Three Charged in Fatal Kansas 'Swatting' Attack - <AUTHOR> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2018/05/3-charged-in-fatal-kansas-swatting-attack/ <comment><USER2> Swatting is a lot less effective in other parts of the world for the simple reason that in other parts of the world the results are super boring. Two officers will come to the door, ask if everything is ok, perhaps ask to look around, and then leave as calmly as they arrived.

There's something unique about the style of US policing (perhaps training? perhaps military backgrounds? perhaps it being styled as militaristic?) that means these kind of incidents are always escalated by the police themselves.

If you want example just look on YT for "Police Bootcamp" videos like this:

[https://youtu.be/0LC6FTXAxo0?t=2m12s](https://youtu.be/0LC6FTXAxo0?t=2m12s)

To Americans this might not seem odd, because you've been so conditioned to view police like the military but to people from elsewhere that's uniquely military style training and conditioning and has no place in a civilian police force.

Plus the length of training in the US is unusually low[0]

[0] [https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/us/jobs-training-police- trnd/...](https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/28/us/jobs-training-police- trnd/index.html)

<comment><USER3> This doesn't strike me as a uniquely American thing. When I visited Paris, I saw lots of pairs of soldiers or police patrolling streets and subway stations carrying FAMAS rifles. You don't even see that in the US (most foot patrols only carry pistols, most officers in cars leave their carbines in the vehicle unless they need it).

<comment><USER4> Sorry, little digression here: It was probably in response to the Terror attacks, a stuff called "operation sentinelle"[0]. They still patrol near strategic points now and then, but you see them less often now.

And while military training is not police training, there was some controversy and some generals said it was a huge mistake, as the money spend on this operation (~1M$) would have shown better effect if spent on intelligence. Also, to afford the men, military had to cut monthly training. A friend of mine said that physical exercise/conditionment was divided by 2, while tactical and shooting by 4, but he really hated this operation so take it with a grain of salt.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Sentinelle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Sentinelle)

<comment><USER5> I was backpacking around Europe in 1999 and I saw people in military uniforms with military style weapons patrolling the metro stations in Paris. It made me uneasy.

<comment><USER6> But unlike certain other countries they usually don't use them.

I grew up with a _real_ combat rifle in the house, not a bump-stocked semi AR that looks scary. Complete with ammo. Same in a number of other houses in the neighborhood.

Never had reason to worry.

But I guess it might seem scary to Americans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why do police officers shoot someone who was never a threat ? Kids will be kids, there will always be kids who do things that are completely irresponsible, by design. The fact that the person who pulled the trigger is not responsible at all for all this is beyond me.

<comment><USER8> Because they were told he was a threat.

Also because of our highly militarized police tactics designed to reduce potential harm to officers at the cost of everything else.

<comment><USER7> > Because they were told he was a threat.

Ok but when they saw him, was he a threat ? Are hearsay enough to pull the trigger ? That seems irresponsible too.

<comment><USER8> Wait to evaluate if the guy is a threat and he could have already shot you. Safer to shoot him first. This is what people are talking about when they complain about militarized police. Treating unknowns as threats that must be neutralized instead of something you need to observe closer is how you end up throwing grenades on sleeping babies and shooting innocent people. But the converse is that the suburban drug lord pulls out his AR15 and shoots down 3 cops before they have a chance to figure out what is happening.

<comment><USER9> IMO it is the police's responsibility to die first. They are putting themselves out to protect the public from threats not to kill the public who might be a threat to them or a fellow police officer.

I am aware that currently legally it is the exact opposite and they have no responsibility to save or protect anyone only themselves.

<comment><USER10> > _IMO it is the police 's responsibility to die first._

And, pray tell, who in their right mind is going to take _that_ job?

<comment><USER9> Well most of the time they aren't dying and hopefully they are mostly helping people. Firefighters put their lives at risk in a similar way. The respect and honor earned by protecting your fellow people is a strong motivator.

Hopefully this would change the public's perception of police to some extent and improve public relations to the point that they would walk around being thanked like veterans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > _investigators say the other two men's efforts to taunt and deceive one > another ultimately helped point the gun_

Huh, so they're going after people who didn't make the call and ignoring the biggest culprit that is the police officers? What's the point of having "trained" professionals if they can't distinguish a real threat from a hoax?

This reminds me of binary classification algorithms that classify everything as 0 and end up with an accuracy of 90% because of dataset imbalance.

<comment><USER12> How much training is required to effectively distinguish between a real threat and a hoax? Do police even get this training or is Swatting a relatively recent phenomenon that hasn't made it into police training curriculum yet? "Evil police" is a nice pat answer, but rarely are such answers correct.

<comment><USER13> Swatting is just a new twist on the long-standing pattern of high-strung police officers getting jumpy and killing people who were never a threat. There's even a famous Richard Pryor bit about it.

<comment><USER12> Earnest question: is this perception based on data or is it biased by media reporting? (not your perception specifically, but the general perception)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It is amazing to me that law enforcement's trigger for using deadly force so light that two teenagers arguing about a video game can get a third party killed across a state line.

</comment><comment><USER15> It really irks me the way the article says Andrew Finch was "at the wrong place at the wrong time". He was at _his_ house, which he's allowed to be at _any_ time.

<comment><USER16> It's a figure of speech that implies it was pure coincidence that it happened to him as opposed to someone else and that he could have done nothing to prevent it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think two steps should be taken:

\- Punish the swatters harshly

\- Take a long hard look at police tactics. There are way too many incidents where unarmed people don't behave 100% compliant and get shot. This is a really stressful situation for untrained people and professionals like cops should be trained to take that into account. Some years ago I got T-boned pretty hard by a car. Once the cops arrived, one of them gave me instructions and I was simply not able to process them and did all kinds of stuff instead. Thank god that cop was pretty nice and patient but I can totally understand how people may do things against cops' instructions when they get confronted by a SWAT team yelling at them.

</comment><comment><USER18> The cop that shot him was not part of the SWAT team, they arrived after the murder.

[http://www.kwch.com/content/news/Preliminary-hearing- starts-...](http://www.kwch.com/content/news/Preliminary-hearing-starts-for- man-accused-of-making-deadly-swatting-call-483248831.html)

Here's a line from the article showing just how poorly trained cops are: "He [Officer Justin Rapp] said he can't answer whether he would have pulled the trigger if he knew it was a swatting call."

</comment><comment><USER19> Somebody _murdered_ somebody else in cold blood, at the home of the latter.

The fact that the former had an anonymous, unauthenticated report is not rightly even a part of this.

This is insane.

Yes, it sucks for the officer, because he was improperly trained to give a great deal more credence to the 911 report, which in retrospect, was downright trivial to fill with false information.

I don't think that the officer is 100% culpable, even though his person was enlisted to commit this murder.

This is an obvious, huge vulnerability in society. Do we have a CVE for this?

<comment><USER20> This is the only comment that gets at the heart of the matter. I would add that culpability is not zero sum. The shooter was 100% responsible, and the others were also partially responsible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> A thought experiment: An unknown person calls my house and says that someone is coming over now, and that the person has a gun. I get my own gun, and crouch over my porch railing, ready. A person walks down the street towards my house. Some 20 yards from my porch he reaches towards his pocket. I shoot him dead, thinking he might have a gun. In reality he was gonna check Facebook on his phone, and was in fact not even going to me at all. Would I be put on trial in this case? Or is this obvious self defense? Would the person who made call be put on trial for manslaughter?

<comment><USER16> You would be charged with manslaughter because this person never displayed any type of threat. The severity of the punishment may be mitigated if you could prove that you got the phone call but you are still responsible for what you do, no matter what anyone tells you.

<comment><USER22> That's not necessarily the case -- although it's one possibility. You could also be charged with involuntary manslaugher or nothing depending on state and local laws, what the prosecutor believes your state of mind is and, frankly, the whim of the prosecutor and the strength of your defense attorneys. Conversely, you could face a higher charge for exactly the same reasons. There's what should happen -- which will vary according to local law, at least in the US -- and then what will happen, which will vary significantly depending on the DA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Charge the officers and the entire chain of command

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm glad they caught these assholes, but I remain frustrated that the cop who shot an unarmed, innocent man on nothing but someone's phoned-in say-so will escape unscathed.

[http://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/swatting-fatal- charges-k...](http://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/swatting-fatal-charges- kansas-1202752232/)

</comment><comment><USER25> What about the phone company's role in all this? Don't they share some culpability for delivering spoofed information to a 911 operator? I understand that their entire business is delivering calls, but for whatever reason that 911 operator thought the call was legit based off of the metadata they saw. I feel like if they had a "hey this looks like a shady voip call" message on their terminals, they could communicate that to the responding officers which could have diminished their response.

I'm probably vastly simplifying the phone system, but if it doesn't hurt for telcos too when this kind of abuse happens, they're not likely to help improve the situation.

<comment><USER26> I read the answer to that in an article a while back: the swatter did't call 911 directly, but instead called the security desk at city hall.

<comment><USER25> Ah, TIL. Any kind of additional metadata likely wouldn't have helped anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Most of these comments are insane. Probably not even people. Did any of you listen to the 911 call and watch the video? [http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html](http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article192244734.html)

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm trying to understand how Gaskill is being charged, here.

He gave a different address to avoid being swatted himself. It is now "conspiracy, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice" to exercise one's instinct of self-preservation?

Can someone with a better handle of the law than myself explain how Gaskill's actions are unlawful?

<comment><USER29> Sounds like he knew the address he gave was going to be swatted and intentionally gave a valid address of someone else. A rational person would have just not answered the question.

<comment><USER30> That's not what he was charged with, AFAICT. That would be manslaughter or something along those lines, right? I think he's getting charged entirely for the cover-up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Apart from the other issues, one of the big things is that it is so easy to spoof phone numbers. This has resulted in swatting, telemarketing, robo calls, people pretending to call from the IRS, among other badness.

Email also used to have this problem, until the DKIM. Once email servers started using DKIM, it became a lot easier to filter out spam and to exclude the bad actors.

Maybe we should require some type of cryptographic verification on who originated the call, and have that be visible. It would definitely make my life a whole lot easier if I saw that a number that called me originated with ATT Wireless vs "VOIP Warehouse".

Having a DKIM equivalent for phone calls would do a lot to tackle these type of abuses.

</comment><comment><USER32> So, why weren't the police charged for opening fire on an unarmed civilian?

</comment><comment><USER33> This is good doc about the increasing militancy of the police in the US.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcZ1HvdPEEk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcZ1HvdPEEk)

</comment><comment><USER34> Why isn't the cop getting punished at all?

</comment><comment><USER21> And none of the charged are cops, who shot an unarmed man just walking out of his house. Do not fire unless fired upon is common rule of engagement for military operating under much more adverse conditions. If police cannot respect the same, they should not be allowed to have guns. Right now they are not even trying.

<comment><USER35> Are you seriously suggesting that we disarm the police?

"Stop it right there, or I'll... I'll get really mad!"

<comment><USER32> Yes.

The police, along with everyone else, should be disarmed. NOBODY should be allowed to defend themselves with a gun. Guns should only be allowed for hunting.

Are you seriously suggesting they shouldn't?

<comment><USER36> also, is hunting that important? like, if that hobby is the only reason for people to keep guns, I'm fine with sacrificing it so that no one has a reason to have guns

<comment><USER37> The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

The Federalist papers will enlighten you to the actual purpose of private arms if you need.

<comment><USER38> I don't disagree with you, but those are documents written over two centuries ago, mostly about long guns, and at a time when it was suggested that the federal standing army be no more than 30k troops.

The fact that these things are regularly trotted out as if they have anything but the most peripheral relevance in discussions about things like handguns, bump stocks, and silencers is nuts.

<comment><USER37> At the time the Constitution was penned, almost all of our actual ordnance and navy was privately owned. People had the right, ability, means to own cannonry and mortars.

None of the intent behind the Second Amendment has changed. It's quite frankly sad that to hear that people think so lowly of the Framers' intelligence to foresee technological advances.

The Girandoni Air Rifle existed. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle)

The Framers couldn't extrapolate or imagine future technology? If you read the original justification, private ownership of arms has everything to do with individual liberty in spite of destructive capability.

<comment><USER38> Given your deeper study of these things, I'd be delighted for your participation in a brief thought experiment: If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they would say?

Would they look at all the mass shooting deaths, suicides, law enforcement killings, accidental discharges by children, road rage incidents, overseas military adventurism, and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA and say to all of it, "Yup, that's pretty much what we envisioned for the future of firearms in this country"? If not that, what kinds of common sense measures do you think they might suggest as appropriate to tackle some of the worst of the problem?

<comment><USER37> > If the framers could be brought forward to the year 2018 and made to > understand the facets of the current gun debate, what do you think they > would say?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

> mass shooting deaths

Statistically insignificant relative to any other cause of death in the country.

> suicides

Not pertinent to this discussion: why should a suicidal person have any bearing on _my_ rights?

> law enforcement killings

Do you know how few of these actually happen?

> accidental discharges by children

Sad, but statistically very rare.

> road rage incidents

??

> and the power and behaviour of entities like the NRA

I honestly believe the framers would be sad to see that such an organization (albeit almost entirely member-funded - yay, democracy!) needs to exist in the first place.

You can see that mentality in the fact that the Bill of Rights didn't exist at the time the Constitution was written. The Framers believed rights existed "naturally" \- far beyond those that were explicitly enumerated. They believed that documenting individual liberties would cause the Bill of Rights to be seen as an all-inclusive list.

I wouldn't go so far as to say our current situation is what the Framers "envisioned," but I can say they would probably accept the costs of freedom, whatever those may be.

<comment><USER38> Suicides do have a real cost ([https://www.sprc.org/about- suicide/costs](https://www.sprc.org/about-suicide/costs)), and it's worth incorporating the reality of that into the larger framework that accounts for the cost to society of having guns everywhere.

In any case, based on the "cost of freedom" remark, it's unlikely that we'll be able to take the discussion much further in a productive way. Fortunately for you the United States exists and is a good fit for your values, and fortunately for me, I can live most other places in the developed world without having to deal with it first hand.

<comment><USER37> I posed this question in another thread, but I think it is interesting in other people's perspectives:

As a citizen in the developed world, how do you defend yourself against violence?

How would your (wife|husband|child|grandmother) defend theirselves?

I am not tough enough to physically fend off multiple violent aggressors, unfortunately.

<comment><USER38> How many scenarios are you likely to face in your life where it's necessary to "fend off multiple violent aggressors"? Is it a statistically significant number? How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it).

Even in the rare circumstance where there is a violent confrontation, most people are not able to effectively wield a firearm and make the situation better than it would have been without. That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's mostly about the _feeling_ of safety, but the reality is that it's basically worse in every way than the alternative.

<comment><USER37> > Is it a statistically significant number

It's non-zero and happens quite frequently where I live. Not all of us are privileged.

> How many of those are improved by the introduction of another firearm vs. > allowing the situation to run its course and catching the perpetrators after > the fact (which is how most of the developed world does, in fact, handle it

Meanwhile, the victim is raped or not alive to see this possible "justice."

What a fucking joke - I'll take my chances with a firearm instead. "Justice after the fact" isn't acceptable to me, I'd rather stop the crime being committed against me from happening.

> That is, household guns for defensive purposes are like driving an SUV— it's > mostly about the feeling of safety, but the reality is that it's basically > worse in every way than the alternative.

Just a moment ago you were a citizen of the "developed world," where firearms apparently don't exist and violence doesn't happen, and now you understand how "hard" it is to utilize and use firearms for one's protection? Really curious as to where your knowledge comes from!

You never answered my question, either. You presupposed that these "situations don't happen" as your argument. Should I just take this to mean the default of: "I cannot protect myself or my family from violent individuals?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I blame the cop. Just because police are called doesn't mean someone needs to get murdered. It's the police who bring the idea to the table to murder someone. There's talk about gun control, yet I never hear anyone talking about controlling police guns. That's the first step. Without even an attempt at controlling police guns and power, there is no dialogue. The false report in this case is secondary and hardly interesting when considering the main issue, the police.

</comment><comment><USER40> Reminds me of the organ donor sketch from monty python, except real and tragic.

</comment><comment><USER41> The transcripts are just about killing me. A man is dead, and the two are arguing the finer points of who trolled whom like a pair of high-school freshman debaters.

</comment><comment><USER42> Isn't the real issue here that the cops are all trigger happy? To me, that feels like it should be the real issue.

<comment><USER43> Can't both issues be the real issue?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The law can't come down hard enough on scum like this.

<comment><USER45> The solution to too much law enforcement is more law enforcement? Maybe we should take a step back and consider the situation more deeply.

<comment><USER46> The solution is probably fixing the education system and this mess of a society we've built.

<comment><USER47> Why do you think the "education system" isn't working as intended?

<comment><USER46> I do think it's working as intended, I think that's the problem, the intentions are not good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> What's with all the anti-law enforcement? They thought they were dealing with a highly dangerous situation and individual. It's pretty easy to say they should of handled it better as I sit here in the top floor of my corporate office sipping La Croix but let's not forget that the caller was intentionally putting others in dangerous situations.

<comment><USER49> >They thought they were dealing with a highly dangerous situation and individual.

Are you saying hearsay from a random citizen is probable cause to go kill someone? If that's the case than the police may as well advertise themselves as the cheapest and easiest to use hitmen in the country.

<comment><USER50> I am in no way excusing the kansas officers here. However this does bring up an interesting point. To properly answer the question about "hearsay" you would need to find out what percentage of 911 calls with details indicating a need for a SWAT team are hoaxes. If the percentage is sufficiently low then the officer may well have been primed by previous experience to expect specific things during the call.

When someone is used to working with accurate information and is then fed inaccurate information from that same source then you can predict the results pretty accurately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm sorry but the people in this thread that ONLY want to blame the cops are damn idiotic. IF you had someone SWAT you and your mother or father died, would you really ONLY be mad at the cops?

Let me put it another way too - a swatting call is now rated at giving someone a 1/5000 chance they are GOING TO DIE when the police show up. I definitely think someone knowingly doing that to someone else deserves severe punishment.

<comment><USER18> No one here is ONLY blaming the cops. Nice strawman you're throwing up.

The fact is the cop (Justin Rapp) was not punished at all, and has been on paid vacation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Don't even try to blame this on the law enforcement.

<comment><USER24> Modern [edit: _American_ ] law enforcement training puts so much priority on the safety of officers that it results in the deaths of unarmed innocents in this manner.

> The reality was that Finch was unarmed and that nearly every officer on the > scene never saw him raise his hand with a gun in it. Several reported that > they didn't fire because they didn't see a gun. At least one officer said > that when he saw Finch dropping his hands to his waistband and pull them > back up he remembered thinking, "that's not a good idea. . . don't be > lifting, tugging at your waistband."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Warrior_Cop) is a good read.

Another example of how horrifyingly bad this sort of "everyone's a threat" training is can be seen in the disturbing video of Daniel Shaver's execution.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post- nation/wp/2017/12/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post- nation/wp/2017/12/08/graphic-video-shows-daniel-shaver-sobbing-and-begging- officer-for-his-life-before-2016-shooting/)

It's hard to watch.

<comment><USER53> > Modern law enforcement training puts so much priority on the safety of > officers that it results in the deaths of unarmed innocents in this manner.

No it doesn't. But contemporary american law enforcement training sure appears to.

<comment><USER24> A fair point. Edited to add.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Prison consultants help inmates get good digs - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_re_us/us_prison_brokers

<comment><USER2> If ever I heard a pitch for a sitcom, this was it.</comment>


93% of Paint Splatters Are Valid Perl Programs - <AUTHOR> https://famicol.in/sigbovik/ <comment><USER2> Previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576425](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19576425)

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh god this hits close to home for me. We all know that a one liner can be valid js, vbs, ps1, and cmd at the same time, but you would never imagine the html, xml, csv, crap, and cruft files that parse correctly in those languages.

(To be clear, whenever we mistake a .cruft for a .cmd at my work, it means firing up a (relatively expensive) VM...)

</comment><comment><USER4> Seems to me that the OCR software is doing the heavy lifting here, not Perl.

<comment><USER5> (I don't think this thing is meant to be taken literally)

<comment><USER6> It would be interesting to run samples from the cosmic microwave background radiation through the Perl interpreter until something runs.

<comment><USER7> It would explain so much [https://xkcd.com/224/](https://xkcd.com/224/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Once upon a time I used to love Perl.</comment>


How Optimum.net hijacks a browser request for jQuery from the Google CDN - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/n0HT35Jg

<comment><USER2> Can someone explain what exactly this does?

<comment><USER3> From what I can tell (which is not much), it searches the document for a script tag calling jQuery from Google's CDN and then tries to load its own payload by AJAX.

n(z) makes the ajax call (I think z is the url) (with a pretty nifty looking stack of functions inside an array), r(y,B) builds html elements (where y is the tag name and B is a text node inside the tag, and any subsequent arguments are mapped as tag attributes), and that's as far as I got until it gave me got a headache and decided life was too short.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to value domain for private purchase? - <AUTHOR>

Buying the long-inactive {my_professional_name}.com from small fish private party who has been holding on to it for 9 years. <comment><USER2> Go with what you can afford. If they've been holding it for 9 years and not using it, eventually whatever you can afford ( within reason ) will be better than continuing to make nothing off it.

UNLESS they are getting click-through advertising revenue on it, or funneling traffic to another domain of theirs which advertises, or has direct sales on it; then you need to factor that in.

But it's best to be a human being and level with them. Remember, they're people. Really opportunistic people. And, if you can, just give up and get another TLD of the same basic name.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very good reasoning. To the best of my knowledge, no CTA, no nothing. Thanks!

Will continue negotiation convo tonight along the line of human-ness. Beep boop beep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Make sure that you don't tip your hand. If they know that it's your name dot com, they're going to have significant pricing power (you can't get your name dot com anywhere else). If they think that it's just a tentative pen name dot com that you haven't started using yet, you have significant pricing power (you can just pick another name).

<comment><AUTHOR> True. Yet am I not in a position of power to exert pressure on the sale due to limited size / discoverability of the market to the seller? Good point re: tentativeness aspect though. Thanks!</comment></comment>


The Early Stage Slump - <AUTHOR> http://avc.com/2017/12/the-early-stage-slump/ <comment><USER2> > The trick is to get into these sectors before the money shows up and get out > when it does. And then get back in after it leaves. And not get burned along > the way.

Some real obvious advice over there.

Downvote me all you want. If this guy wanted to actually provide value, he'd have written this over a year ago (when the slowdown was actually happening), instead of trying to be Paul Revere.

<comment><USER3> This comment breaks the site guidelines by being a snarky dismissal and by downvote-baiting. We don't want either of those things—especially not the snarky dimissals.

Please up your game if you want to keep commenting here.

<comment><USER2> Uh, what? Literally all of this has been obvious if you've had your eyes and ears open within the past year in the valley.

In regards to what you claim is "downvote-baiting", I edited my initial response once I saw that I'd been downvoted (check the `updated_at` field).

But to please you, Master Dang, I'll make sure my responses are more P.C.

<comment><USER3> If you'll read the guidelines, you'll see that it doesn't matter when you added the bit about downvotes. Nor does it matter if the snarky dismissal was obvious; they usually are.

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

Please just use the site as intended—that means for intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation. I realize it's a bit of a context switch to suspend the habits we've all developed elsewhere on the internet, but it's necessary here, or else this place won't survive.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


"i have no title for this" - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7N254MTA4Q <comment><USER2> There's an article at [http://www.mackungfu.org/LouisRossmanntheguywhorepairsAppleh...](http://www.mackungfu.org/LouisRossmanntheguywhorepairsApplehardwareisunderattack) as per [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12016253](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12016253)

</comment><comment><USER3> Threads on other sites are guessing that he's been served with a large take down request and or is being sued for his content. Over night all of his videos have been archived into a torrent for safe keeping should they disappear.</comment>


Startup Quote: Marissa Mayer, vice president, Google - <AUTHOR> http://startupquote.com/post/4044812270

<comment><AUTHOR> The utmost thing is the user experience, to have the most useful experience.

\- Marissa Mayer (@marissamayer)

<http://startupquote.com/post/4044812270></comment>


Ask HN: How to go about starting an ambitious software startup? - <AUTHOR> I have an idea for a service which I find rather compelling and am very confident in, centered around multi-platform app family (Spotify-style.)
I'm a developer, but my experience and skillset would not be sufficient for me to begin laying down the architectural foundation for a project this ambitious on my own, nor do I have any software-talented friends who would be able to do so as co-founders.
I would like to apply to Y-Com this winter, but I'm not sure how to proceed. How do you get investors with no product and no customers? You can't customers without a product and you can't get a product without the people with the skills to build it, who you can't hire without money. I'm uncertain where the entrance to this vicious circle is! <comment><USER2> The entrance to the vicious circle is the product. If you are interested in talking with investors you will need to produce a successful product. This implies two things; you've successfully built the product, and you've successfully gained traction. There are some great products/businesses out there that were started and/or built by a solo founder. But the majority of them were started by teams of people. So if you are in a situation where you feel you don't have the skill-set to execute, then you either need to increase your skill-set (wear multiple hats), or build a team of co-founders. Regardless of how you go about it, one fact remains; you must build! My advice would be to start building the product now (to whatever capacity possible). Not only will you learn more about the product as you build it, you'll have something to present if you decide to find co-founders. Another reason to build as soon as possible; Often times you'll find that what you've envisioned as the product will change over time as you learn from your customer. The sooner you start that learning process, the better. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER3> You're a developer but you can't even _attempt_ anything without VC? Sorry but the answer's either get a job doing something else, or some self-esteem and cracking open your IDE and starting.

</comment><comment><USER4> Don't let the internet fool you. There is no one that's going to help you. Unless you already know how to get help (for example: you have friends in high places) just throw that idea out entirely. YC accepts only 3% of applicants, somewhat arbitrarily. Don't bank on that.

The good new is you don't need help. You're a programmer. So start by creating something that people find valuable. Even a few people, as long as they really love it. There's no excuse for not being able to do this. You could do it in 10 hours a week. If you don't know how to do this then you have to learn by trying. Money hurts as much as helps here. You really need to be able to make things without outside help.

</comment><comment><USER5> Learn what you need to lay down an architectural foundation. Hell, before that, start doing what you can. Break your idea down into the smallest essential parts, and figure out what you can make with your current knowledge. Make those things, THEN learn how to make the things you can't.

Maybe realize applying to YC this winter is a slightly unrealistic goal and set a realistic one, like next winter. Or don't worry about any sort of VC until you have something to show them. Seriously. They NEED to see a product, and they need to see that it can make an impact. If you approached them this winter with just an idea, your pitch would be instantly forgotten. Ideas are a dime a dozen, products are worth so much more.

<comment><USER6> > They NEED to see a product, and they need to see that it can make an impact. > If you approached them this winter with just an idea, your pitch would be > instantly forgotten. Ideas are a dime a dozen, products are worth so much > more.

By "they" do you mean YC? By my understanding, YC really gives emphasis to investing in the founders, not the idea, and they fully embrace the fact that the idea will evolve and may be completely different by the end of the program. For instance, Codecademy only came up with their idea a few weeks before Demo Day.

With that in mind, there's no reason _not_ to apply to YC this winter. Best case, he gets in. Worst case, he doesn't and he learned more about his startup by really thinking about the application questions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, these are excellent points. They emphasize very strongly that they will even accept teams with _no_ idea, so I believe ModernMech is very much in the right on this one. But I understand the original point as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think you should worry about the product, then the customers before you even consider investors. With that attitude it seems more like you're trying to make some easy money on your idea rather than just building it and seeing what happens.

Try building it, maybe it will be easier than you think?

</comment><comment><USER8> Having a (great) idea is nothing unique.

A lot of people have (a lot of) (great) ideas.

Putting them into practice requires some things, which you seem to heavily lack (as you describe).

The entrance is a lot of hard work (you don't seem to be a guy for that)

</comment><comment><USER9> If you can't build it, then you can't build it. I don't think you can expect people smarter than you to do the work for you and still let you take all the benefits.

(unless you can pay a decent wage of course)

</comment><comment><USER10> Just remember, "Make something people want."</comment>


IBM 5100 - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_5100 <comment><USER2> Isn't this the "John Titor" model?

<comment><USER3> It is in this timeline...

 _Titor claimed that he was sent back to obtain an IBM 5100 because it could translate several types of computer code. According to IBM engineer Bob Dubke, Titor 's statements regarding the IBM 5100's little-known ability to emulate and debug mainframe systems were correct._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like how it has that big ass orange clunking power switch front and center as if to say "this is absolutely the most important switch on the machine".

The exact antithesis of today's smartphones designs.

<comment><USER5> Someone once said that putting the power button on desktops level with the knee was one of computer industry's stupidest decisions. I had to agree. Instead of sensible alternative, they added delays and soft buttons I sometimes have to fight with for 10 seconds at a time. (Sighs)

<comment><USER4> As I recall it was Intel driving the soft power button with the ATX standard, it was used to support the low power sleep modes. I don't think it had anything to do with knees :-)

<comment><USER6> That and not having mains voltage passing inside the case.

<comment><USER5> What's that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> here is ibm's tv ad for this computer [https://youtu.be/9m54rKlErwA](https://youtu.be/9m54rKlErwA)

</comment><comment><USER8> With the APL/Basic switch.

<comment><USER9> Where do you see that?

<comment><USER8> APL was an extra-cost option. Here's one with the Basic/APL switch.[1] Machines without APL have a blank plate there.

[1] [http://kkraftonline.de/Museum/data/images/5100.JPG](http://kkraftonline.de/Museum/data/images/5100.JPG)

<comment><USER10> The BASIC-only machines have far less symbols on the keyboard. Compare the one in that picture with the one in the wiki article (which is BASIC only)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Never leave your time without it.</comment>


What rack-mountable multiple-ARM servers are there out there? - <AUTHOR> What rack-mountable multiple-ARM servers are there out there?
I see mentionings of hardware such as http://www.cnx-software.com/2012/08/20/codethink-launches-the-baserock-slab-arm-server/ and https://www.scaleway.com/features/ , but nothing actually on the market.
Even some kind of rack mount for the Odroid, BeagbleBone, RaspBerry Pi etc. would be valuable, though of course 64bit and ECC would be preferable.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Well you'd think that it wouldn't be that hard to create a blade server style system using Raspberry Pi Compute Modules. A 256 node, 1U server might just be possible. Of course, the power supply, cooling and LAN fabric would be an interesting challenge.

Rather than 64 bit and ECC RAM, you could have high redundancy on the module level. AFAIK Google do not use server grade systems, just lots of them in a failure tolerant configuration.

</comment><comment><USER3> SoftIron builds a single processor AMD Opteron A1100 64-bit ARM server, in a 1U chassis: [http://softiron.co.uk/products/](http://softiron.co.uk/products/)

Not sure on pricing though.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Ah just to be clear, I would like the individual SoC units to have as little firmware as possible, for the security of the computation.

An important part of the goal is to get an as "closed computational environment" as possible, where risk for BIOS/firmware infection by hacker is minimal.

So just CPU, ECC RAM, ethernet, and microSD (or USB) to boot off.</comment>


What do you think of our website? - <AUTHOR> http://condorly.com/ <comment><USER2> It looks fine. The "Personalization and conversion optimization solutions .." text made my brain fall asleep. You could consider using normal English instead. But I'm not your target audience, so maybe it's fine.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for taking the time to review our site.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It's all fine and well, to me, until I came across the text over the image of that ugly assed condor. The background should be tinted like the other sections to increase readability and a more cohesive design. Just my two cents.

<comment><AUTHOR> Always appreciate the feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You need faster load times: seeing this wasn't too great.

[http://imgur.com/clft4LH](http://imgur.com/clft4LH)</comment>


RMS: Beware of Contradictory "Support" - <AUTHOR> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/contradictory-support.html <comment><USER2> > _There are organizations that proclaim support for free software or the GNU > Project, and teach classes in use of nonfree software. It 's possible that > they do some other things that really support free software, but those > classes certainly don't. On the contrary, they work directly against the > free software movement by promoting the use of the nonfree software. That > increases the magnitude of the practical problem it is our mission to > correct._

Just to throw out an extreme example for discussion: the Mozilla Foundation would seem to be one of the free-software organizations that RMS critiques.

One initiative they've supported is Software Carpentry: [http://software- carpentry.org/scf/partners/](http://software-carpentry.org/scf/partners/)

One of Software Carpentry's packaged lessons is for MATLAB: [http://software- carpentry.org/lessons/](http://software-carpentry.org/lessons/)

To be fair, the current MATLAB lesson plan includes asides for how GNU Octave can be used...but the fact that the curriculum is titled "Programming with MATLAB" certainly counts as promotion of non-free software.

Edit: by "extreme", I mean that Mozilla is in most people's minds a passionate advocate for free software, and the number of their affiliations with proprietary software lessons is extremely small as far as I can tell.

Edit 2: FWIW, RMS's definition of non-free software may be much more expansive than most people's:

[https://stallman.org/airbnb.html](https://stallman.org/airbnb.html)

> _Airbnb requires you to run nonfree software (an app, or Javascript). It > puts you in a data base easily available to Big Brother (just like a > hotel)._

JavaScript is many things, but nonfree isn't one of them.

<comment><USER3> I've tried to use Octave, I really did. Passed few classes with projects made in Octave. Then I nearly failed some classes because of simple, reproductible bugs no one gave a flying fuck about. None of PCs I've installed the thing on could produce a fully working figure with subplots. For example in 5 subplots number 3 would not render at all. Or the plot would not export to png if you had too many data points. Octave bug reports were shrugged off as "not our problem - it's GhostScript" (or whatever does the png conversion, I don't remember now) GhostScript didn't bother to answer. All I can tell you the whole modularity concept is broken in practice because it promotes playing pingpong with issues. "It's not module A! It's how module B uses module A!" Unless people get off their high horses and actually fix broken shit the whole cult of free software is just delusional. And let's not forget that apart from riddiculous bugs Octave is really missing A LOT of functionality, even without going to Simulink

<comment><USER4> I don't get why people are still advocating Octave as a Matlab alternative.

The real alternative is Python + Scipy. It's A LOT better than Matlab. Depending on your application domain, you might also want to look at R or Julia.

<comment><USER5> > I don't get why people are still advocating Octave as a Matlab alternative.

Because it is the closest thing to a drop in replacement, which is what you need when taking a class or following a tutorial based on MATLAB. Trying to use a different language and follow along is a much more advanced challenge and can be borderline impossible for a MOOC with an autograder or a class with a dusty professor.

I wasn't very happy with octave and I wouldn't use it for an independent project.. but I can't say how much of that is the pesky little octave specific bugs and how much is that I wouldn't like MATLAB's syntax when it is perfectly implemented. I suppose I could make the same criticisms of R as much of its frustratingly odd behavior comes from its history in emulating an old proprietary language's syntax..

<comment><USER6> I did take a class which worked with MATLAB and was using Octave to develop for it.

Well, and I guess it already says enough that I actually had MATLAB installed, but still preferred using Octave.

Just the minor annoyances in MATLAB like it taking probably a minute to start up, being in general really sluggish and having an annoying (read: not particularly bash-like) command-line were already enough to make up for the just as minor compatibility-problems I occasionally had to correct before handing in.

So, at least up until the stuff that you can get to in one semester, the compatibility was pretty good and I only really once had a problem which couldn't be fixed by a simple find+replace.

And in that case, it was actually something where I didn't understand why it didn't work in MATLAB (if I remember correctly, you for some reason couldn't use `hold on/off` with multiple `ezplot`-instructions in it).

So, yeah, I don't think at all that it was Octave-specific bugs bugging you, especially also because the MATLAB-syntax is actually even more annoying than Octave's.

<comment><USER3> >I did take a class which worked with MATLAB and was using Octave to develop for it.

Well, and I guess it already says enough that I actually had MATLAB installed, but still preferred using Octave.

That is exactly what happened with me. And then we started doing more advanced stuff next semester and Octave fell flat on it's face.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really appreciate what RMS has done as far as start a movement that I think has contributed greatly to the human existence but when he says things like "The basic point of the free software movement is that nonfree software is unjust and should not exist." I can't but seriously question his judgment. It's one thing to personally want to use free software, it's another to claim that nonfree software "should not exist". If one person writes nonfree software and another person voluntarily uses it, I don't think anything "wrong" has transpired. People should be free to offer software under whatever terms they desire likewise people should be able to consume software under whatever terms they are willing to agree to.

<comment><USER8> That's been RMS & FSF's position for decades. They view it as wrong that you have software which you do not have the four freedom for.

Many legal and ethnical systems have limitations on what you can consent to. You're not allowed to consent to work for less than the minimum wage, for example

<comment><USER9> This is a little bit different. The only reason proprietary software exists is the copyright clause in the Constitution, which grants the government a right to issue limited-time monopolies to creators of original works.

Revoking a government-granted monopoly is very libertarian. Revoking mutual consent is the opposite.

<comment><USER10> This is only an American perspective.

<comment><USER11> This is one of the cases where the American perspective just gives us a convenient language for discussing something more universal. By an accident of history, the US constitution cements inside a legal document the result of debates and lobbying that was going on all over the western world at the time.

Others at the time were also discussing the propriety of IP, and eventually agreed in favour of a limited form of it. Over time, it got strengthened further.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In the RMS world you are not good if you support some free software. You have to support them _exclusively_

From the link:

        The basic point of the free software movement is that
        nonfree software is unjust and should not exist.

Personally, I completely disagree with this.

<comment><USER6> That's not true. He for example thinks it's a good thing that Steam is available on Linux, as it makes it viable for people to come into the Linux world and from there, they usually end up using more free software. Of course, he doesn't like Steam either, and would like to get rid of it eventually, but it's the lesser of two evils for the time being.

<comment><USER13> Isn't that why he also supported Gnash to replace Flash: as a form of bridge?

Aside: Interesting that Apple's insistence on not supporting Flash became a bigger influence. Albeit motivated more by battery drain than ideology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Which organizations is he talking about?

<comment><USER15> My first guess was RedHat. From skimming through [https://www.redhat.com/en/services/training/all-courses- exam...](https://www.redhat.com/en/services/training/all-courses-exams), it seems all of the courses use open source software, that might not be libre. For example I'm guessing some of Puppet's software are not libre.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's articles like this that make it very hard to continue to take RMS seriously, and that is a huge shame. He's brilliant and has contributed so much. Things he created are the reason I get a paycheck.

That said, this tribal religious you're-either-100%-with-us-or-you're-against- us and I'm going to "condemn you" ("nor have anything to do with it, nor even talk about it except with condemnation.") attitude makes it almost impossible to be sympathetic to his cause and puts him on the level of other rigid religious fundamentalist radicals.

If he IS talking about Red Hat here, as others have theorized, then he is worse than a fanatic, he's a self destructive jerk.

Red Hat just recently came out and said despite other companies abandoning GCC for Clang (See Google, Apple, FreeBSD, Android, even the Linux Foundation) they were still investing in GCC. Without GCC there is no more "GNU slash Linux" it's just Linux at that point. There are other C libraries, other userlands, but Linux still needs GCC and Red Hat is backing GCC. Keep condemning allies like Red Hat and soon they'll wonder why they even try to be your friend.

As soon as llvm.linuxfoundation.org gets Linux written in C instead of GCC, there will be no more GNU slash Linux or GNU plus Linux or whatever RMS wants it called. FreeBSD, Android, and then Linux will be fully capable of ditching GNU, FSF, and RMS and GPL'd software (save for the kernel which is GPLv2 and only nominally so, they never actually sue for violations like binary blobs) altogether. And who would be sad? Linux didn't "win" because of the philosophical views of RMS. Linux won because it worked. What happens when Linux, and companies like Red Hat, don't need this kind of garbage anymore?

</comment><comment><USER17> Metacomment: a few years ago anything by RMS would have been jumped on within minutes of posting with lots of comments against him and his principles. Is he now being looked at in a different light by the wider software development community?

<comment><USER18> Years ago HN had a higher percentage of Slashdot refugees or whatever you want to call them, where what I'd call hard-nosed OSS was part of the dialog and the arguments were fresh. These days, there's many who see him less as a controversial figure within "their" community, and more of a crazy old guy with extremist views.

<comment><USER19> The more time goes by the less crazy he seems. His goals may not be realistic but his predictions about the dangers of dependence on commercial software have been vindicated in many instances. And things might get much worse still if the trend towards authoritarian leadership in Western countries continues.

<comment><USER20> A bit nit-picky, but RMS is perfectly fine with commercial software (software that is sold for money), he objects to proprietary software (software that you cannot read and modify the source code of). Freeware is not commercial, but proprietary. When you buy a Linux distro CD, that's commercial, but might be non-proprietary (depending on the distro).

<comment><USER13> Yet selling software--not services--seems incompatible with RMS's insistence on the freedom of end users to distribute without cost.

<comment><USER20> It's not incompatible in the slightest. If I write software and give it to you only in exchange for money, licenced under the GPL, then I am selling software completely in agreement with RMS's principles.

Also, RMS doesn't insist on any freedom of end users to distribute without cost. Only on you not limiting their redistribution.

Now, that makes some licencing models impossible, sure, but those are hardly the only way to sell software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I converted this year to using Linux on all of my computers, and with some compatibility of FSF and Apache 2 licenses, this is 'easy' to do (e.g., the community version of IntelliJ is Apache 2, so a decent IDE slips into my mostly GNU based working and writing environment). I like to wear FSF tee shirts, and I feel like I am being true to the cause, even if I do have an iPad and Apple TV to watch Netflix. I am a member of the FSF and I personally feel like it is OK to have these non-free devices around as long as my working and writing environment is libre software.

</comment><comment><USER22> Or to paraphrase it: All other goals have to bow before the goal of everything being free software as defined by Richard Stallman.

I also think that open source is nice, but by far it's not the most important thing there is to software.

<comment><USER9> Or to paraphrase you: "I don't know how to read. Ouch. Big words hurt my brain. I know! It's too complex for me, so I'll mock it."

<comment><USER22> "Even worse, that grants nonfree software legitimacy." ⇒ "nonfree" software has no legitimacy, no matter what.

This totally ignores that there might not be free software for that use case, the free software alternative might be worse (very often the case). This article totally ignores those concerns and thus depreciates them as less important.

What you're doing is calling me an idiot, you could have at least tried to come up with a counter-argument.

<comment><USER23> The article doesn't ignore those concerns, but it makes an explicit statement that yes, in their opinion "nonfree" software has no legitimacy, no matter what and _even then_ using, creating and improving free software should be done instead of using the better non-free alternative.

What counter argument do you want? FSF explicitly states their position, which seems incompatible with your position, so they acknowledge that your position is what they want to fight against, you are their "political enemy" and ask you to not call yourself their ally/supporter or claim FSF endorsement, as some of the targeted companies do.

It's a statement of values and goals, which are obviously different for different people and organizations.

<comment><USER22> > What counter argument do you want?

I expect no counter argument or faulty ones if I'm right in my view, and good ones that change my view if I'm wrong. I don't expect to be attacked just by insults without any explanation why I'm supposed to be wrong.

I just pointed out with my original comment that the FSF doesn't tolerate other definitions of liberties and doesn't care if it tramples on them on their way to "replace and eliminate"(from this article) everything that doesn't follow their definitions. It also puts its own cause above everything else.

This seems pretty extremist and totalitarian to me</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Forget Nineteen Eighty-Four - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/26/1984-dystopias-reflect-trumps-us-orwell <comment><USER2> Relevant comic: [http://highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death- huxley-v...](http://highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-vs- orwell/)

</comment><comment><USER3> We would be better served - collectively - if more people would read Hayek's "Road to Serfdom".</comment>


Willful ignorance of science is a bipartisan value - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/11/rubio_and_obama_and_the_age_of_earth_politicians_hedge_about_whether_universe.single.html <comment><USER2> The interesting linked article demonstrates something we all need to understand: The majority of Americans are science-illiterate and reject the most basic scientific findings like the age of the earth. Therefore, to be a politician, to be electable, you must lie. You must pretend to be as bone- stupid as your constituents are. To tell the truth is to lose your job.

As time passes, there are more things a politician can't be truthful about. Abortion, gun control, religion in schools, social security, and anything that contradicts the superstitious beliefs of a religious fundamentalist -- all off-limits. This explains why campaign debates are so boring -- the candidates do all they can to appear to be debating something substantive, when in fact they don't dare mention anything remotely important.

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3491402>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find statements like the following disturbing:

"I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all"

No. Only one of these theories follows the scientific method, is subject to peer review, and will be changed when evidence suggests that it should.

If I had a theory that the universe has been farted out of a pink unicorn, it does not give this theory equal standing among the scientific theories; even a billion people believing it would not change that.

</comment><comment><USER5> To me, Marco is saying "Everyone's opinion is valid and equal. Yay! We should teach them all!", while Obama is saying "Well, it's probably metaphorical, but I don't claim to know."

The implications of each are different and it's pretty easy to read between the lines of Obama's comments if you ask me.

Either way, I agree with the article. Overall, the right answer ought to be, we will teach _science_ , whatever that may entail.</comment>


Ask HN: What email client do you use? - <AUTHOR> I wanted to understand what do people use as their email clients and why? There is a whole spectrum of email clients from the browser to desktop clients like thunderbird, outlook and mail and to terminal based clients like mutt. <comment><USER2> Claws Mail is pretty awesome. Lean, sane UI. But manages to have all the relevant features.

</comment><comment><USER3> Currently browser based (gmail). But as long time Debian user I thought several times about switching to mutt.

<comment><USER4> Yeah mutt is pretty awesome... but since many mails these days are html you'll go through some trouble!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> AirMail. One of the buggiest apps I've ever used.

</comment><comment><USER6> KMail</comment>


Yandex Browser - <AUTHOR> http://browser.yandex.com/ <comment><USER2> Using it for a few minutes, few things i really like.

1\. Someone finally put the Refresh and Stop Button where it _should_ be. Firefox actually had it during beta testing but they somehow decide to but it at the end of the Address bar instead.

2\. The Graphics, Curve, Looks more like better then the comparatively toyish Chrome.

3\. The Options have always belonged to the Tab Bar and not the address bar. To me i think that is the most logical place for it.

4\. The New Tab drop page, I like it. But i am sure i have seen it somewhere else before. Opera? I cant remember.

5\. Flash - Since Flash is only available in Chrome and not Chromium. I am not sure if Flash inside Yandex or any other Chromium derivative are using PPAPI or the old NPAPI. Anyone?

6\. No, no tabs overflow...... So i am sticking with Firefox.

<comment><USER3> Yes, it has Flash, according to this picture: [http://img- fotki.yandex.ru/get/6400/120186.3c/0_a7271_80287e...](http://img- fotki.yandex.ru/get/6400/120186.3c/0_a7271_80287e4f_orig)

<comment><USER2> Even the PDF is Foxit which means it is nearly the same as Chrome except for the UI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's what I see when I visit that page: <http://imgur.com/bwf5N> (Tl;dr: a blurb of text saying it's not available for Linux, that's it, no info about what it is etc.)

Non-Linux peeps: do you get an equally uninformative landing page?

<comment><USER5> Different, but similar.

It .. doesn't tell me _why_ I'd want that. The footer (in fine print) states that this is a browser based on Chromium.

The rest of the site is useless (Oh, it loads pages. And is quick?) or scary (it has Kaspersky integrated, somehow?).

I'm missing the standard 'About' page, introducing me to the project and _showing me what this is for_. Why no Chrome, no Chromium build, Firefox, Opera, IE but .. this?

It's very low on overall information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The Google of Russia introduces the Google chrome of Russia.

Coming soon: Yandex+

<comment><USER7> Yandex+ is Ya.ru, works from 2007.

<comment><USER8> Le what? Ya.ru is the no-thrills stripped down version of yandex.ru

<comment> guard-of-terra <http://my.ya.ru/> But it never actually took off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I just tested it with my own extension, you can install Chrome extension from the Chrome webstore onto Yandex Browser.

</comment><comment><USER7> >4.1. Except when and if, and only to the extent expressly permitted by this License or by the applicable law of Russian Federation the User shall not be entitled to modify, decompile, disassemble, decrypt or perform other activities with the object code of this Software with the only purpose of obtaining information on how algorithms used in this Software are implemented, to create derivative products using the Software, and otherwise use, or allow other persons to do so, the Software without written consent of the Rights Holder. The User may make a modification of the Software solely for his or hers own use and reverse engineering for debugging such modifications. The User shall not be entitled to distribute, communicate, make the Software available for the general public or otherwise use such modifications, except as for his or hers own use. >4.2. The User shall not be entitled to reproduce, distribute, communicate, make the Software available for the general public or otherwise use the Software for commercial purposes (including for payment), including as part of software product collections without written consent of the Rightholder.

I hope Yandex die.

<comment> guard-of-terra <http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/eula_text.html>

9.2 Subject to section 1.2, you may not (and you may not permit anyone else to) copy, modify, create a derivative work of, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Software or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by law, or unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google, in writing.

9.3 Subject to section 1.2, unless Google has given you specific written permission to do so, you may not assign (or grant a sub-license of) your rights to use the Software, grant a security interest in or over your rights to use the Software, or otherwise transfer any part of your rights to use the Software.

How so? It looks like Google Chrome license is in fact more restrictive and yet you don't hope Google die, do you?

And I think that Google is on the liberal side when it comes to EULAs, compared to copyright monsters like Microsoft or Adobe.

And if you reason that true Open Source solutions like Firefox are the way to go, I may remind you of the IceWeasel scandal where Debian had to rebrand its build of Firefox because it could not distribute it with the required tweaks due to copyright issues on Mozilla part.

<comment><USER10> I thought chrome was open source: <http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how- tos/get-the-code>

It's weird to think that Google would tell you not to RE an open-source project, I must be missing something

<comment><USER11> It's easy : chromium (<http://www.chromium.org/>) is the open source project. It's licence is open source and can be found at [http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/LICENSE?revi...](http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/LICENSE?revision=125933&view=markup) it looks like a "BSD with attribution" licence. Chrome (google.com/chrome) is the "closed-source" distribution to loads of platforms (includes a few closed source components. E.g. it can play .mp3 files). It's got a standard closed source licence.

Comparison : [http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoog...](http://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome)

There are other distributions, for example "fedora" chromium, that doesn't have any codec support. There are versions that are not release-engineered (ie. nightly builds, but still released by some distro), ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yet another Webkit browser. Boring.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll take boring over hours of debugging to shift a few pixels.

<comment><USER13> YAWB doesn't mean you won't have hours of debugging to shift a few pixels anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair point, there are many Webkits, but IME deviations are an order of magnitude more likely when moving from Webkit to something else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I just lost like 5 minutes of my day just testing this boring Chrome copy with a different UI.

</comment><comment><USER15> The question is, will this be another Rockmelt which was just Chrome with a social sharing and Facebook chat extension thrown in or have they taken Chromium/Webkit and re-engineered a faster/better browser and integrated their technology.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think a comparison with other region-specific forks would be more accurate, like 360 (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360_Secure_Browser>).

I really doubt Yandex is interested in competing against Chrome outside of their target market of Russia (and Russian neighbours, expats), so they don't need a faster or universally "better" browser. Just a better experience for their target users, or at least a comparable experience with better distribution (e.g. it's likely they'll partner with local device retailers to bundle it as default browser).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> chrome.yandex.ru redirects to this page.

For those who don't know, they had a Chromium fork called "Хром" (literally "Chrome"), which they advertized for anyone searching for "хром" or "chrome". Then they renamed it to Yandex.Internet.

</comment><comment><USER16> Personally, i'm glad to see they are using Webkit. As long as it doesn't mean crazy incompatibilities - the more browsers the better!

</comment><comment><USER17> The Yandex browser has been developed based on Chromium open source code. © The Chromium Authors, 2006—2012. All rights reserved.

</comment><comment><USER18> Well I've just downloaded it now and it seems like a stripped down version of Chrome to me, nothing to exciting and doesn't seem very customisable.

<comment><USER19> Did you make an account and name it after this browser just to post this?

<comment><USER18> Perhaps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sweet. There's also Yandex +, Yandex Drive, Yandex Maps, YMail, and iYandex (expires on Nov 1, 2013)...

</comment><comment><USER2> This is equivalent of 360 for Russia? ( 360 is a browser in China derived from Chromium as well )

<comment><USER21> Two things:

1) 360 is based on Trident

2) I really hope this browser is nothing like 360: <http://www.digital- dd.com/qihoo-browser-war>

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Based on this Oslo Stock Exchange note, I was thinking it would be Opera based . . . : [http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/search.do?siteLanguage=en&...](http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/search.do?siteLanguage=en&messageId=313081)

Edit: NO > EN URL

<comment><USER3> They indeed have partnership with Opera:

<http://opera.yandex.ru/>

Also with Mozilla:

<http://fx.yandex.ru/>

and Microsoft:

<http://ie.yandex.ru/>

:-)

But no, this one is based on Chromium: <http://habrahabr.ru/company/yandex/blog/152905/> (in Russian)

EDIT: It says they are using Opera Turbo technology there.

<comment><USER22> We will see :-) Wondering what they would be using the Opera tech for: <http://www.newsweb.no/newsweb/search.do?messageId=312626>

<comment><USER3> Indeed, Holmes. Opera Turbo in the next version of Yandex.Browser.

<comment><USER23> Also they licensed Opera Store (<http://apps.opera.com> ) for Yandex Store for Android (<http://store.yandex.com> ).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> tl;dr Don't bother...

Heh! It's funny how Yandex does (or tries to do) everything that Google does after X months/years/decades. It's just Chromium with their "Yandex Bar" which they have been promoting for ages, starting from IE and Firefox extensions. I also think it's rather silly to be based on the open source Chromium project and not support Linux-based systems.

* Yandex Search = Google Search

* Yandex Direct = Google AdSense/AdWords

* Yandex Metrika = Google Analytics

* Yandex Dengi = Google Checkout/Wallet

* Yandex Maps = Google Maps

* Yandex Mail = Google Mail

* Yandex News = Google News + Google Reader

* Yandex Market = Google Shopping

* Yandex Webmaster = Google Webmaster

They even made a conference like Google Developer Day and Google IO :)

What's next? Yandex mobile OS based on Android + Yandex Bar? Let's call it Yandroid :D

<comment> guard-of-terra Yandex Search, Yandex Money, Yandex Mail and Yandex Market were there for a few months to a few years before Google launched their corresponding offerings.

"They even made a conference" - duh, everyone and their dog make a conference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Yandex browser imported my Safari history and bookmarks without asking me. Looks weird!

</comment><comment><USER25> The meta description says:

Download the new browser from Yandex. It's quick and secure, while the Smartbox will find anything you you need and Tableau take you straight to your favorite sites.

</comment><comment><USER26> Somehow their logo reminds me irresistibly of Opera's logo.

</comment><comment><USER27> How do you pronounce yandex? Is it ee-an-deks? or jandeks?

<comment><USER28> yarn deks

<comment><USER29> "yarn deks" is correct without pronouncing the 'r'

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm sticking with Firefox because Mozilla respects the Linux community. And use Yandex from my Firefox? Why should I make a compromise when you don't take my platform seriously? Thanks, but no thanks.

</comment><comment><USER31> They are not going to release it for Linux for now :(

</comment><comment><USER32> sed -i s/chromium/yandex browser/g _

</comment><comment><USER33> anyone spotted the language settings

</comment><comment><USER34> 5 minutes and counting...

</comment><comment><USER35> what for?

<comment><AUTHOR> If they do nothing else but default the search engine to Yandex, that's what for.

Longer term, one of the benefits they might be able to offer users, over other browsers, is better compatibility with local sites, e.g. local banks. And maybe curated apps/extensions.

<comment><USER35> Have you ever tried to estimate how much it cost to maintain up-to-date browser, in terms of rapidly incorporating new standards, keeping high- quality, low-resource consumption and major-bug-free code, along with keeping it fairly secure?)

I think they grossly over-estimate their abilities to compete with completely different structures, like Mozilla, leave alone Google.)

Thinking that they are "Russian Google" is a self-delusion. Google is built out of talent, that they are collecting for a decade, and then by money and top-tier world-wide brand.

Yandex is mere a "company". Just compare the assets - data-centers, cables, commercial real estate, etc. Then take a look at amount of research Google's people do. This should be enough.

This browser, I guess, is something like Opera mini or Amazon Fire - the way to divert, scan and monetize user's traffic. Plain, banal scam.

<comment><USER36> How is Opera mini a scam?

<comment><USER35> Tracking and selling aggregated info. Every single page you visit.

<comment><USER37> Never make such claims without providing sources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The more, the merrier.

Make sure to post the HTML5 score [1] once you install it.

[1] <http://html5test.com/>

<comment><USER39> it uses webkit inside, results will be the same as for chrome

<comment><USER40> 437(chrome) vs 402(yandex) PS yandex detected as chrome 19</comment></comment></comment>


Notes on John Carpenter's "The Thing" - <AUTHOR> http://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/03/04/dismembrance-of-the-things-past/ <comment><USER2> I can not stress enough to the Hacker News community that if you have not seen this movie, go see this movie. John Carpenter did a really great job with this movie and story. Every scene in this movie plays to the story, there is literally no filler in this movie. Unlike movies today, which are epic 2 hour snoozefests that are chock full of pointless scene after pointless scene which adds nothing to the film or the story line. The Thing starts right off with the story and smoothly transition through it to the very end. Also, The Thing monster in this story is scary as hell too.

<comment><USER3> I think the movie is good as well, but the article uses a really hard to read font.

<comment><USER4> The presentation of Websites is to HN as "sharp knees" are Fark.

<comment><USER5> Sharp knees is generally snark meant to imply that the person being discussed is attractive. Bad web design is a legitimate concern, and is something that is often found in articles linked on HN when designers get a little too experimental.

<comment><USER6> Yes, but criticising this site's font as being hard to read is a stretch. It's fine. HN will be critical of anything that isn't stock sans-serif in black on white.

<comment><USER5> It might not be impossible or even difficult to read for you or I, but remember that every OS displays fonts a little differently, indeed some browsers may display differently, and different monitors display a little differently. People could be having a vastly different experience from what you or I have.

There's a reason sans-serif black-on-white is the default, and why people ask for it. It's easy to read no matter what. That's why Readability exists. And for what it's worth, at first glance I find this page difficult to read as well on a 1080p 15" monitor. The font makes me have to focus on one line and one word at a time, where in stock sans serif I can skim. That's what happens when you try to translate text that works fine in a novel and put it on a computer screen. You would never see a newspaper or a textbook printed in this fashion. Because it's harder to read.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The most dramatic setting in which "The Thing" is traditionally watched:

[http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.13/01-winterover.htm...](http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.13/01-winterover.html)

"Shortly after the last plane leaves, the winter-overs gather in the main dining room, the Galley, for a showing of the science fiction movie "The Thing," about an alien that attacks researchers in an isolated Antarctic base. "

The winter personnel are physically isolated from the rest of the world between mid-February and late October.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Po...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station)

<comment><USER8> I can't see something about the antarctic without linking this: Alcoholism in Antarctica [http://www.funraniumlabs.com/2013/06/alcoholism-in- antarctic...](http://www.funraniumlabs.com/2013/06/alcoholism-in-antarctica)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's a cool Hugo-nominated story based on "The Thing": "The Things" [0] -- it's retold from "The Thing's" point of view.

[0] [http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/](http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/watts_01_10/)

<comment><USER10> That's awesome!

So far no one here has mentioned that the whole "thing" is based on the John W Campbell story "Who Goes There": [http://www.scaryforkids.com/who-goes-there- by-john-w-campbel...](http://www.scaryforkids.com/who-goes-there-by-john-w- campbell/)

Carpenter's movie is great in part because it's so true to the source material.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I always like Carpenter's They Live. Who knew Roddy Piper could act? Or at least sort of act.

<comment><USER12> That's a great movie as well. Roddy Piper also shows up in an episode or two of "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia".

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> One of the best horror movies, ever.

<comment><USER14> In my opinion, the best.

Anyone who has access to the DVD/ Blu Ray should also check out the commentary track with John Carpenter and Kurt Russel. It is great.

<comment><USER15> The other two films in what Carpenter calls his "Apocalypse Trilogy" are also well worth watching: "Prince of Darkness" and "In the Mouth of Madness". Neither has aged quite so well, but both are good and _interesting_ horror films.

I feel that "Suspiria" and "Don't Look Now" are actually the best horror films ever made, but de gustibus non est disputandum, as they say.

<comment><USER13> Yes, POD was awesome. A good twist on religion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Very poor article. I think I understand what the author was going for, but I expected much better from The Paris Review.

Fans looking for more behind the scenes stuff about the movie should check out "The Thing: Terror Takes Shape", about the making of the film, with much of the cast and principal crew included. The whole film is on YouTube [1], and also on several releases of the movie.

Also highly recommended is the site by one of the producers, Stuart Cohen [2]. It's a treasure trove of behind-the-scenes info, photos, rambling gossip and old-fashioned war stories from the set.

[1] [https://youtube.com/watch?v=B48Yp00LitE](https://youtube.com/watch?v=B48Yp00LitE)

[2] [http://theoriginalfan.blogspot.com](http://theoriginalfan.blogspot.com)

</comment><comment><USER17> there is a game by the same name. it was one of the best game of its time. pretty scary. and chilly.

<comment><USER18> The video game, incidentally, is the official sequel to the film. If you saw the movie and loved it and want to know what happened next, there's yer chance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> great making-of doc on The Thing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B48Yp00LitE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B48Yp00LitE)

</comment><comment><USER20> Someone once posted on the film's IMDb forum a blog post by one of the movie producers. Lovely and juicy behind the scenes details.

[http://theoriginalfan.blogspot.com/](http://theoriginalfan.blogspot.com/)

</comment><comment><USER21> I love how Wilford Brimley was probing the alien with a pencil, then starts tapping his lips with the same pencil. The Thing is a true classic.

<comment><USER22> The Thing is one of my fave movies, have watched it at least 30 times but never noticed that till I watched it again last week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> OK, so I read it and I still don't know how it "nearly sabotaged John Carpenter's career"!

<comment><USER24> I'm right there with you - I clicked thinking of hearing behind-the-scenes stories about how The Thing was over budget, behind schedule, having technical problems, etc. But instead the article was just a kinda rambling collection of thoughts about the movie (which it is a great movie).

<comment><USER16> The "collector's edition" (DVD, not sure about BluRay) includes a really wonderful 83-minute documentary, "The Thing: Terror Takes Shape", about the making of the film, along with several other great extras, including a clip of the original ending. Highly recommended. Seems the whole film is on YouTube [1].

Also highly recommended is the site by one of the producers, Stuart Cohen [2]. It's a treasure trove of behind-the-scenes info, photos, rambling gossip and old-fashioned war stories from the set.

[1] [https://youtube.com/watch?v=B48Yp00LitE](https://youtube.com/watch?v=B48Yp00LitE)

[2] [http://theoriginalfan.blogspot.com](http://theoriginalfan.blogspot.com)

<comment><USER24> cool, thanks for those links!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> .....the fuck did I just read?</comment>