of it this way, I'm somewhat amazed Linux has gone this far /without/ this feature. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it was either A) never suggested, which I find unlikely, or B) your typical NIH/"this is nonsense and not needed" response you sometimes see to sane things in the Linux world (despite them implementing a thousand new things every two months, that only 5 people in the world could ever use, and inevitably will result in a handful of CVEs - their priorities are Serious Business, after all.) But maybe I'm just a cynic at this point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _USB /IP is a project that provides a general USB device sharing system over IP network. To share USB devices between computers with their full functionality, USB/IP encapsulates "USB I/O messages" into TCP/IP payloads and transmits them between computer. Original USB device drivers and applications can be also used for remote USB devices without any modification of them. A computer can use remote USB devices as if they were directly attached._

Considering the recent BadUSB exploits that have come to light, is this really something we want? It just seems like the risk could outweigh the benefit.

<comment><USER3> Since this needs to be enabled in the kernel at compile time, it really depends on what your favorite distribution chooses to include.

If it does end up being in the Big Two (Debian-flavored, RH-flavored) it really doesn't make sense for servers. If it was enabled by default this seems like something that you would need to do some sort of 'handshake' between to prevent someone from just mounting a USB device willy-nilly as they see fit. Complete speculation on my part though.

<comment><USER10> It absolutely _does_ make sense for servers. One frequent pain point with virtualized systems is that (at least in a VMware vCenter DRS-enabled cluster), you never know what physical host a specific VM will be on at any moment. This is a problem for software that requires a USB license dongle (many FlexLM-managed software have this requirement).

Anyway, in this situation, you would have one physical, bare-metal linux "usb dongle server", which then shares out its USB devices to one or more other linux VMs. After doing this, VMs can migrate between physical hosts without losing access to their license dongle.

There are purpose-built physical USB->IP devices out out there now, but they're quite expensive. This new functionality would allow admins to emulate this functionality for a fraction of the cost of a purpose-built device.

<comment><USER3> Ah, that's a use case I didn't even think of. Makes sense in that situation then. I rarely deal with things that require USB license dongles, but I can see that as being a pain this may alleviate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > _Graphic "render nodes" feature enabled by default_

This had me excited, until I read the linked description and found that

> _It's also important to know that render-nodes are not bound to a specific > card. While internally it's created by the same driver as the legacy node, > user-space should never assume any connection between a render-node and a > legacy /mode-setting node. Instead, if user-space requires hardware- > acceleration, it should open any node and use it_

So my program opens a rendernode and it _might_ run on the discrete GPU or it _might_ run on some shitty integrated GPU. That's kind of useless.

</comment><comment><USER12> > This release adds support for Xbox One controllers.

Why is support for such thing needed by the kernel?

Also, why are there some things that my CPU can do (virtualization) that require kernel modules?

Isn't virtualization more important than an xbox controller?

<comment><USER13> One upside of kernel modules: you can build a very small kernel without having a ton of features. If you actually need the xbox one controller support - <USER2> can enable the module. Really useful on small footprint devices.

<comment><USER12> The only downside is that the kernel doesn't have a stable API, so the open source code of kernel modules becomes gradually more useless if not actively maintained as it won't compile against the kernel headers anymore requiring more and more work to fix.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > BTRFS - Adjust statfs() space utilization calculations according to RAID > profiles

Does this mean df will finally show the correct values for btrfs raid volumes? Does anyone know if the statfs() syscall is what df uses? There is no call to statfs() in the df source I found here [1].

[1] [https://searchcode.com/codesearch/view/17947198/](https://searchcode.com/codesearch/view/17947198/)

<comment><USER15> > Does anyone know if the statfs() syscall is what df uses? There is no call > to statfs() in the df source I found here [1].

Yes, it looks like df uses that:

        # strace -e statfs df /tmp
        statfs("/tmp", {f_type="EXT2_SUPER_MAGIC", f_bsize=4096, f_blocks=4128490, f_bfree=4084457, f_bavail=3874742, f_files=1048576, f_ffree=1048564, f_fsid={1972973117, 2058115910}, f_namelen=255, f_frsize=4096}) = 0
        ...

<comment><USER16> [https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux....](https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ba7b6e62f420f5a8832bc161ab0c7ba767f65b3d)

===

This has been discussed in thread: [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file- systems.btrfs/32528](http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file- systems.btrfs/32528)

and this patch implements this proposal: [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file- systems.btrfs/32536](http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file- systems.btrfs/32536)

Works fine for "clean" raid profiles where the raid factor correction does the right job. Otherwise it's pessimistic and may show low space although there's still some left.

The df nubmers are lightly wrong in case of mixed block groups, but this is not a major usecase and can be addressed later.

The RAID56 numbers are wrong almost the same way as before and will be addressed separately.

===

I'm most interested in the deadlock fix which finally made it in. [https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux....](https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=9e0af23764344f7f1b68e4eefbe7dc865018b63d)

<comment><USER17> Yes, the deadlock fix really is appreciated. I had to turn off compression on all my machines :-(.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Does anyone know if DisplayLink compatibility has been re-introduced? It seemed like it was in there for a while and then taken out... Ormy foo in getting DisplayLink devices to work out of the box is weak.

<comment><USER19> 2.0 should maybe work, 3 probably never :(

[http://displaylink.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1748](http://displaylink.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1748)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> So...another version of linux..great</comment>


So long, minibar: How the coronavirus will change hotel stays - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/so-long-minibar-how-coronavirus-changing-your-hotel-stay-n1180226 <comment><USER2> Hotels tend to view high-touch service as a sign of luxury, so moving to low/no-touch check-ins is a huge shift. I'd expect more automation in hotels as a result of this crisis.

As a business traveler who spent 160 nights in a hotel last year, I'm actually grateful for these changes. Front desk staff are usually extremely kind and want to be helpful, but I usually wait in line for 10 minutes to get a keycard and be asked "Have you stayed with us before? Do you need an overview of the amenities?" even at hotels where I have stayed every week for months. I'm looking forward to a future where my hotel app is my key and I can go straight to my room.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Good riddance, minibar. Can I keep the little fridge though?</comment>


WeWork locations are essentially unusable now. They're still charging rent - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2020/05/wework-rent-coronavirus.html <comment><USER2> Why would any tenant sign a 3 year lease with WeWork? I thought the whole point was flexible short-term leases.

<comment><USER3> It seems really dumb, but they likely had incentives like discounts or lower price increases that influenced the decision. Some people really undervalue optionality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Trying to separate the commercial landlord story from the WeWork story:

Thinking back to my commercial lease, I did have a clause entitling me to peacefully use the space. If my building had denied anyone access, would that have been grounds to break my lease?

Generally, is it common right now for commercial landlords to be forgoing rent?

</comment><comment><USER5> WeWork probably wasn't terribly sustainable during the best of times; it's not surprising that they're clinging hard onto any existing revenue during the worst of times.

It'll be interesting to see how long they can hold on.

</comment><comment><USER6> As a commercial landlord, do you have to pay property tax this year?

<comment><USER7> Of course. But it is deferrable, and without penalties.

<comment><USER8> Since property tax is based on assessed value, I wonder if people will be able to fight to get the assessed value lowered significantly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nobody forces you to use WeWork and pay for its services. End of story.</comment>


Voting Machine Makers Claim Names of Entities That Own Them Are Trade Secrets - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190706/17082642527/voting-machine-makers-claim-names-entities-that-own-them-are-trade-secrets.shtml <comment><USER2> So these companies basically admit that, if we knew who owned them, we wouldn't be buying their voting machines? I think that by itself is enough reason to avoid them.

It's bizarre how much of a wild west the US electoral procedures are. You'd think this would be extremely strongly regulated, but instead it's a free-for- all where the real interests are kept as opaque as possible.

<comment><USER3> Right?

That opaque bit is the crux of the matter. By design, doing that is completely unnecessary! We do not make votes personally identifiable, and that opens the door for the rest of the process to be public, trusted, etc...

After a bit of research, done back when this crap started, I arrived at these pillars for trustworthy elections:

Freedom: Basically, people can vote or not. This puts the burden of garnering votes on those wanting to win elections. It's not a given votes will be cast.

Anonymonity: This is all about reinforcing freedom. No vote record = people free to vote their minds with far fewer overall worries than there would be otherwise. If we eliminate this one, electronic votes can make sense, but there are consequences, implications. Not sure it makes sense, but I am open to this discussion.

Transparency: It must be possible for any participant in the election to follow their vote cast through the process to the final tally. Human readable vote records, the law, means, methods, all available for anyone to understand.

Oversight: Needs transparency, but also the enabling force of law and norms. Not only can people evaluate the elections, but they should do that! We all live by the outcomes. It only makes sense that we all have an interest in trusting the process, and understanding votes cast are legit.

I arrived at them being deeply bothered by the input trust problem. Prior to voting machines, this never crossed my mind. We take it for granted.

(see my other top level comment)

Trustworthy elections embody those ideas to the maximum extent possible.

Notice secrecy is not in there? The only place where it is really needed is when the voter casts their vote.

All these companies, and to a large degree elections people, and processes, have conflated secrecy with security. Doing that is either a mistake, or nefarious. Which is it?

<comment><USER2> These are exactly the reasons why Netherland stopped using voting machines. Although interestingly, it was the fact that anonymity could be compromised, that was the final nail, rather than the lack of transparency.

With paper votes, anyone is able and allowed to check that every step of the voting process is done fairly. You can see the empty voting boxes before the election starts, you can see that everybody puts their one vote in it, you can be present when they're counted. Dutch law made an explicit exception to these rules to make voting machines possible, and that that was even necessary, should have been a massive red flag. And yet this obvious lack of transparency was not enough to get them banned. Only when hackers proved that anonymity could be threatened, were voting machines banned.

Personally I think transparency is more important than anonymity. Compromised transparency enables much larger scale fraud than compromised anonymity, so I'm surprised proving compromised anonymity was even necessary.

<comment><USER3> Many of us, at least here in the US, are not that secure. Votes are very highly politicized, tensions high, establishment vs people, social right vs social left.

Here, we have fraud, but we have a high degree of anonymity. People don't seem to really get it. I am confused as to why.

I am reasonably secure myself and could make the same trade off you did, but an awful lot of my peers would not.

Super interesting observations. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The only voting machines that make any sense are those that can take human readable ballots and count them. And even then that needs to be coupled with audits and other basic means to verify that they function as intended and required by law.

(Optical scan, basically)

The basic problem with voting machines casting actual votes is that they do not make a record of voter intent. They make a record of what they think the voter intent was. The actual record of voter intent walks out the building, or is a grease smudge on a screen somewhere. Lost.

They are all votes by proxy.

Because we make votes anonymous, the chain of trust between the voter, their intent, and the record of that intent, is super important. That record needs to be used directly, or we've got issues with how trustworthy the process is. That record is needed should there be issues too.

Electronic machines do not record voter intent, and that is the primary thing of value in an election.

When a voter makes some mark on a physical ballot with a pencil, pen or some other device, they can verify that record is accurate, in line with their intent, and that means that they have confidence that their vote was correctly cast. The vital chain of trust between voter intent and the record of said intent is intact.

Follow that up by using that record directly, (optical scan or simple, human count) and we've got a process, that if necessary can be hauled into a court of law, or manually evaluated by humans, to ensure that we understand the outcome of the election.

Paperless machines are so untrustworthy that nobody can even know who won an election! No potential for review, oversight exists! (Looking at you South Carolina)

When we provide input to a touchscreen, or via button press, or any other simple means, the intent is expressed at that time mechanically, but the electronic record isn't the same as a physical mark.

The truth is, the voter cannot see the vote record directly, because it is electronic. It is just a temporary state. Enabling technology is required for the voter to see the record. In this sense, the record of their vote is isolated from them, and they are forced to trust the input and output of the machine, again a vote by proxy.

This is fundamentally untrustworthy.

An example I have given to kind of simulate this involves a person in a secure room alone. You the voter walk up to a window, and you tell them what your vote is. They go make a record somewhere that you cannot see, and then they verbally confirm your vote, or maybe hold up a card or something. The key thing to understand is the voter has to trust that person, they don't see the little invisible record off to the side, nobody does.

Essentially, there's no chain of trust between the voter and the record of their vote. And no reasonable person would trust such an arrangement to be an accurate election, a trustworthy one. That is basically what voting machines do. They get between voters and the enduring record of their voter intent.

I struggle to communicate this in ways that ordinary people can understand. It's really a problem. People see computers and all the magical things that they do, and they want to trust them. And in a lot of places means and methods they can trust them. Voting is different because it's anonymous, and we don't link people to votes, which means those intent records really matter.

<comment> em-bee this makes sense. i am wondering about technical solutions to this problem. keeping the paper record is one.

how about taking a photo of the screen (not a screenshot, but an actual photo with a separate camera) to record what the voter sees?

another idea is to enter the vote twice. like when we create new passwords. do make sure the same result is recorded. do it on two machines side by side. if there is a difference, start over.

<comment><USER3> If the paper record is not used to compute the tally, the trust problem is not resolved. Schemes to impact the election can fall under triggers to audit / recount on paper. Secondly, why not just use paper then? The machine is adding near zero value.

In the case of the photo, recording what the voter sees does not impact whether the actual record used reflects their intent. At best, we can verify they saw what they said they saw. The real problem is whether what they see actually reflects the record used for the tally. Edit: Also, if we personally identify votes, this could be used to reconstruct an election. Again, why not just use paper?

Inputting a vote twice can improve mechanical to intent translation accuracy. However, the actual record still requires enabling tech to read, is still a temporary state, and is still not part of the chain of trust between voter intent and the record of the vote used for the tally.</comment></comment></comment>


Examining How the Great Firewall Discovers Hidden Circumvention Servers (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://fermatslibrary.com/s/examining-how-the-great-firewall-discovers-hidden-circumvention-servers <comment><USER2> Readable version without extraneous nonsense:

[http://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2015/papers/p445.pdf](http://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2015/papers/p445.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Thanks. That page has so much popup junk that I opened Inspect Element and deleted the popup nodes just to read the thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Tor stopped working (with bridge) when I was there last month. It worked for a day or two then stopped working. It didn't matter how many times I refreshed my bridges list, it just wouldn't work. Luckily I provisioned an Azure VM in Hong Kong which I could access via RDP to keep access to GMail, Facebook etc.

<comment><USER5> Did you provisioned an Azure VM while you were in Hong Kong or an Azure VM that was hosted in Hong Kong?

<comment><USER4> The VM was in Hong Kong. I was in Mainland China.

HK is not affected by the GFW, as far as I know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've never been anywhere near the GFW but I do find OpenVPN listening on 443/tcp and a few other ports (tcp and udp) on the outside quite handy for drilling through firewalls. It supports basic auth proxies but CNTLM is in the toolbox as well. Add in NAT and a few routing entries on other hosts.

It also provides a simple way to detect a transparent MitM proxy. If OVPN fails to connect but an "unprotected" https connection gets through then the alarm bells go off and the presented SSL cert gets a serious examination. I keep a couple of thumbprints of known certs handy for this - the discipline of proper checking rather than a cursory glance at an image that the GUI throws up.

I use readily available stuff but looking into the description of how the obfs protocols work in Tor I'm impressed and rather glad that my life or liberty doesn't depend on my efforts. When I get it wrong I simply lose access to BBC iPlayer or whatever. When someone who is having to take this rather more seriously gets it wrong, they might not get a chance to repeat their mistake.

<comment><USER7> This sort of thing used to work, but doesn't anymore. The GFW is now smart enough to detect VPNs based only on the traffic they generate, not port numbers or other easily changed things. It's currently an arms race between VPN providers trying to mask their traffic and the firewall trying to uncover it, and the firewall is winning so far.

<comment><USER8> Whelp, that's pretty much it for the internet. Won't be long before many more governments are licensing and using this technology. The question is how long before supposedly 'free' governments start.

<comment><USER9> It's easy to fix by mirroring their behavior: drop incoming connections from China until they drop their firewall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's a summary that's a bit easier to digest: [https://blog.torproject.org/blog/learning-more-about-gfws- ac...](https://blog.torproject.org/blog/learning-more-about-gfws-active- probing-system)

</comment><comment><USER11> Here is the presentation from CCC 2015

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgYdmRR7JtY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgYdmRR7JtY)

</comment><comment><USER12> We have a client's system that seems to get probed for this sort of thing. We keep seeing URLs like the following being requested:

        htttps://www.example.com/http://www.baidu.com/cache/global/img/gs.gif

There are a number of variations including plain IP numbers and other URLs, like www.google.com being used.

I guess at some point somebody accessed the site from China.

EDIT: Just got another probe from 184.108.40.206 owned by Quasi Networks Ltd in the Seychelles.

<comment><USER13> Quasi (aka Ecatel) is basically a den of ddos for hire, ddos, malware, botnet C&C, abuse reports ignored. Servers are in NL.

Probably not China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A good time to TLS fingerprint your connections and get an idea of which client is probing your server.

Probers might have their own unique TLS fingerprint.

[https://blog.squarelemon.com/tls- fingerprinting/](https://blog.squarelemon.com/tls-fingerprinting/)

</comment><comment><USER15> (2015)</comment>


Apparently The Internet Is A Complete Waste Of Time - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/apparently_the_internet_is_a_complete_waste_of_tim.php#.TtlhJwB4bZU.hackernews <comment><USER2> Since when is fun a complete waste of time? People are really missing the point of life, no?</comment>