RapidMind: a multicore programming tool startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/jan07/4837 <comment><AUTHOR> They also just secured $10 in funding: [http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid;=CA6435743](http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6435743)

<comment><USER2> > They also just secured $10 in funding:

Ten dollars? And I thought YC lowballed...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> lol more like $10million</comment>


Ask HN: MacBook Pro 16-inch, temporarily dead pixels? - <AUTHOR> I got my MBP 16 last night. In general it's great, but twice now in only a few hours of use I've noticed some distressing graphical artifacts (for something this expensive).
Each time it's been a tiny rectangle of a handful of pixels at a random place on the screen that just turn some random color (bright purple the first time, bright green the second time). The first time was on Firefox and the second was on Apple Music, so it's not specific to the app. As soon as I scroll or otherwise cause the screen to update, they go away.
My guess is it's a GPU thing, not a screen thing. Has anyone else seen this? And do you think I should be worried? Could it represent a hardware defect in the GPU, or just a software problem (driver perhaps?) that could get patched out later if it becomes significant/widely-noticed? <comment><USER2> I have the same problem with my new MacBook Pro 16-inch. It's definitely a defective GPU. Try disabling Automatic graphics switching in System Preferences to reproduce this issue.

<comment><AUTHOR> If it hasn't been 14 days they have a pretty generous return-for-any-reason policy. That's the simplest way to get a new one. Otherwise, from talking to them it sounded like it was covered under warranty anyway and they offered to send it in for a free repair.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Update: ended up taking it in. Since it was only a day old they're just letting me exchange it instead of trying to go through the whole repair process.

</comment><comment><USER3> I see this frequently on my 2019 15" MacBook Pro display. I can't capture these artifacts in a screenshot, and I can't replicate the problem (so far).

<comment><AUTHOR> I managed to take a picture with my phone of one of them. Hopefully that's good enough for Apple support.

<comment><USER3> Brilliant! Who didn't I think of that? :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pretty sure this is software.

Saw the same artifacts/glitches on my 2016 and 2018 15" models.

See them occasionally in Safari on my 16" now, usually up near the top window border.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why do you say you think it's software?

<comment><USER4> I guess I just find it hard to believe there's faulty hardware across 3 different models and graphics cards rather than a bug in the driver.

Maybe the issue I'm talking about seeing isn't the same.

<comment><AUTHOR> It could be something in their process that's rare but just happens sometimes. Heck, maybe it gets damaged in shipping. If it's uncommon enough and they do replacements maybe they just write it off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Most likely points to a GPU problem. I think since it's not even a day, you must return it and get a replacement.

</comment><comment><USER6> Yeah I've experienced it too, generally after unlocking it, but only for a few minutes then they go away.

<comment><AUTHOR> Mine have never been within minutes of each other; I had exactly one instance last night and one this morning, and each went away instantly as soon as I scrolled the focal window

</comment></comment><comment> t-writescode Take a video of it happening and take it to the Apple store?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep. It's just a pain, especially since this is a custom config so the turnaround time will likely be a couple weeks. But that's what I ended up doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Same thing on my 2018 MBP 13"</comment>


Ask HN: Landing a job with a startup in the valley - <AUTHOR>

I am based off India. I am a Ruby and Rails hacker and a good one in that. I have published a couple of open source gems and have been programming professionally for over 10 years. I have worked with a wide variety of programming languages like Java, C#, Python and Rails. I have been a champion of open source right from the early days of my career. I have worked with corporates and have also run my own consulting business. I am a language geek and pride myself on the ability to pick up a new language/technology in a matter of weeks. I write technical blogs and conduct Rails workshops in my city. I am quite active in local technology forums and give talks on technologies such as Rails, Backbone.js, Node.js, MongoDB and whatever is in vogue and catches my fancy.
I would like to move to the US and work in the valley for a funded and promising startup. There seems to be a lot of action in the valley around startups and technology in general. I feel that I am missing out on all the action sitting in India.
I know that I have been intentionally vague and have used a temporary profile to post this. I wanted an honest feedback on the feasibility of finding a job in the valley as an Indian and the realities of moving there. I have read a whole bunch of articles and posts on the immigration woes. I wanted to know if there are any startups who have successfully employed Indians and have had them move to the valley. Also I wanted to find out if any immigrant Indians who have had experience moving to the valley and working for a startup. I know that the other route is to work for some soulless  three letter indian company and have the H1B sponsored. But I cannot put up with their bureaucracy and I most definitely do not want to work for a bank. <comment><USER2> OK. I am also from India and looking to move to the valley to join a competent start-up.

I have built some prototypes that can be readily looked at if someone wishes so. Sadly, it has never come to that level. There is an initial excitement from the other end that quickly fizzles out after they learn that I am Indian and they need to sponsor a H1B. I think the process might be bit more drawn out compared so someone from say, the EU. I don't know. Borders suck.

</comment><comment><USER3> This might help... <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2828161></comment>


UK scientists generate electricity from Americium to power future space missions - <AUTHOR> https://www.nnl.co.uk/2019/05/uk-scientists-generate-electricity-from-rare-element-to-power-future-space-missions/ <comment><USER2> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Criteria_for_selection_of_isotopes)

There is a nice table that shows, that Americium-241 has low power density, but it's half-life is 432 years. It also mentions that the real reason, why this is interesting, is because Am-241 is a byproduct and a pure isotope that can be used without refining.

<comment><USER3> Of course, power density is inversely proportional to half-life. Low power density BECAUSE the half-life is 432 years.

<comment><USER4> > power density is inversely proportional to half-life

It's not that simple. The energy per event varies by orders of magnitude depending on the specific transition (even within given particle decays, the energy of the emitted particle varies), also the number of atoms per volume or mass varies depending on material.

<comment><USER3> Clearly. However it IS a good approximation. For RTGs, we desire primarily alpha emitters as alpha particles are generally the easiest type of decay product to shield (the thin metal casing will stop all alpha particles). And common Alpha emitters such as Po-210, Am-241, Pu-238, and U-232 all have a decay energy of about 5-6MeV even though they differ in half life (and thus power density) by 3 orders of magnitude.

<comment><USER4> The approximation holds true for the heavy elements, with similar atomic mass. I wonder if the power density of any similar half-life lighter nuclei would be significantly greater, or whether the energy of decay reduces roughly proportionately with their mass.

<comment><USER3> And, of course, almost all alpha emitters are heavier elements: [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Woolsey2/publicati...](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Woolsey2/publication/328224660/figure/fig1/AS:680541158383618@1539265064126/Chart- of-Nuclides-showing-different-types-of-radioactive-decay-2.ppm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Americium-241 can be found in smoke detectors which came into the headlines when a kid tried to build a nuclear reactor in his backyard back in 1996:

[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2506549/Uh-oh- Radio...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2506549/Uh-oh-Radioactive- Boy-Scout-built-nuclear-reactor-Detroit-shed-sparking-evacuation-40-000-wants- invent-lightbulb-lasts-100-years.html)

<comment><USER6> A lot of newer smoke detectors work on a photo-electric principle rather than by ionisation. That means they don't contain anything radioactive, and also tend to be more effective because they're less prone to false alarms.

<comment><USER7> I believe those are « fire detectors » as they sense the flickering light of a fire.

<comment><USER8> Flame detectors work via video feeds typically and analyze a video for flame and smoke patterns. Those come in both stand alone detectors and systems that work off of existing security camera feeds. (see also UV based detection)

They were referring to a photoelectric smoke detector vs ionization types. Both are still available but photo is much more common now days. They look exactly the same exterior wise, but it works by having a tiny light box where smoke goes in and changes the light the sensor is seeing. They can still cause false alarms because they are sensitive to dust and particulate matter, but they operate on intelligent addressable systems now which can adjust their sensitivity to some degree over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So is this essentially an RTG powered by Americium instead of Strontium or Plutonium? Or is this pioneering a new method of operation compared to a traditional RTG?

<comment><USER10> >>> used the heat generated from this highly radioactive material to generate enough electric current to light up a small lightbulb ...

Sounds like an americium-powered RTG to me, albeit not a particularly powerful one.

<comment><USER11> Powering a lightbulb for 432 years? Sign me up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I cannot express how disappointed I was to learn that they are just using the americium as a heat source, and not converting the kinetic energy of the alpha particles directly to electric current by induction.

</comment><comment><USER13> The video embedded in the article plays like a movie trailer or an extended ad for a pharma company. Cool science though.

<comment><USER14> I always get a little tingle up my spine when I hear someone in a video append an isotope number to a chemical element. Cool beans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Very interesting ... I wonder when did they start to work on this? and how long until we see this in use?

</comment><comment><USER16> These (Americium RTGs) work pretty good in Minecraft (specifically Enigmatica 2 Expert Mode). Reliable, decent power output, zero maintenance. Not got as far as orbit yet, but I expect to take at least one of these with me to power the spacecraft.

<comment><USER17> Didn't expect to see that mentioned here, playing that myself currently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article says it is a thermoelectric generator.</comment>


Collision Avoidance Challenge - <AUTHOR> https://kelvins.esa.int/collision-avoidance-challenge/home/ <comment><USER2> There is an interesting column in the data:

F10: 10.7 cm radio flux index [10−22 W/(m2 Hz)]

It seems to be some sun radio activity index, but why is it relevant to collisions?

<comment><USER3> F10.7 is the measured solar power flux at 10.7 cm wavelength. It is measured all over the world but primarily from Penticton observatory in Canada.

The largest source of uncertainty in orbit propagation for satellites in Low- Earth Orbit (LEO) is atmospheric drag. Solar activity directly effects the density of the atmosphere. It is an input to many atmospheric models which are used when propagating orbits. Which is central to all conjunction assessments (predicting where objects will be in case they might come too close).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Are there any more past or present challenges like these?

<comment><USER5> Timeline at the top of the page seems to indicate this opened a few days ago and runs through December 2019?</comment></comment>


It's Time for Greece to Leave the Euro - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/opinion/jochen-bittner-its-time-for-greece-to-leave-the-euro.html

<comment><USER2> > A big part of the blame for this mess rests on the shoulders of the > chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel herself. Her statement that "if the > euro fails, Europe fails" was understood by Athens as a carte blanche

Not really, they know she is lying. She had promised the German taxpayer that there would be no costs bailing out Greece. She falsely claimed the debt was sustainable. She promoted a bail out program that virtually destroyed the Greek economy and refuses to take responsibility for it. Talks about Greek claims and democratic vote and how it is against European peoples pretty much ignoring the humanitarian crisis. She sheds crocodile tears for elderly waiting for 60€ daily at the ATMs while monthly assistance for 400euro pensions was erased with a red pen. Knows exactly what austerity measures she wants and when she was presented with any program that does not include those measures "it is not clear enough bring another one". And when Greeks can't there is a "breach of trust" The journalist from Die Zeit simply promotes the usual rhetoric.

But politically she is right. I have noticed a constant attack against her in German recently but for all the wrong reasons.

</comment><comment><USER3> _over the past five months Europe has heard way too much from his government about the impossibility of further cuts and way too little about possible sources of new income._

This is wildly untruthful. The last set of Syriza proposals included things like a one-off tax of 12% on business incomes over €500,000 (not unreasonable in either amount or in the context of a culture of corrupt tax evasion), as well as a small rise in corporate tax from 26 to 29%. Creditors rejected these proposals as being 'anti growth'. Now I don't think one can ta one's way to prosperity, but the last 5 years of austerity in Greece strongly suggest that you can't cut your way there either, and it's facile to pretend that taxes should only be considered for their pure macroeconomic effects considering the lamentable history of tax evasion in Greece (which has deep cultural roots in centuries under the Ottoman Empire.

Greece still has to undertake massive reforms, and Syriza's governance has been marked by brinksmanship and overheated rhetoric - but that's what happens when you put people's backs against the wall. It's a generational-scale problem that calls for a long-term rather than the nonsensical series of bandaids that have been thrown at it. I certainly felt that some austerity and fiscal adjustment was warranted, and indeed applying that approach has allowed countries like Ireland to to re-balance the books and regain access to capital markets. But this approach has plainly ceased to work in the case of Greece.

More detail on the specifics of said proposals here: [http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/06/greek- ba...](http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/06/greek-bail-out- negotiations)

 _Neither the eurozone nor Europe is best served by holding on to Greece. Instead, the European Union needs to come up with a smooth way out of its dilemma, namely an orderly exit by Greece from the euro._

This is about as sensible as adopting a continental currency called the Mark and then trying to kick Germany out of it, or seeking to cure the pain of bad hangover by amputating one's own head. The very word _Europe_ is of Hellenic origin, along with the concepts of democracy, a republic, and the bulk of our philosophical worldview. A Euro without Greece may make short-term fiscal sense but it makes absolutely zero political sense.

</comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for the obvious!

My question is, HOW did they get INTO the euro in the first place? Obviously that's the insane part, and once the fraud that was perpetrated on Brussels became clear, why weren't they kicked out immediately?

<comment><USER5> > once the fraud that was perpetrated on Brussels became clear, why weren't > they kicked out immediately?

It was clear from before the Euro ever started. Everyone (by which I mean, the elites, analysts, the press, politicians, et al) knew that countries like Greece and Portugal had no business joining the Euro, and were lying through their teeth to get in. Then again, everyone knew that the entire project was founded on lies, cooked books, and ignored rules, sacrificed towards the overriding goal of ever closer union.

After letting Greece in with a wink and a nod, why in the world would they have then kicked them out? The fraud, if you want to call it that, was on the voters and taxpayers, not on the people running the EU. And if they kicked them out, how could they justify not kicking out all the other countries who had engaged in blatant trickery, which would be, well, all of them?

France engaged in some elaborate budget trickery to get their deficit under the line (swapping future pension obligations for one off payments to make their deficit look low enough)[1], Germany waffled a bit but the moves were accepted. How could they not be? France at least lied to make their deficit pass muster; Germany was in blatant violation from the start (which was meant to preclude their entry, or at least trigger massive fines. Naturally it did neither.)

Or in short: It's the old glass houses rule. France, Germany, Italy, etc, were in _NO_ place to demand a strict adherence to the rules in the case of Greece, since by a strict reading of the rules they shouldn't have been in the Euro zone either. The Euro project was inherently political from the start, and _politically_ it needed as many countries to join as possible. Even if that was economic disaster.

Edit: A better link[2] about how by the terms of the governing treaties, most Eurozone members did not qualify for entry, including (hilariously) Germany which had too much debt.

[1]: [http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/20/news/20iht- euro.t.html](http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/20/news/20iht-euro.t.html)

[2]: [http://www.voxeu.org/article/politics-maastricht- convergence...](http://www.voxeu.org/article/politics-maastricht-convergence- criteria)</comment></comment>


Microsoft Research Summer School 2009 - <AUTHOR> http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/events/2009summerschool/

<comment><AUTHOR> Information from the 2008 summer school is online and free to download. <http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/events/2008summerschool/>

</comment><comment><USER2> Does anyone know if there's any similar events at MSR, open to public for those of us who are in the Cambridge of this side of the Atlantic (Microsoft Research New England at Cambridge, MA)?</comment>


Ecuador grants Julian Assange asylum - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492 <comment><USER3> I'm renouncing my Amnesty International-funding credit card on this. The silence on their part, when this charade goes on _on their doorstep_ in London, is deafening.

The same goes for LibDems and Labour, but I've given up on them a long time ago (and to be fair, Labour are not even in power). Human/civil rights was just about the last platform where LibDems had a shred of credibility, and now it's shot. To maintain a few perks, they will let the Tories destroy centuries of civilisation - the Vienna Convention is a cornerstone of international relations, and hence, of world peace; threatening it over a silly man is just irresponsible. Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador and old-time LibDem, is just about as shocked as I am, and it's the only reasonable voice I've heard in the last 24 hours: <http://pastebin.com/s98KhnYD>

Supporting journalists in Belarus, China, Syria, Iran without supporting Assange is not grassroot activism: it's cynical, masqueraded foreign policy.

<comment><USER4> Human rights of rape victims? What about those?

<comment><USER3> Ecuadorean diplomats even offered the option to send him to Sweden outright, as long as the Swedish government guarantees he will not be extradited to a third country. Swedish authorities refused.

Tell me please: how will Swedish rape victims' human rights be offended by the Swedish inability to ship him to another country? Are Swedish punishment terms not enough?

<comment><USER5> Sweden presumably has a treaty obligation to extradite him to other countries though - they would be legally unable to agree to such a condition. (I'm ignoring the fact that if they _were_ able to except him, that kind of piecemeal approach to treaty obligations would be a terrible idea on the whole.)

<comment><USER6> Sweden has recently visited a different embassy to interview a suspected murderer.

Sweden was invited to interview Assange in the embassy in London. They declined.

<comment><USER5> Swedish law demands 2 stages of interviews - the second one (the "criminal proceedings" that are "equivalent to being charged" in the words of the High Court) is the one that has to take place in Sweden. If the suspected murderer was the pre-charge interview, that explains the discrepancy - if not that's very significant. Do you happen to know which set they were?

<comment><USER6> No. A terrible source too: ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian- assange-e...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange- ecuador-embassy-asylum-live?CMP=NECNETTXT8187))

> A very different perspective from Vaughan Smith, a friend of Assange who put > him up for more than a year at his Norfolk residence. Speaking on BBC Radio > 4's World at One this afternoon, Smith said:

>> [...] >> I think there's a lot of pride involved here... They have interviewed an alleged murderer in Serbia but they choose not to come to London to interview Julian Assange. I think that's very disappointing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I strongly doubt that Britain will take sudden action to arrest Assange in the embassy. What's likely to happen now is a stand off where he can't get out of the embassy because he'll be arrested. The UK and Ecuador will try to negotiate some sort of deal where Assange does go to Sweden to be questioned. Given that European states don't have the death penalty Assange would not be extradited to the US if there was a risk of him facing death there.

If he leaves he'll be arrested, if he manages to get in a diplomatic car the car will be stopped with Assange in it and there'll be a stand off. If Ecuador tries to make him into a diplomat the UK can simply refuse to accept that he is a diplomat. And if they try to use a diplomatic bag then the UK will claim that it's being used for improper purposes and block it. IMHO Assange is stuck there until a deal is worked out.

The granting of asylum is just one step in what will continue to be a tedious soap opera.

My interpretation of the letter that the FO sent to Ecuador is as a statement of a negotiating position given that the FO got wind of the fact that he was going to be offered asylum.

<comment><USER8> _Assange would not be extradited to the US if there was a risk of him facing death there._

There is no legal risk of Assange facing death in the US, is there? As far as I've read, he's just a nuisance to the US government, not wanted for any crimes. Or is that mistaken?

<comment><USER9> Some Senators or whoever said he should be killed. That has been accepted as proof that once he's in the US, he'll be killed.

<comment><USER10> That has 'been accepted' BY WHOM? How on earth do you get to "PROOF"?

<comment><USER9> Dude, I reddit on reddit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The British didn't seem quite so committed to extraditing Augusto Pinochet. This despite the fact that he had been indicted for crimes against humanity, not simply wanted for questioning as is the case for Mr. Assange.

In the case of Pinochet, there were four extradition requests: Spain, Belgium, Switzerland and France.

However, the British government took Mr. Pinochet's frail health into account and ultimately released him.

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

<comment><USER12> And many people detest in the UK and detest that decision and the woman who made it.

And so what if you make a bad decision historically? Are you suggesting that having made one that's a precedent and we should continue doing the wrong thing?

The rights and wrongs of this case aren't determined about mistakes that may or may not have been made in the past.

<comment><USER13> Are you referring to Maggie Thatcher? She was quite vocal at the time but was long out of office by then

<comment><USER12> My mistake.

As it was Blair then obviously a decent, honest humanitarian decision... _joke_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am ecuadorian and currently live in Ecuador. Granting assylum to Assange is just a PR move from our government. You might not be aware of this, but our 'president' won a lawsuit for US$ 40 Mio against the 'El Universo' newspaper just because an editor wrote an article critizing him. In Ecuador government CENSORSHIP rules. Hopefully Assange can make it to Ecuador and then realizes with the type of people he got involved with and gets out of here. It so WRONG to have our government be depicted as standing for liberty, freedom of speech, by granting assylum to assange. Please do some research. This goverment is all but that!!!!!!

<comment><USER15> I think taking asylum from Ecuador compromises his integrity. Will Wikileaks publish leaks about Correa in the future?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'd love to know what Assange's endgame plan for all of this fuss is.

The States aren't going to extradite him from Sweden nor, evidently, from the UK. It makes me feel like a kiljoy to say it, but there isn't any conspiracy here, and nor will any play out. Let's face it - everything will play out normally and boringly, no matter how many people shout "conspiracy!"

My gut instinct is that one way or another he'll end up in Sweden, either walking free or serving a year or two in jail, and then - what? Sitting in Parisian cafes gazing wistfully upon what once could have been?

<comment><USER17> > I'd love to know what Assange's endgame plan for all of this fuss is.

The same endgame he has had for a while: more attention, more publicity, more people donating to his bank account (which is basically what wikileaks functions as) to make up for those that got burned when he jumped bail, more book deals, who knows, perhaps a film. Whatever feeds his ego.

<comment><USER18> > his bank account (which is basically what wikileaks functions as)

Proof? Evidence?

<comment><USER17> First of all, most of wikileak's budget goes to pay his salary (other than that, wikileak's accounts are notoriously murky and not very transparent), second, for a while (until he was called out for it) donations to wikileaks went to his personal defense fund, which is still listed in the wikileaks donations page.

Even after that, to this day, Wikileaks lists his personal P.O. BOX in Australia as a way to donate, as far as I know no auditing of what has happened to any money sent there so far over the years. This is a curious detail that I have not seen anyone report, and that can be checked if you look at his pre-wikileaks website in archive.org, which lists the same P.O. BOX.

For all practical purposes, Assange is Wikileaks and Wikileaks is Assange, anyone that disagreed or questioned the wisdom of his actions has been kicked out or left in frustration at his dictatorial and self-serving management style.

Edit: Oh, and almost forgot how Wikileaks kept most of the money that they had supposedly raised for Bradley Manning's defense, who in the end, is the real hero of this saga, and who is languishing in jail while Assange goes on with his egotistical show.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> How often do you get see governments threatening to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy for the sake of apprehending a rape suspect? Wow.

<comment><USER20> Isn't the crime Assange is charged with in Sweden is significantly different from what is generally understood as rape in the US? Isn't he actually being charged with having two "one night stands"?

<comment><USER5> He's charged with rape and two counts of sexual assault.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_A...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_Authority#Case_reopened)

<comment><USER21> You're misinformed. He has not been _charged_ for anything by any country. Do your reading.

<comment><USER5> Excuse me, that's not the case except in the most narrow and pedantic sense. Here's the English High Court denying his appeal:

"In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed in this way, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of eyes. On this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange"

Link in the cousin comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> He is not going to make it to Ecuador. Only thing Assange can do now is sit inside the embassy for indefinite period of time, until Ecuador gets bored with assange and figures he is not worth the damage of ties with Uk. another possible outcome is rather extreme -- UK goes on offences and arrests assange from the embassy.

Either way, it would be interesting how the whole story will play-out.

<comment><USER23> What evidence do you have for your claim that "UK has already blocked Ecuador embassy's supplies"?

<comment><USER24> The source is a "tweet" saying that a truck carrying the next day's supplies for the embassy (whatever those comprise) was turned away. This message was from ... Wikileaks. But the BBC reported police surrounding the embassy so it is not unbelievable that a supply truck was turned away.

<https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/235953183032217600>

<comment><USER25> It would be highly unusual for any Ecuadoreans to be living in the embassy, given that the UK is a stable, safe, and nominally friendly country. Perhaps it's one of the few non-US ones where that's true, but I doubt it.

"Blocking supplies" is a weird concept for a building where and of the non- Assange residents can simply exit the building, walk 20m to the nearest Tesco, and return with 4 bags of vegetables and microwave dinners...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Everything seems so extreme about this saga: a "leaker" is accused of not using contraception (i.e., leaking) in a (possibly) covert plot by the US to subject him to the very same treatment his leaks so shockingly revealed. Then he turns himself into a public target for the US and its allies, thus rendering their actual disregard for human rights and tendency for over-the- top aggressiveness explicit and embarrassing, in a manner which is actually much more effective and public than his site's leaks.

A bona fide political circus, in which the main performer, Assange, turns out to be an extremely talented clown.

</comment><comment><USER27> I don't like this as precedent. If there's one thing we've learned from Wikileaks, it's that evidence of wrongdoing should be out in the open. This is a back-room deal between Assange and Ecuador to give him asylum as protection from a claimed US government conspiracy, but where's the proof? If it's good enough to convince the government of Ecuador, it's good enough to post publicly.

<comment><USER28> The Wikileaks Grand Jury.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Reading down through all of the comments, I can see that people have a totally mixed opinion of how this can happen. Some people think that the US have no intention of wanting to extradite and charge Assange, but Assange and his counsel have repeatedly (in the last month) requested that the US make a statement confirming this. The matter of the fact is, many high profile American's have said that he should be killed, and put to death.

Onto the other topic of the rape charges, I think some people don't fully understand the facts surrounding the charge. I didn't either until I spent thirty minutes and read this article: [http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...](http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm)

But from this transcript... these are the key points:

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>-

The "sexual assault/rape/molestation" charges were filed after two women Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen went to the police to seek advice if they could compel Assange to take a STD test since they did not use a condom during sex.

Both of the women went to the Klara police station in central Stockholm, however, it is mentioned that Ardin had gone along primarily to support Wilen.

Ardin had been frequently in the company of Assange. She had previously described him as such a "cool man" (Twitter). They also arrived and left together at a Crayfish party (equivalent of a cocktail party). Ardin was sharing accomodation with Assange and had refused an offer from someone else for temporary accomodation.

The day after the accusation of rape and molesation Ardin sent a SMS saying : "I've just spent some time with the coolest people in the world".

SMS text messages were also exchanged between Sofia and Ardin, which showed that the two of them knew of the relationship between each other and Assange.

Ardin responded to a friend who was looking for Assange : "He's not here. He's planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?"

The Swedish police, totally railroaded the investigation. Interviews have been leaked with Assange, and Wilen commented initially "that she became so distraught she refused to give any more testimony and refused to sign what had been taken down.". Assange went freely for interview to the police station and was released without immediate charge, and was free to travel. Almost immediately there after, another warrant was issued for his arrest.

Eventually, it was also upgraded to an Interpol "Red Notice".

It's alleged (from the transcripts), that Sweden has frankly always been the United States' lap dog and it's not a matter we are particularly proud of. The Swedish Government has... essentially, whenever a US official says, "Jump", the Sweden Government asks, "How high?"

Assange's legal team are clearly trying to point out that US is coercing all of this behind the scenes so that he can then be extradited from Sweden and face trial for conspiracy to commit espionage.

> The burden should be on the United States Government to say, "We are not > planning to prosecute Julian Assange". If they just gave that assurance, I > can guarantee you that Julian Assange would go to Sweden tomorrow.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>----

This is hugely and unequivocally politically motivated. I'm British, and I am largely ashamed that pressure is not being placed on Sweden by the foreign minister to have them reinvestigate the extradition request. Also, Sweden will, and has previously done all it can to scratch America's back.

Assange should stay put, until US says "we will not pursue extradition from Sweden". (Which they will not do.)

<comment><USER30> Here's the testimony from Assange's own lawyers:

He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently "consented to … continuation" of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: "[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly."

That's rape.

<comment><USER31> You are grossly misrepresenting this.

The purpose was for Assanges lawyers to explain why _even if the facts are as stated by the prosecution_ there would be no case for Assange to answer. The purpose was not to present a defence for Assange, nor to present Assange's version of events.

Emmerson went on to make it clear that whether or not Assange agreed with this version of events was immaterial for the extradition hearing, as in the extradition hearing, the evidence will be interpreted as favorably as reasonable for the prosecution.

In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.

Whether or not you agree with his justification is also immaterial - this was not Assanges defence against the accusations.

<comment><USER32> The important point here is that this was an extraditional appeal hearing, not a trial. You're right to point out that the burden on Assange's lawyers was not to totally refute the charges or even to mount the best possible defense of Assange.

But you're also mischaracterizing the testimony a little bit, since I don't believe it's the case that everything Assange's lawyers stipulated was directly drawn from the extradition request. "She may have been upset, but she clearly consented" (I've slightly paraphrased) is an argument defending Assange from a valid charge, not an argument that the charge is invalid.

The testimony in this hearing probably does presage the testimony that'll be given in Sweden.

<comment><USER31> I covered this when I wrote:

'In other words, this is Assange's lawyer saying "even if all you say is true this is why we believe there is no case". And you conveniently ignored the part where he provided that explanation for your last paragraph.'

It is not _only_ the prosecutions claims, but it is also not in any way Assange's side of the story. It is the prosecutions claims _plus_ an attempt by the lawyers at creating a plausible narrative within the constraints already laid down by the prosecutions claims without altering any of the prosecutions alleged facts.

That's a highly significant constraint.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I am fascinated to see how they will physically transport him from the embassy to a plane. This has the makings of a top quality chase movie.

<comment><USER34> They should take him with a helicopter. What are they going to do? Shoot it down?

<comment><USER35> Where are they going to get him into the helicopter?

<comment><USER36> Embassy roof? Or drop a ladder down from the helicopter? I think the bigger question is how to get him out of the helicopter (since it can't fly to Ecuador.)

<comment><USER37> Not how, where: international waters. London, IIRC, is not very distant from those. (Of course, London being a helicopter no-flight zone - for _decades_ now - complicates things somewhat)

Edit: Helicopters specifically; but with the ground-to-air missile sites installed around the Greater London area (ostensibly for protecting the Sporting-Event-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named; a WTF in and of itself), I'd be _very_ careful in mucking around the British airspace: [http://everything2.com/title/crashing+a+helicopter+in+Centra...](http://everything2.com/title/crashing+a+helicopter+in+Central+London+is+illegal)

<comment><USER36> Is it just no flight for helicopters? How about blimps? There's really got to be a solution here. It's a technical problem and we're technical people.

<comment><USER35> In general getting permission from ATC for flights over London is non-trivial (primarily because it is sufficiently densely populated that any emergency, especially at low altitude, is likely going to end badly).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The problem with Assange is while he is courageous, he is also morally weak. It's his utter lack of morals that has given his enemies so much ammunition.

I support Assange, although not without reservation, and I refuse to speak out for him in public because of his rape charges (charges which have not been proven).

I doubt he will successfully flee the UK.

To paraphrase the old Radiohead song, Assange, "you did it to yourself".

<comment><USER24> Innocent until proven guilty? Conspiracy theorists would tell you that there's no surer way to discredit somebody with no real evidence than to publicize a salacious sex story.

<comment><USER12> The issue with claiming innocent until proven guilty is that that is one part of a due process which Assange's actions are making impossible to follow.

I'm not saying he's guilty (or innocent), just that when you halt due process, terms like this become a little less meaningful as they're one part of a larger thing which is being blocked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The UK has asserted[0] that they have a legal basis for arresting Assange even while he is inside the Ecuadorian embassy. They cite the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987; the counterpoint is the Vienna convention and centuries worth of international law.

[0] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian- assange-e...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/16/julian-assange- ecuador-embassy-asylum)

<comment><USER25> My understanding is that it's a little more nuanced than that: that the UK believes it has the right to withdraw the diplomatic status of the building used for the Ecuadorian embassy. Ecuadorian diplomats would continue to have diplomatic protection, presumably would be given long notice of the requirement to vacate the embassy, and move goods from it... but Mr Assange would not have any of that protection. I'm not sure which part of the Vienna Convention you think this would violate?

<comment><USER40> I feel hesitant to even speculate on the possibilities, but what if Ecuador made him a diplomat?

<comment><USER25> Also relevant, from Wikipedia:

"Although most persons with diplomatic immunity carry diplomatic passports, having a diplomatic passport is not the equivalent of having diplomatic immunity. A grant of diplomatic status, a privilege of which is diplomatic immunity, has to come from the government of the country in relation to which diplomatic status is claimed. Also, having a diplomatic passport does not mean visa-free travel. A holder of a diplomatic passport must obtain a non- diplomatic visa when traveling to a country where he is not currently nor is going to be accredited as a diplomat, if visas are required to nationals of his country."

More frequently, I hear of UK embassies not offering full diplomatic protection to their non-political staff in foreign countries. If you're sending someone from your Tourism Board to the British embassy in Thailand, you simply don't want the hassle of having to specifically revoke his diplomatic privilege when he shows up in Pattaya with a dead hooker, where you're happy to give them diplomatic car plates so the traffic police don't try and get 500THB from them for speeding... I assume this is an international trend, rather than something the Brits thought up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> An angle that seems to be forgotten here is the political bind the UK government finds itself in. On the one hand, they cannot afford to violate territoriality of the Ecuadoran embassy (legally or not) - on the other, they also cannot afford to break the terms of their extradition treaty with Sweden.

Either outcome will see the UK have further problems on the world stage, and neither is something they can easily negotiate their way out of. In such a situation, it might be imagined that they would rather risk their reputation with the rest of the world than alienate their allies.

<comment><USER42> It's not really a bind. They could just as easily say "Sorry, Sweden, he made it to neutral ground" as "we're going to violate the Vienna Convention". At this stage it's all politics; if the UK is threatening to do this, then it's getting something out of the deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I don't understand all of these people suggesting that once Assange is in international waters he is somehow safe.

The US will just stop the Ecuadoran vessel, board it, and take Assange. We've got historic precedent for their lack of Give a Fuck in situations of this nature.

<comment><USER44> There's no evidence that the US even wants Assange.

<comment><USER45> Except of course the ongoing grand jury in Virginia.

<comment><USER44> Is there a credible report of that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> The Minister of the Exterior's decision was... _highly_ charged. He seemed to be making a stand for all of South America.

<comment><USER20> The UK inflamed the situation with the irresponsible talk of storming Ecuador's embassy.

<comment><USER47> No: Ecuador inflamed the situation by deliberately posting a bad translation of the letter sent to them by the UK. Britain never said they would 'storm' the embassy. They merely reminded Ecuador that their lawyers believed they could legally enter the embassy given appropriate notice (7 days). That is hardly 'storming'.

<comment><USER20> Fair enough, but consider that although couched in diplomatic language the letter is nonetheless a threat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Obviously he has every right to be paranoid about the US trying to extradite him but you have to wonder how far he's willing to go on this. I think the Assange story long ago eclipsed the Wikileaks story (look how little attention Bradley Manning gets) and if he was prosecuted and convicted of rape in Sweden and had to do jail time there, I think the story would only be remembered for Assange. No need for a very messy public trial after extradition, no need for the miles of bad press it would generate.

</comment><comment><USER49> What is really being discussed here, without saying it explicitly, is whether it's OK for the United States to go after it's perceived enemies in other countries, for crimes committed outside the USA that violate USA laws, and bring them home to face trial, whether or not they are US citizens. And lets just call a spade a spade. It's clearly the "United States of Sweden".

</comment><comment><USER50> Sometimes it looks like authoritarian governments can learn a thing or two from "democratic" countries.

When Chen Guangcheng sought refuge in the American embassy, the Chinese govt didn't use any trumped up criminal charges against him as an excuse to threaten to invade the American embassy and arrest Mr Chen.

Britain is threatening to invade the embassy of Ecuador by using a local 1987 law to revoke the diplomatic status of the embassy. Next time around, the Chinese and every authoritarian govt around the world will know how to handle any asylum seekers in any British embassy in the world.

</comment><comment><USER51> For perspective, Bradly Manning his under 24 hour gaurd and observation. He must strip nude every morning before his female and male guards. He is allowed no mail. He never sees the sky or breathes fresh air.

Some of this is for his protection they say.

Assange is wise to fear the wrath of the USA and its special friend the UK.

<comment><USER51> "INTERPOL cannot compel any of its 190 member countries to arrest the subject of a Red Notice. Any individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty. "

<http://www.interpol.int/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> In failure to deliver my sentiment in proper wording (and I've scratched the written few times), I'll just quote one of my personal heroes:

 _"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."_ ~ Frank Zappa

</comment><comment><USER53> I find the points and counterpoints on the Assange issue rather confusing and it's hard for me, as an observer, to separate fact from fiction. I'm wondering if someone can clear up some points:

1\. Apparently there is a two-stage interview process in Sweden with criminal investigations. A first interview, which Assange has done, and a second that is equivalent to being charged. Is this true?

2\. It has been argued that Swedish authorities have done interviews in embassies and other countries in other cases but have refused to do so here. In those other cases, are they first or second interviews (assuming (1) is correct)?

3\. Has the US formally charged, indicated they would charge, sought extradition or otherwise indicated they would seek extradition of Assange or is it merely assumed?

4\. Is there any substantive difference in extradition proceedings from the UK or Sweden? The US could seek extradition from the UK. It is argued by Assange's defenders that it is easier from Sweden and a UK judge may well throw out the request as being politically motivated whereas extradition from Sweden, it is argued, can be done politically rather than through the courts. How true is this?

5\. Sweden has refused to not extradite Assange, should he return, to the US. How normal is this? Can Sweden legally do this? I know EU countries have, in the past, as a condition of extradition required the US to guarantee that the death penalty won't be sought or applied. I assume in those cases that is a real issue so it seems like there is some room for movement when it comes to extradition;

6\. What is the status of Assange's legal proceedings against extradition to Sweden? The High Court has ruled I believe so the only recourse now is the European Court of Human Rights? Is that still ongoing? Can it make a binding ruling against extradition that the UK must abide by?

7\. When it comes to criminal charges in any country I'm familiar with there are two things: how the law is written and how it is applied. Many things are illegal that the authorities don't actively pursue. Partially this is simply convention, partially its policing and partially (IMHO) it's holding things in reserve, meaning if you really want to get someone you have something. Is this also the case for Sweden? Given the facts as (publicly) known regarding the rape allegations, how normal is it to seek criminal charges in this case?

8\. With regards to political asylum. How normal is it for a country to offer political asylum to someone in another country who is a citizen of a third country resisting extradition to a fourth? Hell, you can probably add "because of fears of being extradited to a fifth"!

Assange is an Australian citizen. As an Australian citizen myself I'm disappointed but not at all surprised in the silence of the Australian government on this issue and the apparent acquiescence to US demands. It's often pointed out that citizenship is not only a privilege but a responsibility. The government likewise has a responsibility to defend the interests of its citizens and I see that sadly lacking here.

<comment><USER54>
      > Is there any substantive difference in extradition
      > proceedings from the UK or Sweden?

The UK will not extradite to the US if the accused faces the death penalty. Sweden will. Assange's lawyers argue that the US's apparent desire for a Swedish extradition indicates that US prosecutors want a conviction that will lead to his execution.

<comment><USER55> Where did you get this disinformation? Why did you trust it enough to post it under your name, John Millikin?

It is equally illegal in Sweden to extradite people to countries where they could face the death penalty.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian-a...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/16/julian- assange-few-friends-left-sweden?newsfeed=true)

<comment><USER54>
      > Where did you get this disinformation?

<http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html#TR>

<http://wlcentral.org/node/2671>

      > Why did you trust it enough to post it

It seems to be supported by evidence, and has been posted by sources that are trustworthy.

      > under your name, John Millikin?

It would be cowardly to post something like this under a pseudonym.

<comment><USER12> <http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/01/54/35/77809ec6.pdf>

This is the text if the actual Swedish extradition law from the government web site. It clearly states on Page 3, section 12, point 3 that someone can not be extradited if they are to face the death penalty. The Swedes would have to get assurances from the US that this wasn't the case to extradite him.

<comment><USER55> Kudos for finding the actual law text (where I as a native Swedish speaker gave up after 15 minutes of reading legalese).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'd like to see a prediction market now for whether or not Assange makes it to Ecuador...

<comment><USER57> You never know.. He might already be there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> A movie script couldn't do better: Assange's lawyer is Baltazar Garzon, the Spanish ex-judge who asked London for the extradition of Pinochet.

</comment><comment><USER4> Assange's credibility: shot.

<http://www.indexoncensorship.org/tag/Ecuador/>

I suppose he's going to live his life like Roman Polanski, on the run from rape charges.

<comment><USER59> How has this hurt his credibility?

Also the type of rape in this case and the Roman Polanski case aren't even remotely similar. In the UK, USA, or most other Western countries what he did isn't even illegal.

It is essentially the sex version of fraud: lying to get ahead.

<comment><USER4> The UK Judge in his first extradition trial said he would be guilty of rape or sexual assault in the UK.

Also, the crusader for freedom has fled to a regime that is demonstrably un- free.

<comment><USER60> source?

<comment><USER4> Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [20111 EWHC 2849 (Admin) (02 November 2011)

Paragraph 86:

"..The allegation is clear and covers the alternatives; it not an allegation that the condom came off accidentally or was damaged accidentally. It would plainly be open to a jury to hold that, if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom without her consent. His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act."

<http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html>

<comment><USER60> I'm not competent at all on the subject but it doesn't seem to me the quote you present imply the comment you previously made

      The UK Judge in his first extradition trial said he would be guilty of rape or sexual assault in the UK.

It seems to me that what he is saying here is that the allegation could be a sexual offense, thus it's one of his arguments to allow extradition to swede in order to permit further investigation on this plausible and relevant allegation.

<comment><USER4> If he did the same act(s) in the UK that he did in the Sweden, he would be guilty of a UK offence. It seems pretty clear to me.

"His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, whatever the position may have been prior to that Act"

<comment><USER31> If he did the same acts in the UK that _the prosecutor alleges that he did in Sweden_. In no way is that conduct proven. In fact, it is not even demonstrated that the women in question have alleged he acted that way - <USER2> least one of them have stated she is refusing to sign the statements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Whenever I see a new post about this saga I feel compelled to post this mini documentary about it before everyone gets into the same old arguments.

Sex, Lies and Julian Assange [http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.ht...](http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/07/19/3549280.htm)

</comment><comment><USER4> To be honest, I think what we have here is a case of cognitive dissonance - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance>

People admire Assange for what he has done as part of wikileaks, whilst also simultaneously loathing rapists.

I felt the same when Mike Tyson was convicted of rape. As a follower of boxing, I was a huge fan of his power and skill. And then he got convicted of rape.

I tried to tell myself that it was a fix, the "victim" was after his money etc etc. But now I realise that both things are true. He was one of the best boxers ever, and he did rape that woman.

Steve Jobs could be a fantastic businessman and innovator, _and_ a bit of an arsehole to work with.

Benjamin Britten could be a great composer _and_ sexually attracted to youg boys.

Assange could be a brave "dissident" _and_ sexually taken advantage of those two women.

</comment><comment><USER62> Best wishes to assange in his quest to make the most secretive regimes of the world transparent. Less governments the better! Humanity do not need extra ordinary hijackers, tramplers of human rights and surveillance junkies.

<comment><USER10> Look to Somalia to see how the removal of government opens a power vacuum which creates chaos and ultimately new governments.

Unless you have got a sustainable plan for maintaining a vacuum, you can reasonably assume that nature will fill it.

<comment><USER62> The existence of a government do not mean it is desirable. It is an act of authority on people. When people are enlightened and can choose for themselves and govern themselves, the power of governments to arrogate themselves the power shall wither away - but the secretive regimes are fearing just that - they do not want their citizens to be informed or enlightened and are a regressive influence to the progress of humanity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> A bit more information has come to light. A respected broadsheet newspaper here in Australia has requested some diplomatic cables under the Freedom of Information Act and reports that the Australian diplomatic service believes that the US will attempt to extradite Assange.

[http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of- assange-c...](http://www.theage.com.au/national/us-in-pursuit-of-assange- cables-reveal-20120817-24e8u.html)

</comment><comment><USER63> _Mr. Patiño said his government had made its decision after the authorities in Britain, Sweden and the United States refused to give guarantees that, if Mr. Assange were extradited to Sweden, he would not then be sent on to the United States to face other charges._

This is key, and pretty much proves what's going on. They didn't want to take extradition to the US off the table, yet supposedly this is only about answering to rape charges.

</comment><comment><USER64> Ecuador: "We are not a colony from the UK".

EPIC.

<comment><USER65> Yes, I quite enjoyed that bit of snark as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I agree with this Toronto Globe and Mail editorial on the issue:

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/ecuador...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/ecuador- should-not-give-assange-asylum-and-he-should-step-out-and-defend- himself/article4484914/)

"As for Mr. Assange, he should step out of doors and defend himself."

</comment><comment><USER67> Why are now British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden, but British Court released V. Antonov on bail when Lithuania asked UK to extradite him to Lithuania?

</comment><comment><USER68> What if Ecuador make him an Ecuadorian diplomat?

Somehow I feel that when this is over, he'll return to Australia and make a quick political career and become very influential.

<comment><USER69> > What if Ecuador make him an Ecuadorian diplomat?

England would refuse to grant credentials.

> Somehow I feel that when this is over, he'll return to Australia and make a > quick political career and become very influential.

Given Australia's close ties to the US, that's pretty unlikely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I'm just going to leave this here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine

</comment><comment><USER71> Is there a particular reason why Assange chose to ask political asylum in Ecuador?

</comment><comment><USER72> A 1994 study by Dr. Eugene Kanin of Purdue University revealed that 41% of rape allegations are fabrications.

The Innocence Project reports that the number one crime for which they release wrongfully convicted individuals from prison is rape.

Why are these women not in prison? <http://www.register- her.com/index.php?title=Main_Page>

<comment><USER73> ...because there has been nothing but accusations and guilt for any party has not been resolved?

<comment><USER72> Read the submission guidelines:

"Only those submissions that can be corroborated by either a link(s) to a recognized news affiliate and/or digital copies of court records, with correct contact information for that court, or other compelling, substantiated documentation, will be accepted as proof.

All submissions based on court records must be verified by our staff before they will be posted. "

You want the actual court documents on the site? That is not going to happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> And all just to keep a website on/off the internet.</comment>


Show HN: What's My Chain Cert? - <AUTHOR> https://whatsmychaincert.com/

<comment><USER2> That's nice to see. I was working on exactly the same thing before realizing all the corner cases and manual work involved...

Unfortunately this service fails exactly on those cases. For example certificates signed by "/C=GB/ST=Greater Manchester/L=Salford/O=COMODO CA Limited/CN=COMODO High-Assurance Secure Server CA" (b4c66180c520bad688470ef80bb22beba8391c22) actually have two chains. (or more) Each leads to a different CA. Each CA is included in different OS/browsers combinations, so actually you need both intermediate certs to pass validation on all current systems.

I guess you're checking the certificate against your local /etc/ssl/certs/ca- certificates.crt, which is not enough if you want to serve traffic to every OS/browser. To do that, you'd have to have a database of trusted CAs for each of them - generate the shortest chain for each, then dedup the chains, then sort the intermediates and return the chain.

I stopped at the database of trusted CAs. Without actually owning each system, it's almost impossible to obtain the certs. For example Apple provides the list for each version, but names only - without fingerprints that means hunting down CAs from foreign sites going only by names.

<comment><USER3> For your multiple chains, is this the case where the chain is

        example.org is signed by
        New CA intermediate is signed by
        New CA root is signed by
        Old CA root

So agents with New CA will stop at New CA, and agents without continue on to Old CA? Or do you have an example where you have more choices than stop or continue?

<comment><USER2> I meant the second case - one intermediate is signed by 2 "different" certs. (they have the same key of course) One is a CA, the other is intermediate itself.

These are the valid chains:

        my cert
        b4c66180c520bad688470ef80bb22beba8391c22 - COMODO SSL CA
        02faf3e291435468607857694df5e45b68851868 - AddTrust External CA Root

Another chain. Watch out - different cert with CA in name, that is not actually a CA. It's also got the same name as the one above, but is not self- signed:

        my cert
        b4c66180c520bad688470ef80bb22beba8391c22 - COMODO SSL CA
        53845e9fd070b7aa36976f536ff1441c578c63d2 - AddTrust External CA Root
        58119f0e128287ea50fdd987456f4f78dcfad6d4 - UTN - DATACorp SGC

You can see its interesting/messy details at [https://ssl- tools.net/certificates/5yf351-addtrust-external-...](https://ssl- tools.net/certificates/5yf351-addtrust-external-ca-root)

<comment><USER3> From the link, it looks like the AddTrust External CA is cross-signed by two different UTN Roots?

UTN - DATACorp SGC and UTN-USERFirst-Hardware

This is more of what I was looking for, rather than the case where you have a self-signed CA, but also a cross-signed CA. Is there a way you can create a certificate chain that you could send to two clients, one with the SGC and one with the UserFirst, and both would accept the chain as valid? (I think the answer is no, but it would be super awesome if the answer was yes)

<comment><USER2> Yes, that's what I'm doing now. My chain has the intermediate from the first chain and the "intermediate-called-ca" from the second chain. All clients are happy with that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice work; this is a good tool to have in the world. The Qualys test[1] may be more comprehensive, but it is also _much_ slower if you only need to examine certificate chain issues.

1\. ex, albeit cached: [https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=news.ycombina...](https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=news.ycombinator.com&s=188.8.131.52&latest)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

Yes, the SSL Labs test is way more comprehensive. I think a single-purpose tool is still valuable because it provides background about chain certs, and if it detects a misconfiguration, it provides a link to download the correct chain.

<comment><USER4> Absolutely! Single-purpose tools are great.

I actually have a few questions about cert chains: Is it necessary to have the entire chain? Or only the last few certificates (closest to the site certificate)? Is it any faster to have a shorter cert chain, or are there ways to optimize the cert chain for speed? (encodings? compression?) A small FAQ on cert chain background would be a nice addition to the site.

Would it be make sense to add a quick check for OCSP Stapling too, since that is related to the cert chain setup?

<comment><AUTHOR> Your chain should start with the certificate that signs your server's certificate and continue up to, but _not_ including, a root certificate that's trusted in all browsers.

Certificates can have multiple chains to a root certificate, some longer than the others, so to optimize you should pick the shortest chain. There's a trade-off to be made with browser support, because a short chain might be to a root that's not trusted in all browsers. The chain cert generator[1] picks the shortest chain that's to a root that's trusted in all reasonably recent browsers (basically everything you're likely to encounter today except Android 2.2, which is woefully lacking in both root certificates and modern TLS support).

An FAQ is a good idea; OCSP stapling seems a little out-of-scope but I'll think about it.

[1] source code here = [https://github.com/SSLMate/mkcertchain](https://github.com/SSLMate/mkcertchain)

<comment><USER5> Doesn't it seem that configuration is needlessly complex for certificates? I think it would be easier to list the entire chain in one directive:

        TLSCertificates /path/to/host.crt /path/to/intermediate.crt /path/to/root.crt

That would support any number of intermediates and remove the need to concatenate certificates into a single file. Terminating with the root certificate would be optional, but if present the server could perform a check to verify the chain to the very end when starting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> All of my websites are "good" so I can't really see any utility out of this. Not sure if that's just because I have good habits when deploying HTTPS.

<comment><AUTHOR> You have good habits.

But many website operators don't, and I've had a tough time in the past reporting chain cert issues because website operators insist nothing's wrong since their site works for them (due to chain cert caching). I've already successfully reported a chain cert issue this week by including a link to the whatsmychaincert.com test result.

<comment><USER6> Good to know! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> At some point in the last ten years, most browser vendors enabled a feature that will do automatic discovery of an intermediate certificate.

The most noteworthy exception to this is the builtin Android browser in the 2.x (and possibly later) series. As a result, failure to include the intermediate certificate on the server quite frequently goes unnoticed.

<comment><USER8> This also fails with many non-browser applications. For example, if Murmur (the server for the Mumble VOIP application) does not detect your certificate is correctly chained, your server won't even start.

Best to set it up correctly in any case.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure there's anything about the X.509 standard that can be termed "correct" but yes, serve intermediates.

Many QA engineers are ambushed by this new "edge" case. This change in browser behavior has made it easier for the problem to go undetected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Another issue worth mentioning when discussing chain cert: Should the root certificate go on the server?

[1] [https://community.qualys.com/thread/11026](https://community.qualys.com/thread/11026)

<comment><USER8> Why exactly would anyone answer yes to that? If they don't know the root, there's nothing trusted to chain from anyways. Chain intermediates only.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I get errors:

Sorry, an error occurred when building the chain for this certificate. This could mean that the certificate is malformed or that its certificate authority is not functioning properly.

Is this normal?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I'm seeing some certificate authorities which are serving their certificates in formats that I wasn't expecting. All the errors are being logged and I'm working on adding support for these formats.

Edit: These errors should now be fixed; thanks for your patience!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> No drop-down for showing instructions on how to correctly configure lighttpd:

ssl.pemfile = "/path/to/pemfile.pem"

ssl.ca-file = "/path/to/chain.crt"

</comment><comment><USER12> Gave it a try, but I have a server that gets this response to the "Test" button:

TLS handshake error: error:140773E8:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:reason(1000)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for letting me know.

I looked in the logs, and determined that the server in question has a variety of issues, including intolerance to TLS 1.1 and TLS 1.2. For more details, try testing it here:

[https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/](https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/)</comment></comment>


The Lawyer Behind the Google Memo Guy's Lawsuit Isn't Who You'd Expect - <AUTHOR> https://www.inc.com/sonya-mann/harmeet-dhillon-damore-google.html <comment><USER2> Spoiler alert. Damore's lawyer is Harmeet Dhillon, a female super lawyer American born in India. She's also a Republican party official, and recently successfully defended the Berkeley College Republicans against Yvette Felarca of the BAMN left-wing militant group. [1]

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

</comment><comment><USER3> I wish to see that going down in court but this sounds like a typical settling case. The stronger he can drum up press the more Google will want to have it go away.

<comment><USER4> I can see Google paying just about any reasonable price to avoid discovery in this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd appreciate if the title was changed to not be click bait.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd be happy to submit with a more descriptive headline, but Hacker News requires that you use the original one.</comment></comment>


Startups: How Twitter will pay the bills - <AUTHOR> http://valleywag.com/tech/startups/how-twitter-will-pay-the-bills-308311.php <comment><USER2> The ability to have users actively go after advertisers to get contact pushed to them at any time seems like a win-win advertising model. I swear some other compan[y/ies] has/have done this before - does anyone know who? Also, given how unpopular (in my opinion) their usage of MTV on their site has been, could they pull this off and be profitable?</comment>


Ask HN: Startup Data Security Survey - <AUTHOR>

Hi folks,
I'm a former computer security guy that's recently plunged into the startup world. On the heels of Dave McClure's subscriptions are the new black post, we looked into some of the recurring billing solutions out there and found that there's a lot of confusion about what needs to be done with respect to security.
I was hoping to get some feedback from other startups that accept payments on the web to see how they do so, and how knowledgeable they are with respect to security. We'll be sharing this survey with payment providers (and publicly), so it will hopefully be useful for them to get an idea of what startups are looking for.
You can find it here: http://www.untitledstartup.com/2010/02/payment-security-survey-for-startups/
Thanks! <comment><USER2> completed!</comment>


Microsoft's 'can't uninstall Microsoft Edge' support page - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/17/21372846/microsoft-cant-uninstall-microsoft-edge-web-browser-editorial <comment><USER3> This is a pretty sane move on MS's part...

I find it reasonable that an OS doesn't let you remove what may be the only browser on the system, for a _lot_ of reasons.

I read this as a push to really ditch IE in the very near future, and don't really mind at all.

In no particular order

\- Something has to provide a native webview for desktop applications

\- MS has no default package manager for users, and doesn't provide browser downloads on their "store" (or at least I wasn't able to find any, I may be missing something). So removing the browser may leave a user unable to bootstrap another browser onto the system (at least once IE is actually gone) without outside help or another machine.

\- The browser itself takes up a pretty negligible amount of disk space, there isn't really any benefit to removing it (unless MS is playing dirty and starting it behind the scenes, but at least in my usage, I haven't seen this). So these users don't want it "GONE", they just want to desktop shortcut removed (and I actually agree, MS shouldn't push as hard here).

\- There are lots of system integrations that expect at least one browser to exist, removing the only shipped browser may break these, or add a lot of complexity to some feature implementations.

<comment><USER4> Cant MS just provide a button somewhere that downloads and installs the browser? A computer doesn't need a browser to download something from the internet (such as a browser).

<comment><USER5> Can't they use the Windows App Store to let users install their browser of choice?

<comment><USER6> I think it has a rule, that prohibits 3rd party browser engines. :/

<comment><USER7> I don't think it's that, rather it makes it nigh impossible because the browsers will have to be rewritten to use UWP APIs, which were quite limited when they first launched. Also they won't be able to compete with Edge which had access to restricted APIs

<comment><USER8> You can install Win32 apps from the store, UWP/WinRT is no longer a requirement: [https://developer.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/bridges/deskto...](https://developer.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/bridges/desktop/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I even let Edge be the default browser.

That way, whenever an app opens a link, it opens in a browser I don't use, and it can't read any important information or browser fingerprint that matters.

I am still using Firefox for my browsing needs.

EDIT: It's more about my browsing habits: Now this browser has been opened. I can close it before the page loads and before I have read anything I really don't care about.

<comment><USER10> If you can't trust the apps that you're running on an _unsandboxed system_ , getting fingerprinted should be the least of your worries. Since there's no sandbox, it could very well keylog everything you type, or steal your browsing history/login cookies directly from your browser.

<comment><USER9> Well, some applications open a webpage just when the uninstallation finishes.

Basically every single browser window that is open from an application, or its uninstaller, is an unwanted one.

It's not even about the fingerprinting, now that you make me think about.

It's more about my browsing habits: Now this browser has been opened. I can close it before the page loads and before I have read anything I really don't care about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm failing to see the reason for outrage here. Apple won't allow removing Safari from macOS without turning off system protection and then it will get reinstalled next OS upgrade. Heck you can't even remove the chess game on macOS without turning off system protection.

<comment><USER12> And then once you turn off SIP you could install Chrome and not be able to boot your computer....

[https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/15235262?hl=en](https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/15235262?hl=en)

Yeah. I know it's been corrected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Maybe I'm in a minority, but it's really a pretty good browser. I wish it supported a few more features with the PDF reader (such as text box annotations). However, it still has way more features in that space than most competitors.

<comment><USER14> Isn't it just a re-skinned Chrome?

<comment><USER15> Mostly, though they added tracking prevention, which is industry standard on every browser not made by the same company as DoubleClick.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is IMHO the really fun part (already posted on an earlier thread): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24178631](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24178631)

Interestingly enough, going to that URL with an unsupported browser (QTWeb) I got:

Your browser is out-of-date

You need to update your browser to use the site.

Update to the latest version of _Internet Explorer_

</comment><comment><USER17> The hidden bigger news here is that IE11 (and legacy Edge) finally have an official EOL date of August 17, 2021. The true end of an era.

<comment><AUTHOR> That was my take, too. I really don't mind if the vendor has a standard browser installed, as long as you can install others and make it the default. That's way more than Apple does on iOS!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The strangest part is that they didn't fully replace the behavior of the old version. If you place the OS in kiosk mode when the new Edge is installed and try to run a browser, it just goes into a loop trying to load the old one and blocking it. It's not possible to use the new Edge for a kiosk, probably because it doesn't use the Windows store. There is a separate kiosk browser in the store, but it isn't integrated with the OS and lacks any simple configuration options. Maybe they just want people to use Linux kiosks instead.

</comment><comment><USER19> Browsers became a functional part of an OS a long time ago. What is the real problem? If you are on windows and worried about bloat? WTF?

<comment><USER20> More like one day you turn on windows and it takes over your boot process, has a splash screen, walks you through "your newest browser", adds things to your desktop, changes associations to things.

Sounds good, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Question: Is it possible to uninstall Safari on macOS? (without shell commands)

</comment><comment><USER22> Reasonable restriction.

Web browsers are so tightly integrated with so many software that they should be considered an essential part of the OS.

<comment><USER23> It's possible to provide WebView APIs without doing what MS did with their browser as a whole.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There could certainly be a way to provide Edge via the Store and not force it on users. Possibly the reason it's not done that way is because there appears to be hard links to it. Despite setting Firefox as the default things still open in Edge, like from the Search in the Start Menu and from Settings help pages etc. Maybe there's a way to fix this but it feels wrong to me. And it also doesn't need to keep pinning itself to the task bar either.

</comment><comment><USER25> Don't what to transform this to Whataboutism but it really annoys me that I can't uninstall the apps on OSX which are clearly optional: TV, Podcasts, Music, Garageband, Safari etc etc. Was actually excited about iTunes splitting into multiple apps because I was expecting to be able to split up the app size into optionals that I could remove - <USER2>

<comment><USER23> Actually, you can do this. Disable System Integrity Protection, run 'mount -uw /', and delete away.

</comment></comment><comment> em-bee i suspect that people not so much don't want the browser. they could ignore it if that were the case, but that they are annoyed by its invasive behavior.

if microsoft would just stop to shove the browser into peoples face after they have already said that they prefer another, then there wouldn't be so many complaints

</comment><comment><USER26> I don't understand why this is an issue. You can't uninstall Safari on OSX( some people here in the comments say you actually can delete it, but this will probably leave you broken system) or ios. You can't uninstall Chrome on Android.

Why MS is so special in this regard?

<comment><USER27> It's an issue for the same reason not being uninstall Safari or Chrome is an issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I can't imagine too many people that actually care about something like this are using Windows.

</comment><comment><USER29> Can you uninstall safari from macos? If you do what powers webviews after you do?

</comment><comment><USER30> Didn't they get, like, sued for this once upon a time?

</comment><comment><USER31> Need to make a heavy criticism on the article but: Maybe don't link the competitor's trends page as trustworthy information?

Google's been known to artificially demote industries/products they don't like and promote the crap out of their own. I am not asserting that it's the case here but it could be the case and non-shit journalism wouldn't ask a biased party for market data on their competitor.</comment>


Pioneer DVR Harddrive Recovery Tools - <AUTHOR> http://mikeknoop.com/blog/pioneer-dvr-harddrive-recovery-tools/ <comment><USER2> I get an syntax error when runing the script ind python commandline

Traceback <most recent call last>: File "<stdin>" line 1, in <module> "nameerror 'extract' is not defined"

i wrote in the script that my driveimage file is pionner.arc and is on drive F and mpg should be saved in drive d:\pio

why the error?

<comment><AUTHOR> You can that error when you execute `python extract.py`? Sounds like the Python interpreter can't find the extract.py file on your path.

Also make sure you use double backslashes for directories like the example in Github: [https://github.com/mikeknoop/pioneer-dvr-filesystem- tools/bl...](https://github.com/mikeknoop/pioneer-dvr-filesystem- tools/blob/master/extract.py#L16)</comment></comment>


Portal as a required college text - <AUTHOR> http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2010/08/portal-booklist.html

<comment><USER2> I appreciate the idea, but I have a major issue with it. I personally get motion sick from playing various kinds of first person games. (The problem first showed up for me with Doom.)

Judging from videos I've seen, Portal would be exactly the kind of game that I can't comfortably play. Normally that is not an issue because I don't have to play games I don't like. But if they get a kid like me in the class, how will they deal with it?

<comment><USER3> People are excused from "required" activities for all varieties of physical and psychological conditions... I am sure that it would be no different here - an alternative assignment being the likely resolution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Calling it a "book" is weird, but in the right context, culturally/technically/socially significant games aren't any weirder a required item than, say, films that also meet those criteria, and studying important films has been pretty well established for decades. Portal is a slightly strange choice, though, because of how new it is. I would imagine the course doesn't usually choose books or films from the past 5 years, but instead looks for things that are more classic?

<comment><USER5> Classic videogames didn't really go for the self-aware pretentiousness that makes Portal a compelling choice for academic study. (I mean that in the nicest possible way: it is a game that _knows_ it is better written than 90% of the stuff on the shelves next to it, and it isn't afraid to hit you over the head with that fact over and over and over again.)

<comment><USER4> There's quite a bit of stuff from the 80s that is self-aware of videogames as a medium, and is actually studied by academics pretty frequently. Chris Crawford's _Balance of Power_ / _Balance of the Planet_ duo are two that are frequently discussed. Crawford is so sure that his stuff is better than other stuff out there that he's even written several books about why his game design is so great, and other game design is so bad. ;-)

And in terms of academic interest, I think _SimCity_ or _Civilization_ , among a dozen other choices, is far more compelling than _Portal_ , and we also have enough distance to see how games like that influenced their successors. Mostly the choice of _Portal_ smells to me of a university picking a famous recent title in an attempt to stay relevant--- like if they'd picked _The Matrix_ or _Inception_ as the one film to include.

<comment><USER6> _Mostly the choice of Portal smells to me of a university picking a famous recent title in an attempt to stay relevant_

I don't see how you can get that from the article. It explains pretty clearly the specific topics they're going to emphasize, and how Portal ties in with the rest of the course.

What's nice about _Portal_ is that it has such clear elements, that it gets people to see things they ordinarily wouldn't look for in a game. It's a great introduction to the idea that games can engage humanity.

For starters, it's got great set design, sounds, and music. The characters are studies in their respective types. The set shows a clear progression from clean "lab"-style environment to broken-down warehouse style (both well- executed) and then back again, with a gradual transformation between styles that mirrors the transition of the protagonist's relationship with her environment. The game also raises lots of different issues: the morality of experimenting on humans, the possible emotional nature of AIs, the effectiveness of various incentives (like curiosity, or guilt) and disincentives (like "death", more guilt, or pessimism).

I really would not have any trouble writing a humanities paper on this game, there's a lot going on. It's not the best video game ever, but I think it's good to start with a super-accessible game like Portal because so many people don't take games seriously.

<comment><USER4> That seems to be mostly missing the point of games as a medium, though--- everything you're discussing is what a novelization of _Portal_ might have been about. In that case, why even pick a game at all? To me at least, the interesting aspects of games as a new form of media are the things that you _couldn't_ imagine one-to-one translated into a novel, like experimentation, interactivity, exploration, rule systems, etc.

I do agree that it's easy to write humanities papers about games from a purely narrative direction, but it's a hallmark of the not-games-focused humanities academic usually--- the literary theorist or film scholar who wrote a paper about a game as if it were a novel or a film. That kind of work is thankfully getting much less common than it was 10-15 years ago.

<comment><USER7> The narrative wouldn't work the same if it were a novel or a film. To take a simple example, watching someone else being reluctant to incinerate the Weighted Companion Cube would only work as part of a screwball comedy. If you have to do it yourself, it's still a funny situation but it feels a bit different.

And if you want to focus on the game, there is an interesting game mechanic, too.

<comment><USER8> Agreed. I spent a long time looking for a loophole... especially since that's the first level with a broken wall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Passage would be a much better option: <http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/passage/>

It's very short (5 minutes,) free, and you don't have to worry about anyone in the class not having enough skill to complete it.

It's also communicates in a way that only a game can. The rules of the game themselves are most of what gives it its expressive power, not the narrative or the visuals.

<comment><USER10> I never win this game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hey, the world from Stallman's _The Right to Read_ is finally here. Embrace a DRM'd video game that only runs on non-Free platforms, or fail out of University.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure. You can borrow a lab machine, or a friend's machine. Surely it is no worse than a dead tree book - you either have to buy it or find somewhere to borrow it from. Embrace DRM or fail seems like a false dichotomy.

I do agree that this is a worrying trend, and Stallman make a valid point in _The Right to Read_ , but I think the point he is making is that once you have DRM, you can stop people borrowing stuff. That is bad, but we haven't got there yet.

<comment><USER11> How do you loan someone an XBox Live download or Steam game?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Don't get me wrong, Portal is an awesome game. But he considered Planescape: Torment too, and went with _just_ Portal? Where's Fate/Stay Night or Tsukihime? I can't respect this college.

<comment><USER8> Planescape: Torment is significantly longer than Portal. For non-gamers, even, it would be an epic time investment.

* I did not downvote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Honestly, this is cool, but also a travesty. Portal is in no way on the same level as some of those other works of literature, and certainly not enough time has passed to see if it survives the years of literary criticism that will be required to tell if it ever should be. It seems like a move that simply panders to . . . well, whoever is pandered to by moves like this.

<comment><USER15> I disagree. I think Portal is on the same level as a great work of literature. As an aspiring game developer myself, I feel one could analyze Portal as "the perfect game" in exactly the same sense that a classic may be described as "the perfect novel". That's not to say it's the greatest or cannot be topped, but that it took an idea, explored it to its ultimate depths, combined it with supporting elements, and finished up strongly. That there is a Portal 2 in development is immaterial: Portal 1 stands on its own as a self contained work, and in that sense I think it is very much like a great novel.

<comment><USER16> Unlike a great novel, automatic updates have changed the ending sequence to better lead into the sequel- a trend that we will likely see more frequently in the future. Does that interfere with a work being "perfect"?

<comment><USER17> I don't think it does. Just because it's perfect doesn't mean it can't be made better, or that it can't be modified to better suitit's enviroment. The gameplay, dialog and story that made it so fantastic remain, and the modifciation, if anything, shows how powerful and different it's medium is. Being able to modify a work after it's been delivered is a very new concept, but I don't see how it harms the work. Of course, we do have the special editions of Star Wars, that many people see as a negative thing, but I think new ways for the creator to interact with his work are a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Well, at least it takes less than 5 hours to finish, which is a lot better than some books I've read for school.

</comment><comment><USER19> Seems like a waste of time to me (to require in a class setting), but then again it is a liberal arts college.

</comment><comment><USER20> I _love_ this; the notion of non-book texts (usually film) is also one my colleges have worked on in developing our freshman seminars.

But, and I hate to bring this up, but I wonder how differently this idea would play at a college that was not all-male. I've attended a lot of CS education talks that have a strong tension between "games are a way to engage students" and "games are way less engaging for girls than boys". This is a different context, of course, but I'm still curious.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's kind of strange requiring a video game as a required activity for all students. Subjects like reading and mathematics are things taught in grade school and have required proficiency levels before admittance in to university, but there are a lot of people out there who just don't play video games. Portal is not a difficult game for people who play video games on occasion, but people who don't will have an awfully difficult time.

</comment><comment><USER22> Now, I'm fortunate enough that I can afford the necessary hardware (a relatively high-end PC) to play Portal. What about those who cannot? Is their performance in the course automatically degraded simply because they don't have the outside job/rich parent necessary to get the PC or XBox?

<comment><USER23> Computer labs usually have decent hardware, and are free for students to use. That should work as long as they can get the administrators to allow Portal on the computer lab machines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Huh, not quite what I expected for what Portal could have been used for. In my mind, Portal (especially in the commentary mode) would serve better as a model of quality assurance, testing, and architectural design than as a work about the human condition.

</comment><comment><USER25> Won't this just make people hate Portal and think it's boring?

<comment><USER8> Haha! I hope not, but it would make me giggle if Portal suffered the same slings and arrows as classics of literature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> _germane_</comment>


Is There Anything Good About Men? - <AUTHOR> http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

<comment><USER2> Previous discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2767867](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2767867)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1634955](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1634955)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589346](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589346)

</comment><comment><USER3> Related good read:

[http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry- bubble.h...](http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow, really an eye opener. Was too long but I read it anyway and enjoyed every bit of it. Though I have to say things are changing in the man's world. Men are trying to imbibe feminine qualities as time progresses. Just look at the way men have been "domesticated" by the corporate culture if you don't know what I mean.

</comment><comment><USER5> That's pretty weak contrarianism.

There remain a lot of benefits to be reaped by modifying what are currently male-dominated cultures. Everything from having less-risky decision-making in international relations and finance to population grown reduction can pay big dividends from getting a balanced number of women into power positions in those domains.

Someday the pendulum may swing the other way, but that time is not yet near.

<comment><USER6> I don't think the author was claiing that, really... I thought it was interesting how he points out that men are in both the "top" slots in soiety (CEO President etc.) But also the lowest slots (prison, homeless)... in effect saying that gender dynamics can not be simplified to "male" or "female" dominated...</comment></comment>


Hey Apple, help us kill business cards - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/2009/07/13/hey-apple-kill-business-cards/ <comment><USER2> A funny thing just happened to me...

Some context: This guys is _severely annoyed/inconvenienced_ by business cards, so he wrote a piss-and-moan column about how everyone else's solutions have been inferior so far. Then he ends it by asking Apple to solve this problem for him.

The funny thing: While trying to read his column, I noticed a site-specific toolbar at the bottom of my screen taking up real estate and forcing me to scroll more than I care to. So, I moused down to turn it off. On the way I rolled over a mouse-over flash add which immediately obscured more of the article than the toolbar did. That's when I clicked "back."

Maybe this guy should write Apple an open letter about his site's usability problems and see if they'll fix them...</comment>