Sending a Weather Balloon to Space - <AUTHOR> http://blog.hartleybrody.com/in-space/ <comment><USER2> Argh. As someone who's done this and is actively involved in the UKHAS (<http://ukhas.org.uk/>) this article annoys me. People have been doing this stuff for years, and here we have someone who seems to just not have bothered to learn about how to track a balloon using amateur radio, GPS altitude/speed limits, best practices in terms of the parachute and balloon rigging, and most importantly this article does not once mention the FAA.

There's no indication that he was aware of FAA regulations (FAA Part 101) on this type of launch. So, no consideration of payload weight, density, ...

Also, he does appear to have use a trajectory predictor but only to figure out where he was going to get his balloon back and not for predicting the path through restricted airspace etc.

There's a large community of people out there in the UK and US who are happy to help people get started doing this sort of thing. Please shout out for assistance!

[http://ukhas.org.uk/general:beginners_guide_to_high_altitude...](http://ukhas.org.uk/general:beginners_guide_to_high_altitude_ballooning)

<comment><USER3> Permission to launch a simple balloon with a camera. I mean it sound so simple, but then you might also be required to seek permission for filming if its done over a residential area. Add that with radio regulations if you are using any kind of receiver, and there might be 3 or more agencies one would need to get permissions for a simple launch.

The 'blanket' permission groups like UKHAS is however nice (if one live in the UK), and there is a loot to learn by the people there. That said, ignoring the regulations is sometimes a viable option.

<comment><USER2> So, is your point that permissions might be a nuisance so ignore them? FAA regulations exist to help ensure safe interaction between aircraft; radio regulations in part exist to minimize interference. Just ignoring them seems like a bad idea to me.

Note that UKHAS is not a 'blanket' permission group. The society exists to promote the hobby and make sure it is safe. We don't provide permission to anyone, that's up to the individual.

<comment><USER3> I was referring to the 2 main sites in Cambridgeshire which the website talked about, as it says you won't need to get your own permission for launching.

As for risk to air crafts, I would love to see some numbers. Whats the historical reason behind allowing max 2m sized balloons with a weight of 2kg, but an unmanned aircraft with the wingspan of 3m is totally fine (so long its under 20kg). What's the risk/effects of a balloon hitting a aircraft, and is it larger than say, the risk one has from meteors? I am all for regulations when it regulates a industry or when someone is pushing the boundaries on what is safe (like dropping a car Mythbuster style). However, the current regulations looks to me at least as a bit random and inconsistent (and ... dated).

Radio interference. wow, that's an old concept :). I suppose the FCC is undergoing some renewing and is slowly releasing frequencies and lowering the margins between them. The technology of handling radio interference has advanced quite a bit since the ww2/cold war where so much of the radio regulations was created, and the regulation is slowly moving forward. Know perfectly well that I will upset every licensed amateur radio operator out there, but my advice is still to take that regulation with a pinch of salt.

I guess it all depend on the details of what one do, the effect the law might have, and how much common sense one apply. What the guy did however does not sound as something that should require government permission.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Consumer GPS devices do not work above 18 km, so unfortunately even without the cell reception limitations he would not have been able to track the balloon during it's entire voyage. (They also don't work when travelling faster than 1000 mph. I believe the limitations are to prevent consumer GPS hardware from being used in things like missiles.)

I hope he manages to recover everything alright.

<comment><USER5> Yes, that was what I was thinking, over altitude, GPS shuts off. Also I was wondering if freezing the crap out of the batteries might affect their overall charge capacity.

Reading the antics of the folks over that theregister.co.uk and their high altitude experiments (granted its mostly a lot of puns around LOHAN) what struck me was they proceed very methodically in their planning. A reasonable guide for anyone wanted to get into the space balloon business I think.

<comment><USER6> Are these COCOM limitations based in the hardware or software of the GPS devices by the manufacturers? If it's in the software, are there not free and opensource firmwares out there that can go around such limitations?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Its truly amazing to see how far few hundred bucks can get you this days, but can we please stop calling these stratosphere launches 'sending to space'? Is it just me or 'sending balloon to space' sounds like joke?

Seems launching another one(or even few) could be cheaper than searching for this one...

<comment><USER5> Well there is the convention that space starts at 100km up [1] but the atmosphere extends much higher just getting thinner and thinner. For a lot of people space starts when the sky is black during the 'day time' and you can see the curvature of the Earth, but of course that occurs much sooner, like 31km (~100,000') Balloons can reach 100,000' (Baumgartner jumped from 125,000' for example)

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_line>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here's a list of some GPS modules that correctly implement the 18 km altitude, 515 m/s speed restriction using a logical AND, not a logical OR, and so are useful for high altitude ballooning: <http://ukhas.org.uk/guides:gps_modules>

Here's another: <http://www.byonics.com/tinytrak/gps.php>

</comment><comment><USER9> just curious, is it legal to just send a balloon up in the air? considering there are so many different kinds of planes flying around, wouldn't you need clearance from the FAA or other regulatory authorities before doing this?

<comment><USER4> It seems if you keep the payload under 6 pounds, and abide by a few other limitations, free balloons are a-okay as far as the FAA is concerned.

<http://www.chem.hawaii.edu/uham/part101.html>

<comment><USER10> Read a little closer...

(a) No person may operate an unmanned free balloon unless-

         (1) It is equipped with at least two payload cut-down systems or
         devices that operate independently of each other;

         (2) At least two methods, systems, devices, or combinations
         thereof, that function independently of each other, are employed
         for terminating the flight of the balloon envelope; and

         (3) The balloon envelope is equipped with a radar reflective
         device(s) or material that will present an echo to surface radar
         operating in the 200 MHz to 2700 MHz frequency range.

<snip>

          (a) Prelaunch notice : Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
         section, no person may operate an unmanned free balloon unless,
         within 6 to 24 hours before beginning the operation, he gives the
         following information to the FAA ATC facility that is nearest to
         the place of intended operation:
         (a) Each person operating an unmanned free balloon shall:

         (1) Unless ATC requires otherwise, monitor the course of the
         balloon and record its position at least every two hours; and

         (2) Forward any balloon position reports requested by ATC.

<comment><USER11> That only applies if the criteria in 101.1.a.4 are met:

      (4) Except as provided for in 101.7, any unmanned free balloon
     that-

         (i) Carries a payload package that weighs more than four pounds and
         has a weight/size ratio of more than three ounces per square inch
         on any surface of the package, determined by dividing the total
         weight in ounces of the payload package by the area in square
         inches of its smallest surface;

         (ii) Carries a payload package that weighs more than six pounds;

         (iii) Carries a payload, of two or more packages, that weighs more
         than 12 pounds; or

         (iv) Uses a rope or other device for suspension of the payload that
         requires an impact force of more than 50 pounds to separate the
         suspended payload from the balloon.

As long as those don't apply to you, you're pretty much good to go. I'd imagine that they're criteria where, should your ballon hit anything, it wouldn't cause any damage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The amateur radio club at my _alma mater_ launched a high altitude balloon last year, and used an APRS transmitter to send back coordinates:

<http://www.collegearc.com/arhab/index.php>

Their flickr page has a bunch of pics: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/62621941@N02/sets/7215762667487...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/62621941@N02/sets/72157626674875178/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Wish I could help. I'll be looking for updates to this story with fingers crossed on capturing that meteor shower!

</comment><comment><USER14> Wow... How would you feel if someone would send a balloon your way next time you board a plane?</comment>


US makes Bitcoin exchange arrests - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25919482 <comment><USER2> A good excerpt from page 13.

"Shrem email accounts reflect that "BTCKing" not only obtained his supply of Bitcoins through the Company, but did so with extensive support from SHREM. Even though SHREM quickly realized that "BTCKing" was reselling Bitcoins on Silk Road, which SHREM knew to be a marketplace for illicit drugs, SHREM went out of his way to facilitate "BTCKing's" business. Among other things, SHREM: permitted "BTCKing" to continue doing business with the Company, despite initially threatening to "ban" him based on his illegal activity; personally ensured that "BTCKing's" orders with the Company were filled everyday; gave "BTCKing" discounts based on his large order volume; sought to conceal "BTCKing's" activity from the Co-founder and the Cash Processor to prevent "BTCKing's" orders from being blocked; advised "BTCKing" how to evade the transaction limits imposed by the Company's own AML policy; let "BTCKing" conduct large transactions without ever verifying his identity, in violation of federal AML laws; and failed to file a single Suspicious Activity Report about "BTCKing," [sic] despite the obvious "red flags" raised by "BTCKing's" dealings with the Company."

If all that is alledged is true, that's pretty damning and this isn't just a general bitcoin crackdown.

<comment><USER3> The US Attorney Press release puts it nice:

"SHREM, who personally bought drugs on Silk Road, was fully aware that Silk Road was a drug-trafficking website, and through his communications with FAIELLA, SHREM also knew that FAIELLA was operating a Bitcoin exchange service for Silk Road users."

[http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/Schr...](http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/SchremFaiellaChargesPR.php) (note the 14 Jan in URL and 27Jan release date; first draft Press release, _then_ make arrests)

<comment><USER4> It's not surprising at all that the press releases are written in advance of arrests. Preet Bharara, the US Attorney responsible for this, is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the US justice system. His every action is designed to maximize his PR and advance his political career. If on occasion he happens to perform his actual job in the process, that is only incidental. If you look closely you'll see that he actually has professionally applied makeup during his press conferences - these are manufactured dog and pony shows. He was looking for a case that would allow him to ride the PR coattails of Bitcoin, and he found one.

In my opinion, prosecutors like this are as despicable as many of the people they prosecute.

<comment><USER5> I am shocked, shocked to learn that someone had makeup applied professionally before a televised press conference.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure why he needs to be on TV in the first place. His job is to prosecute whatever crimes happen to be occurring in his district. Instead, he cherry picks those that will make headlines in order to further his career. He is in the news vastly more often than any of his counterparts in other jurisdictions have ever been in the history of the DOJ. In short, he is abusing his office for personal gain.

<comment><USER5> Prosecutors are expected to look like zombies on TV?

 _(The comment I replied to was edited heavily after I replied to it)_

<comment><USER6> I think its more that the application of professional makeup is indicative of a prosecutor overly concerned with appearance. Its not the touch up here and there to avoid looking like an overworked zombie, its the going to the extreme to look like a hero. The suggestion is that such vanity can get in the way of facts, truth and justice. I don't agree with this perspective, but I sympathise with it.

<comment><USER7> The implication that makeup and vanity have anything to do with one another in this context is suspect, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I find it hilarious that they take this guy down and nobody from HSBC does a perp walk. I guess it's who you know and how much you can pay off, ya? This has everything to do with the threat Bitcoin represents. HSBC literally paid a 2 Billion dollar fine against specifically money laundering on behalf of organized drug cartels. The investigation took years and not a single HSBC employee has done a perp walk.

Oh, and since when does selling BTC anywhere, including Silk Road, constitute a crime? It's what you buy with BTC, or any other currency, that is the crime.

<comment><USER9> _Oh, and since when does selling BTC anywhere, including Silk Road, constitute a crime? It 's what you buy with BTC, or any other currency, that is the crime._

Since September 23, 1994, when they passed the Money Laundering Suppression Act.

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc- cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pub...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc- cgi/get_external.cgi?type=pubL&target=103-325)

See Title 18 Section 1960:

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1960](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1960)

 _(a) Whoever knowingly conducts, controls, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an unlicensed money transmitting business, shall be fined in accordance with this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both._

There are three prongs which can get you classified as an unlicensed MSB, and they are evaluated with an OR gate not an AND gate. The slam-dunk one is:

 _[You are an unlicensed MSB if you] fail[] to comply with the money transmitting business registration requirements under section 5330 of title 31, United States Code, or regulations prescribed under such section;_

Lets see if buying Bitcoins and reselling them to effect money movements qualifies:

 _(1) Money transmitting business.— The term "money transmitting business" means any business other than the United States Postal Service which— (A) provides check cashing, currency exchange, or money transmitting or remittance services, or issues or redeems money orders, travelers' checks, and other similar instruments or any other person who engages as a business in the transmission of funds, including any person who engages as a business in an informal money transfer system or any network of people who engage as a business in facilitating the transfer of money domestically or internationally outside of the conventional financial institutions system_

Well, yep, that is _exactly_ what this guy's business is.

This is why the affadavit says "I checked with FinCEN. Nobody with that name is now or was ever registered with them." This makes an absolutely airtight, slam-dunk case for a federal felony.

Can I again recommend to HN that if someone against posts a blog saying "Hey it's really easy to make money by straw-purchasing coins on Coinbase for buyers from LocalBitcoins" that you really, really think twice about doing that?

<comment><USER10> I know it is how the legal system works but it seems kinda silly that laws from 1994 and 1960 apply to bitcoin.

<comment><USER11> Why? They are designed to stop people making money from crimes. Seems to be exactly what was intended.I happen to think that drugs should be legal but that's a different issue.

<comment><USER12> They are designed to prevent people from making too much money anonymously.

<comment><USER13> Taxes took care of that already. Money laundering rules are designed to make it hard to conceal how you earned large amounts of money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There seems to be a general lack of understanding here on HN that _money laundering is incredibly harmful to society_. It allows organised crime to operate with great ease. It facilitates the corrupt in any walk of life, be it political, corporate, or even law enforcement.

Any money-trading entity needs to keep track of who money is coming from and going to and to monitor their transactions. The recent billion-dollar HSBC settlement is an example of a failure to properly monitor transactions, it is not clear that there was any criminal conspiracy involved [1]. That's very different from this BitInstant charge: the operators are accused of knowing that one of their customers was reselling hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of BitCoin on SilkRoad where the transaction was anonymous, which means it can be used to launder money. Worse still, they're accused of helping this guy circumvent their own monitoring systems so that they weren't obliged to report him. This is serious stuff.

[1] The criminal charges from that case were dropped as part of a settlement, but that's an entirely separate contoversy. Failure to correctly charge possible criminals in once case does not make it ok in another.

<comment><USER15> Money laundering is part of the criminalization of victimless drug use. That's why they were created, and that's how they're used. Nothing more, nothing less.

Money laundering laws are almost never used to track down under the table payments to corrupt politicians or business leaders, as you seem to imply. It's always linked to the drug trade, or occasionally "terrorism" (which may or may not involve actual terrorists).

Do you really think it's a good idea to criminalize non-violent, victimless drug use? If so, then we'll agree to disagree.

It not, then I suggest you look into the history of money laundering laws and how they are applied. They're not doing what you seem to think they're doing.

<comment><USER16> You realize that this argument justifies anything even tangentially related to the drug war because they are just the side effect of the 'criminalization of victimless drug use' right?

This includes the thousands of people who are beheaded each year by the Mexican/Colombian cartels, which, if you look at it this way, can be blamed on the US government's 'criminalization of victimless drug use'. The US government's policy might be stupid - but the cartels are also evil, and we should do as much as possible to try to curb these kinds of atrocities.

Look the drug war is terrible, drugs should de-criminalized and treated like a health problem as they are in Europe. However, you can recognize this while recognizing that the people who traffic drugs tend to be engaged in some pretty reprehensible behavior, and money laundering is one of those things (along with human trafficking and gang violence.)

<comment><USER17> > This includes the thousands of people who are beheaded each year by the > Mexican/Colombian cartels, which, if you look at it this way, can be blamed > on the US government's 'criminalization of victimless drug use'.

Why should it not be blamed on the criminalization of victimless drug use? Where would the cartels get the immense capital with which to terrorize whole provinces and take on state actors, if not for those highly lucrative drugs - their profitably grossly inflated by their illegality? If our societies would stop burying their heads in the sand over the issue of drugs and the immense demand for them (which remains remarkably static no matter how many billions are spent on 'war' against them), the cartels wouldn't have much left to fight over.

<comment><USER16> I'm not doubting that US drug policy remains the driving force. It pushes people who would consume drugs legally or illegally into a black market where they inevitably do business with some extension of these powerful criminal organizations. I agree with all that - and it needs to change.

But too often I see people using the stupidity of US drug policy as an excuse for all sorts of morally reprehensible deeds. Case in point: when asked, Ross Ulbricht trotted out all sorts of high-minded rhetoric about freedom and libertarianism and the gross injustice of prohibition, but in private he was ordering hits on his own users, and as far as he knew and was concerned, the murders were carried out successfully. Is that in the spirit of libertarian ideology? Is that about protesting US drug policy or is it just Ullbricht's greed?

People will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to rationalize their personal appetites. In the end the consumers of drugs have to know that they are buying from people who either engage in violence themselves or work for someone who does, and because they are participating in this marketplace they are in some way partially responsible for the violence that occurs because of it. It may be unrealistic to think that they will realize that - but we should not relax our personal criticism of them just because its convenient for our political position.

<comment><USER18> What you say feels right intuitively, but I can't figure out the logic behind it. Does participating in a marketplace automatically make one partially responsible for the crimes of others who participate in it? That doesn't seem quite right. There's a lot of violence in poor inner city areas, is it morally wrong to own a gun shop in such an area? Are we morally responsible for the actions of the corporations we buy from? What about our nation's foreign policy? To take an extreme example if you sell food to enough people, you know that eventually you'll feed a murderer. But intuitively there's a big difference between selling food and money laundering. I don't know.

The Ross Ulbricht case doesn't really help. Ordering hits is morally wrong whatever the context, so that doesn't help in figuring out whether his other actions were wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's worth reading the indictment: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/202555785/United-States-vs- Charles...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/202555785/United-States-vs-Charles- Shrem-and-Robert-M-Faiella). At least read the e-mail exchanges starting on pages 10 and 12.

What the article doesn't make clear is that the charge isn't for just selling BTC to Silk Road users. The charge is that Faiella purposefully targeted Silk Road users, sold them BTC at a markup, and Shrem coordinated with him to bypass BitInstant's anti-money laundering mechanisms and deliver the actual Bitcoin.

<comment><USER20> This is the information missing both from the article and the comments here in order to understand what's really being objected to. This should be the top comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is not an attack on Bitcoin _per se_ , but an attack on blatant money laundering:

US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, who filed the charges: "truly innovative business models don't need to resort to old- fashioned lawbreaking, and when Bitcoins, like any traditional currency, are laundered and used to fuel criminal activity, law enforcement has no choice but to act" [1].

This is different from HSBC's case because while HSBC was negligent in implementing proper anti-money laundering procedures Shrem was actively aiding his clients in their money laundering. That has not been _proven_ in the case of any of HSBC's U.S. executives, at least so far.

[1] [http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a994436a-8770-11e3-9c5c-00144...](http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/a994436a-8770-11e3-9c5c-00144feab7de.html?siteedition=intl#axzz2rTXVAoxC)

</comment><comment><USER22> Note that this isn't an arrest just for operating a Bitcoin exchange. It's specifically to do with Silk Road.

<comment><USER23> From the BBC article: ''The authorities said the pair were engaged in a scheme to sell more than $1m (£603,000) in bitcoins to users of online drug marketplace the Silk Road.''

This is ridiculous! Please tell me how selling Bitcoin to someone is illegal? What that person does with the Bitcoin they acquire not the responsibility of the exchange. This smells like another case of gvt scare tactics to protect the bankers and their out-dated & thieving business models. Anyone remember liberty exchange ?

<comment><USER24> > _This is ridiculous! Please tell me how selling Bitcoins to someone is > illegal? What that person does with the Bitcoins they acquire not the > responsibility of the exchange._

You know that it's illegal for actual banks to assist in money laundering right?

Money has to pass through specific channels and be exposed to specific checks to be wired from country to country (in some countries even from person to person after a certain amount).

Else you're liable to be caught for assisting in money laundering.

So, yes, if you help people to move money, you can be held liable for what they're doing with it.

<comment><USER25> _You know that it 's illegal for actual banks to assist in money laundering right?_

You know that when a bank does it though, nobody gets arrested right? They just get a small fine that is a fraction of their net profit from their illegal activities. When someone with Bitcoin is accused of money laundering, everyone involved is arrested and every asset they have is immediately frozen. It's a tremendous double standard.

[http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageo...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous- hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213#ixzz2on2hF9sl)

<comment><USER24> > _This issue was brought to my attention by pals who had investigated Julia > and rejected it for this very reason._

You know that it depends, right? With some heavy big banks nobody gets arrested, with others, and especially smaller ones, people go to jail. Also the US isn't the only country with such laws -- people have gone to jail in other countries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> For me, the biggest shock is that Shrem is on the board of the Bitcoin Foundation and was involved in this stuff. The Bitcoin foundation is one of the strongest voices in Washington about Bitcoin.

This is a big hit to the credibility of Bitcoin in the near to midterm future.

<comment><USER27> >This is a big hit to the credibility of Bitcoin in the near to midterm future.

It sure seems that way, doesn't it? If I had significant amounts of bitcoin, it would freak me out. But, I think we're seeing selection bias here. The fact that I believe that the government will eventually shut the operation down, as they did e-gold, is a big part of why I don't have any bitcoin.

But the thing is, the current bitcoin price, something like $970 as of now (Monday, 11:54 AM PST) would indicate that "the market" (that is, the people who own and are thus in a position to sell bitcoin) doesn't think this is such a huge deal.

This might be one of those places where the difficulty of shorting bitcoin is propping up the price. I don't know if I would /short/ bitcoin right now, but if it were possible, I would probably blow a couple grand on put options if I could do so in a reasonable way.

<comment><USER28> >The fact that I believe that the government will eventually shut the operation down, as they did e-gold, is a big part of why I don't have any bitcoin.

Bitcoin isn't an "operation" that a government can 'shut down.' It may yet fail by some measure but not directly by government edict.

>I would probably blow a couple grand on put options if I could do so in a reasonable way.

Easy peasy. Bitfinex features margin trading. Good luck. [https://www.bitfinex.com/pages/howitworks](https://www.bitfinex.com/pages/howitworks)

<comment><USER27> >Bitcoin isn't an "operation" that a government can 'shut down.' It may yet fail by some measure but not directly by government edict.

My belief is that bitcoin will slowly become less legally convenient, through actions like the story above.

The government can't just shut down bitcoin like they did e-gold, sure, but the government can put in legal barriers to transferring bitcoin. if it becomes defacto illegal to transfer bitcoin? Yes, they haven't "shut down" bitcoin, but for me, they've made it worth zero dollars.

>Easy peasy. Bitfinex features margin trading. Good luck. [https://www.bitfinex.com/pages/howitworks](https://www.bitfinex.com/pages/howitworks)

Yeah, that lets me short bitcoin. the difference between a short and a put is that with a put, I'm only risking what I've paid for the put, and the put expires after a certain period of time. Put options become more expensive the further out you want that expiration date (and more expensive as the security in question is perceived to be more volatile, so it's very likely that put options on bitcoins would be very expensive. But they don't have the unlimited liability of a short.)

The fact that I'd be willing to buy put options but I'm not willing to short bitcoin tells you that while I believe it is likely that bitcoin is going to fail, I'm not anywhere near certain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I am sure this will get down voted, but I can't help but find it interesting (Gov going after them after this recent HSBC news) HSBC was involved with drug cartels and much more and just had to pay a 1.9 billion dollar fine (sounds like a lot, but keep in mind its about 5 weeks of profits) [http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/11/us-hsbc-probe- idUS...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/11/us-hsbc-probe- idUSBRE8BA05M20121211)

<comment><USER30> Not, actually it's a valid point: If you are a corrupted bank, you can get away with everything. If you are against the _establishment_ you can't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> If my understanding is true, then bitcoin isn't really relevant here. They could have been selling hand written money tokens to people that they then used to pay their drug dealer with. The allegations are about intent and money laundering.

If this is all as presented, this is good for bitcoin. The fact that a criminal has been caught is good. The fact that they were using bitcoin to commit their crime makes it doubly good they were arrested as it reflects badly on the community.

<comment><USER32> It is also good for bitcoin because suddenly the government admits by its actions that it is indeed a currency.

<comment><USER33> There's never been any question about whether the government will see it as a currency for the purposes of buying drugs, or avoiding taxes, or anything else it perceives to be you using BitCoin to avoid its laws. There's oodles and oodles of precedent on that front, not least of which is the fact you still must pay taxes on barter transactions, for instance, in which there is definitely no "currency" involved on either side. The question is whether it will ever see it as something that, in addition to being bad, is also at least neutral or potentially good as well. Or, put another way, when the government finds out you used BitCoin for something, is it going to see that as as neutral as using an Amazon giftcard, or is that going to be a presumption that there's something else shady going on? Perhaps even to the point of considering that fact alone sufficient to start issuing warrants?

<comment><USER7> Did you watch the recent Senate hearing on cryptocurrencies? They seem to have already admitted that there are legitimate uses for Bitcoin, etc. I think businesses in general are more scared of it than the government is.

<comment><USER33> The Federal government is a big thing. A couple of Senators orally agreeing BitCoin might be useful isn't much consolation if the law enforcement branch decides to start treating it as _de facto_ evidence of drug involvement.

(To be clear, I'm not "rooting" for the government to find it that way... I'm just trying to look clearly at the situation and not conflate desires with reality.)

<comment><USER7> I'm not saying that would be impossible, but I just don't see the evidence as clearly-cut as others appear to. There's a 'desire' among some in the cryptocurrency community to see themselves on the front lines of a war against the state and regulated commerce as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> In related news: [http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/uni...](http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united- states/140121/hsbc-paying-2-billion-drug-money-laundering-cartel)

<comment><USER19> I suggest you read the e-mail exchanges in the indictment, for example starting on page 15: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/202555785/United-States-vs- Charles...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/202555785/United-States-vs-Charles- Shrem-and-Robert-M-Faiella). There is a huge difference between having controls that were too weak to catch money laundering activity in Mexico, and the CEO deliberately bypassing money laundering controls in order to sell BTC to Silk Road users.

The indictment in HSBC is full of stuff like "HSBC ignored government recommendations that Mexico be treated as a high-risk area instead of a medium-risk area..." This indictment has deliberate, knowing activity on the part of Shrem that, as the e-mails indicate, even he thinks is illegal.

<comment><USER35> This is simply not true.

'In some of the documents, prosecutors allege that HSBC intentionally flouted the law. The bank created an operation that was a "systemically flawed sham paper-product designed solely to make it appear that the Bank has complied" with the Bank Secrecy Act and is able to detect money laundering, wrote William J. Ihlenfeld II, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia, in a draft of a 2010 letter addressed to Justice Department officials.'

'In one email exchange submitted as evidence in that case, employees debated whether the bank should help a Miami client get around U.S. sanctions by moving the client's business to HSBC's Hong Kong office. "I believe that the best outcome would be for the customer to open a relationship with Hong Kong just for leters (sic) of credit purposes. He travels there all the time," private banker Antonio Suarez wrote in a 2008 email. Suarez has since left the bank and couldn't be reached for comment.'

[http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8420FX20120503?irpc...](http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8420FX20120503?irpc=932)

<comment><USER36> Hmm, looks like Suarez wasn't arrested either.

<comment><USER37> That content of that cited email is ambiguous as to whether the banker in question had any reason to believe the client was guilty of anything (as opposed to operating a legitimate business inconvenienced by his country of origin) Regardless of what he did and didn't know, or the intricacies of legislation around letters of credit, he was smart enough not to write "cool" in response to an email to the effect "so many of his transactions smell like fraud or money laundering", never mind negotiating a "kickback" by email. It's kind of hard to plead innocent when you do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I am very supportive of the Bitcoin Foundation, but it doesn't look good to have your Vice Chairman [1] taken down on money laundering charges.

1 - [https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/board](https://bitcoinfoundation.org/about/board)

</comment><comment><USER39> Seems like they were arrested for selling bitcoins to silk road users en masse. Is this just a US law oddity or is that what passes for money laundering these days?

<comment><USER40> I did 5 years for money laundering under 18 USC 1956(a), and I don't even know how to launder money. Sometimes they choose to charge you with money laundering because they can't actually catch you for another crime. Other times they choose money laundering because it carries a higher sentence than the underlying crime.

<comment><USER41> So is this inaccurate?:

 _With the help of at least one other person, the roommates re-sold these [stolen] high-end components to various telephony equipment suppliers nationwide, washing the checks through a series of falsified bank accounts and voice-mail business fronts._

\- [http://www.fineorsuperfine.com/newyorkpress31.html](http://www.fineorsuperfine.com/newyorkpress31.html)

<comment><USER40> The sentence you quoted is mostly accurate. It says a "series of falsified bank accounts" \- I'm not sure what they mean by a series. There were either 2 or 3 bank accounts under fake names. But this doesn't do anything to conceal the source of the funds, or make them appear legitimate. And I thought money laundering was all about making illegal money appear legal, by "washing" it. This is one of the problems with the money laundering law - it is pretty vague. The prosecutors in my case could have easily charged us with interstate transportation of stolen property, and then my sentence would have been half of what I actually received. If you do some more googling, you will find that the US Sentencing Commission investigated this sentencing disparity, including my own case. My prosecutor was pissed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> From reading the complaint; it seems that the BTCKing guy was advertising his services on Silk Road and was active on the forums. Which means that he was knowingly violating the laws on money transmission and specifically the know your customer aspects.

It's pretty clear that in the not too distant future it will be illegal to not make a good faith effort to identify anyone you are selling bitcoins to.

<comment><USER43> > It's pretty clear that in the not too distant future it will be illegal to > not make a good faith effort to identify anyone you are selling bitcoins to.

Is that a bad thing?

<comment><USER42> It is a political question. What happens if the government restricts access not only to drugs, but phones without key escrow, or media players without DRM and uses the money laundering tools to go after the "pirates and tax evaders" who for some reason don't want to share their every communication with the government?

And there are plenty of people who would disagree with you about the morality of the government doing anything but enforcing quality-control and truth in labeling when it comes to what molecules adults want to put in to their bodies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Complaint: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/202555785/United-States-vs- Charles...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/202555785/United-States-vs-Charles- Shrem-and-Robert-M-Faiella)

<comment><USER45> Non-evil link: [http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/Schr...](http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/SchremFaiellaChargesPR/Faiella,%20Robert%20M.%20and%20Charlie%20Shrem%20Complaint.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> This seems a bit ridiculous considering the half a TRILLION dollars that were laundered for drug cartels by the American bank Wells Fargo.

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER24> Yes.

1) Big banks have more leverage than insignificant fringe exchanges.

2) Wells Fargo was also investigated and fined (although an insignificant amount compared to their business).

<comment><USER47> Your evidence that something isn't ridiculous consists of two points which are, themselves, ridiculous.

<comment><USER24> I've never attempted to provide evidence "that something isn't ridiculous". Parent (you?) asked "if [he] is missing something" and I replied.

That said, the points are realistic, not ridiculous. Reality might be ridiculous, but you can't leave in a fantasy world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> There is a bit more information here, not much to be had anywhere I see, though.

[http://business.time.com/2014/01/27/bitinstant-ceo- charlie-s...](http://business.time.com/2014/01/27/bitinstant-ceo-charlie- shrem-arrested-for-alleged-money-laundering/)

</comment><comment><USER49> Meanwhile, the US allows the Sinaloa to move drugs in the US:

[http://world.time.com/2014/01/14/dea-boosted-mexican-drug- ca...](http://world.time.com/2014/01/14/dea-boosted-mexican-drug-cartel/)

</comment><comment><USER50> People are gonna have to learn to play by the rules. They are obviously paying attention.

<comment><USER51> Sorry but that's rubbish. Even if you play by the rules they'll just change them via some obscure FTC policy or congressional rider.

Look at what happened to all the "Work from home" companies a few years ago. All the owners had their assets seized in full for breaking a new FTC policies that had been published for only a matter of days.[1]

The reality is if you're doing something the government doesn't like you NEED to leave the country. They'll just keep moving the goal posts until you're in prison.

[1][http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/11/ftc- ex...](http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/11/ftc-expands- fight-against-deceptive-business-opportunity-schemes)

<comment><USER52> The rules in this case are "don't enter into a drug based money laundering business", which is _allegedly_ what went on here. It's certainly not new or obscure.

<comment><USER53> >drug based money laundering business

No ambiguity there!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> The legality of crypto-currencies in the US ultimately hinges on whether Wall St. execs can make money off them. If they could "frontrun" bitcoin trades, "naked short sell" into bitcoin exchanges, and execute "wash trades" to fix the price of bitcoins, then not only would bitcoin be declared legal, but we would see the US government using it and have it forced down the throats of middle-class pension funds.

But Wall St. can't control bitcoin. So JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon denounced it as "terrible" and predicted its downfall. Source: [http://rt.com/usa/chase- ceo-bitcoin-terrible-downfall-100/](http://rt.com/usa/chase-ceo-bitcoin- terrible-downfall-100/)

Then JP Morgan filed patents on its own crypto-currency, one that it can rig with frontrunning, naked short selling, and wash trades. Source: [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e230307a-61c4-11e3-aa02-00144feabd...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e230307a-61c4-11e3-aa02-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2rjvqMuDn)

As for bitcoin, I predict we'll increasingly see it in the news headlines linked to: (1) illegal drugs, (2) child porn, and (3) terrorism. These are the exact same smear tactics we've seen before used against P2P filesharing.

And we'll see lots more bitcoin arrests like these.

<comment><USER55> How has P2P filesharing be linked with terrorism?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Seems like solid evidence that the reason the US govt is so comfortable with Bitcoin is that they have a handle on anonymizing the blockchain as needed.

Also maybe an example of crypto over-confidence.

<comment><USER57> government loves bitcoin. credit cards are very traceable. cash is fairly traceable, but the moment bitcoins are used to get real goods theyre completely traceable. add redlisting and upcoming ca authorities to the mix and bitcoin is a governments wet dream

<comment><USER58> This is simply not true. Public != traceable. Please read about any of the many methods for securely anonymizing BTC. Coinjoin is a good example.

CoInvalidation will probably never be even close to implemented, and the proposed usage of x.509 certs has nothing to do with anonymity or privacy.

<comment><USER59> _Please read about any of the many methods for securely anonymizing BTC._

All of which would be considered money laundering, yes?

<comment><USER58> And any technical solution wouldn't?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> "and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business" [http://bnowire.com/inbox/?id=2158](http://bnowire.com/inbox/?id=2158)

And they reveal the hand they'll use to shut it all down.

<comment><USER61> They revealed that hand a while ago with the FINCEN announcement.

The US government isn't going to give Bitcoin a status that's different than other currencies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I've been worried about random people opening up exchanges, pools and other BTC transaction web applications. There are so many regulations, particularly in Anti-Money Laundering and Compliance that complicate business. People need to be careful and realize exchanges aren't a business you jump into on a whim.

The worst is, if you innocently run a site like this and don't have the correct AML protections, the baddies will use your service for their goals. You will be in trouble for not having the appropriate controls in place.

</comment><comment><USER63> The Justice Department press release is the ultimate source for all these stories and is the most informative: [http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/Schr...](http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/January14/SchremFaiellaChargesPR.php)

I guess this bodes poorly for the people who were hoping to get their coins back from Bitinstant: [http://bitinstant.info/](http://bitinstant.info/)

</comment><comment><USER64> This is no different from many of the companies that Andreessen-Horowitz, Y Combinator, Sequoia, KPCB, and other big names have invested in. In fact, it's just the tip of the iceberg.

More arrests will likely follow. I wouldn't be surprised if Dwolla and/or Veridian Credit Union is next. They were one of the largest pipes to the Silk Road.

[http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=2434524](http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=2434524)

<comment><USER65> The complaint is against two individuals: Faiella and Shrem. There is no complaint against the company BitInstant, nor arrests of any other employees. The complaint notes that BitInstant was actually a registered MSB (since March 26, 2012). The charge of operating an unlicensed MSB was not for operating BitInstant, but for an independent operation ("BTCKing") by Faiella and Shrem.

In this case, there was evidence of blatant, specific conspiracy, hence the arrests and federal charges. That's different from the ThinkComp suit, which has broader concerns of inter-state registration. We've already seen government actions which were directly relevant to the concerns of your suit: seizure of MtGox assets held by Dwolla, the $500k fine on Square by the state of Florida, and the California DFI cease-and-desist to the Bitcoin Foundation. More of that is to be expected, against say Stripe and Coinbase.

We did recently see a wide crackdown (arrests and domain seizures) on the whole network of LibertyReserve and exchangers, but those were offshore companies actively evading US banking and regulations. The situation with bitcoin exchanges (and the other defendants in the ThinkComp suit) is of a different nature, mostly about the specific approach to inter-state regulation, rather than blatant federal violations.

If the ThinkComp defendants were directly doing payment processing for online poker (rather than one-decentralized-step removed, in the case of bitcoin), then I would expect another round of arrests. But the arrests would be for violation of federal UIGEA and bank fraud. Operating an MSB in an unlicensed state is punished by a fine, as seen with Square.

But please, point out anything I might be confusing or overlooking. And keep fighting the (good) fight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Here's Andy Greenberg's excellent article on today's events--

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/01/27/winklev...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/01/27/winklevoss- funded-bitcoin-startup-ceo-arrested-in-silk-road-investigation/)

</comment><comment><USER67> A better headline: "U.S. makes money-laundering arrests"

</comment><comment><USER68> Title is very sensationalist and almost gave me a heart attack.

<comment><USER63> I expect that this is no accident.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> > _" It is unfortunate Silk Road continues to make the headlines in > association with Bitcoin - this is the dark side of Bitcoin, which the vast > majority of digital currency users have no association with."_

Every currency or commodities of value have a dark side. A significant percentage of British notes have traces of cocaine, occasionally you see ones with blood on them. I'd consider blood diamonds to have just as sinister connotations as bitcoin.

Discussing this reminds me of the scene in Beverley Hills Cop, where the character Michael Tandino is murdered for stealing a wad of bearer bonds.

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

<comment><USER70> Perhaps offtopic, but the US is against blood diamonds too. It's illegal to import diamonds from Sierra Leone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I wonder how central figures in Bitcoin feel about this. The headlines aren't helpful but in the longer run if the Feds drive down or out the number of bad guys using Bitcoin that would seem to help it's image over the long run.

</comment><comment><USER72> HSBC admitted to laundering $800M for drug cartels. No arrests.

</comment><comment><USER73> Criminalizing BTC is a sure sign of fear from the US/UK banking system. But you cannot criminalise maths, you can only do that with mathematicians like Alan Turing.

<comment><USER7> Except... no one has criminalized BTC itself here, only its use in facilitating crime. They seem to be treating it like any other currency.

<comment><USER73> Coining headings like that "US makes Bitcoin exchange arrests" is criminalizing the term 'bitcoin'. And the article emphasises that tone. Ever seen headings "US makes US Dollar exchange arrests"? Huh?

<comment><USER74> > Coining headings like that "US makes Bitcoin exchange arrests" is > criminalizing the term 'bitcoin'.

The BBC coined the headline, but last I checked, the BBC can't criminalize things -- at least not in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> what about coin base and bitpay do they have any anti money laundering issues? Is the burden of AML KYC fall on the merchant or on coin base bitpay?

<comment><USER64> Yes, they do. Both are operating illegally and they know it. Neither has money transmission licenses nationwide (BitPay only has one in one state to the best of my knowledge).

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> The difference between HSBC money laundering and Bitcoin's money laundering is more political hands involved with HSBC's profits.

</comment><comment><USER77> Without being upset, I'm curious what the difference is between this type of arrest and various traditional banks that were civilly fined for money laundering, but not criminally charged.

I doubt many FBI agents would hesitate to pursue a big bank. But they don't seem to be able to, even when there are civil fines given. What causes that, I wonder?

<comment><USER78> The difference is SilkRoad didn't have friends in high places, nor was it giving corrupt politicians/law enforcement/corp execs their cut of the spoils.

<comment><USER74> Well, actually, this case is _exactly_ about corrupt corporate officials getting a cut of the spoils.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> "Drug law enforcement's job is to investigate and identify those who abet the illicit drug trade at all levels of production and distribution, including those lining their own pockets by feigning ignorance of any wrong doing and turning a blind eye."

Start with congress for making drugs illegal in the first place.

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands >>> Given that everyone involved was an American citizen.

I guess this is the moral of the story. Don't do this stuff within the confines of the US? Find a nice island paradise (I hear Vanuatu is nice this time of year) and do your business from a country that has no extradition treaty with the US.

</comment><comment><USER80> Interesting that they charged them with the money transmitting and laundering charges. I suspect it is hard to get someone indicted for just trading in coin since to the average lay person that probably seems like baseball collector cards or something.

</comment><comment><USER81> How is what these people were arrested for different than what Coinbase does?

<comment><USER82> Shrem was not arrested for running Bitinstant. He was arrested for allegedly going behind his bank and cofounder's backs to advise a known BTC dealer on Silkroad on how to skirt Bitinstant's AML policies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> HSBC just had to pay a 2b fine for money laundering, I guess the US gov doesn't accept BTC yet...

</comment><comment><USER84> tangential to the story, but can someone explain to me why the government hates bitcoin(or rather, why people seem to think this)? It's a public ledger of all payments, seems like a pretty good thing for the IRS.

<comment><USER85> The US government doesn't hate Bitcoin at all. Indeed, the DoJ, FBI, IRS, and NSA _love_ Bitcoin, especially the public ledger part of it.

For some reason, libertarians really flock to Bitcoin, not realizing that it's the worst possible currency to use if you want anonymity. (Physical cash is easy to hide, but a digital currency will _always_ be traceable with enough effort.)

<comment><USER65> Tracing a cash payment is trivial: you just watch the physical address where the payment is to be mailed or dropped. So for any business in which the customer can't be trusted (eg Silk Road vendors), cash won't work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> For me, the worst part is I went to high school in Brooklyn with this guy. Ugh.

</comment><comment><USER87> so uncool, much dogecoin to invest</comment>


Tesla's 'Production Hell' Threatens Its Future - <AUTHOR> https://jalopnik.com/teslas-hell-threatens-its-future-1819917980 <comment><USER2> It kinda funny that Tesla's delays in ramping up production of is first mass produced car results in predictions of total doom. Despite Tesla having large amounts of cash on hand. Despite that every other manufacturer of complex and expensive products has routinely had similar problems.

Tip: Never take business advice from a journalist.

<comment><USER3> I am loving this. Let the stock crash hard, so I can buy more of it.

The man built an org that lands reusable rockets on a portable barge. My suspicion is that he can survive assembly line issues.

<comment><USER2> About 15 years ago I was supporting an IC used in a consumer product. Our first big customer designed it in and from Feb through middle of August we fielded a constant stream of questions, spent a countless hours tracking down and solving obscure bugs in the silicon. And then in the middle of august all the calls just stopped and in the middle of Sept we got the news that they were punting to Q1. Six month delay because they didn't feel comfortable handing over the pre-production units to the buyers.

Okay so that was a scuddy consumer product that sold for $150 retail. But at 1M units a year. Tesla's trying to go full production with a product that is 100 times more complicated. But at 100k/year.

The other funny bit is no one bats an eye when a traditional automaker delays a new model for a year or two. You see a press release in 2013 about the brand new 2015 model. And 2015 rolls around and it's now delayed till 2016, then 2017. Anyone want to guess why that happens? Oh yeah.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is clickbait at its finest. No attributable sources and except for a pretty honest admission by Tesla which then leads to nothing but rampant speculation and claims.

Tesla will be fine. They have something like a 90+% satisfaction rate amongst current owners. People stood in line for hours to give them money for a car that didn't even have a production date. These people want a Tesla no matter when or how they get it. They're fine waiting and will continue to wait. Predicting the entire failure of the company on something like this is just silly.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wouldn't be surprised if this guy Ryan Felton was being paid to write negative pieces against Tesla and Uber. Go look through his articles and you'll see nothing but doom and gloom about electric cars, autonomous cars, uber, etc.

Most of his claims are backed up by "anonymous former employees" or "unnamed people familiar with the matter"

Tesla will be just fine.

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't be surprised if this guy digital_trench was being paid to shill for Tesla.

<comment><USER3> At the risk of feeding the trolls:

Are you making a satirical example about the emptiness of such flippant accusations, or do you actually entertain a serious possibility that GP is on the tesla payroll spreading propaganda on HN?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's not why its future is threatened.

1\. It's low oil/gas/energy prices and the fact that it looks like we are in for a low energy price environment for a decade or two.

2\. Tesla, just their sister company solar city was built entirely on government subsidies. Those look to be going away.

3\. They are hemorrhaging money.

Tesla is this decades Prius on steroids. Except that tesla doesn't have toyota's best selling sedans, tacoma trucks or their luxury lexus buttressing their foray into clean cars.

Remember when everyone thought that prius would take over the world?

<comment><USER8> No, I don't remember any such thing. The thing that haters fail to recognize is that people buy Tesla cars for more than the government subsidy and fuel economy. Ask any _actual_ owner and they will tell you how incredible the cars are in _practice_. Disclaimer: owner since 2012.

<comment><USER7> > No, I don't remember any such thing.

It was called the 2000s. Did you miss that decade?

> The thing that haters fail to recognize is that people buy Tesla cars for > more than the government subsidy and fuel economy.

I'm not a hater. I'm just pointing out economic/business reality.

> Ask any actual owner and they will tell you how incredible the cars are in > practice. Disclaimer: owner since 2012.

My god, that's exactly what my uncle said about the prius more than a decade ago. Also, tesla isn't the only incredible car. There are lots of incredible cars out there. That's why most people don't buy teslas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A lot of criticism over this aritcle's credibility in this thread. So here's a more reputable source with a similar take:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-02/model-3-h...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-02/model-3-hell- is-burning-tesla-s-other-projects)

</comment><comment><USER10> Jalopnik is a joke that shouldn't really be used as a source here.</comment>


The New Google Material Design for Bootstrap - <AUTHOR>

Material Design for Bootstrap is a theme for Bootstrap 3 which let you use the new Google Material Design in your favourite front-end framework.
Read more about Material Design for Bootstrap visiting the Github page.
https://fezvrasta.github.io/bootstrap-material-design/ <comment><USER2> Previous submission not more than a day ago with more than 60 comments: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8378819](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8378819)</comment>


Pandora, Angry Birds, other apps selling private info to advertisers - <AUTHOR> http://lifehacker.com/5715188/these-apps-are-rampantly-stealing-your-info-without-permission

<comment><USER2> _sigh_

Source link without the lifehacker bullshit: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870469400457602...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704694004576020083703574602.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEADTop)

edit: Direct link to awesome visualization tool : <http://blogs.wsj.com/wtk- mobile/>

<comment><AUTHOR> What's the HN etiquette on link sources? I read it first on lifehacker, then on WSJ. I thought it was appropriate to give credit to the source I read.

<comment><USER3> The official policy is to go to the original source of the story, not the original source YOU read.

<comment><USER4> I completely agree with you and everyone else who takes this stance.

However in this case I'm willing to let it slide as in the past two days this story has been submitted three times* with a total of 30 upvotes and one comment between them.

In cases like this I usually upvote the first submission and file under 'Things that I think are interesting, but other people seem not to'.

* <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018906> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2019508> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018902>

<comment><USER3> Fair enough, but the official guideline is as follows:

"Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter."

I think PG sacrifices a lot of clarity for some cleverness here, so here's my rewrite, that I believe is identical in spirit, and hopefully at least slightly clearer:

"Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the site the blogger found it on."

Personally, I'm not a rules nut, but he DID ask for the official stance.

<comment><USER5> In some instances it is more appropriate to link to a blog:

 _Don't abuse the text field in the submission form to add commentary to links. The text field is for starting discussions. If you're submitting a link, put it in the url field. If you want to add initial commentary on the link, write a blog post about it and submit that instead._

Personally, I think a comment explaining the motivation for linking to a blog rather than the original source, as dshankar provided, is sufficient to justify a blog link.

<comment><USER3> Definitely true, but you need to determine if the blog post is adding value to the discussion, or just sensationalizing it. The world is full of people who can borrow a few lines and blow them out of proportion, but we should (and do) expect HNers' to do better than that.

A lot of blog posts wind up being just extremely wordy retweets.

I'd also submit that a blog post is the way to go if the source material is either too technical or too difficult to follow, and a blog post simply makes more sense to the HN readership. Or, even if the article is just way too long. Linking straight to a Nature article may be too much for the casual reader.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am _very_ concerned about this particular comment:

 _"I am a consultant for a software company that does iOS apps. It is scary how much information Apple gives us about the customer. We know everything the customer has (ever) done on their device. This includes their browsing history."_

Can anyone verify this? If so, this is crazy.

<comment><USER7> False. Unless the device is jailbroken. Each app has a separate cookie store and web cache.

However, you can access the address book without prompting.

<comment><USER8> How does jailbreaking enable normal iOS store apps to access other apps sandboxed datastore? Or do you mean that only Cydia apps can access other apps datastores?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Most of these are not "selling", they're providing normal 'connected' functionality. For example, any app that uses a name and password to access a server, they say is transmitting a password. Any app that you invoke "invite my friends", they say is transmitting your contacts.

Yes, for example, Angry Birds is doing these things. But it's by your request. The graphic doesn't show the data being "sold" or sent to marketers.

<comment> brown9-2 Any idea why Angry Birds would be collecting your Location and giving it to Google and Flurry Analytics, according to this infographic?

Does WSJ mean location as in your approximate locale (useful to understand where your users are coming from), or actual GPS coordinates?

Their lack of specificity is a bit confusing.

<comment><USER10> People collect location for a lot of reasons - localizing content, planning local advertising purchases, selling in-app advertising to agencies who want to buy access to a particular audience, etc. Sometimes developers just want to understand where their users are coming from out of curiosity.

Usually country and state fulfills the above purposes just fine. I've seen GPS coordinates sent off the device and then converted to country / state before the coordinates were discarded - that's how Pinch Media used to do it. Flurry typically just works with IP address, but when GPS is used, it does the rounding off on the device first so the only thing we're sent is already inaccurate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> First off, when you install an application on Android it tells you every permission that an app asks for, i.e.:

Location Data Contacts Etc

As a developer of mobile apps and a user of both flurry and AdMob, I send them a both user's "data" in order to find out the general location of the user, as well as the OS they are running and the device they own. This isn't "selling" their data, it's giving it to these analytics platforms so we can view our audience and therefore allow us to better serve our users/customers.

The same hoopla can be brought up about Google Analytics and AdWords. This isn't a new phenomenon, and it isn't a big deal.

<comment><USER12> GPS location and device UUID is a lot different than IP geo-location and cookie that Google Analytics uses. It's also not possible to block--I block Google Analytics and sometimes use proxies, but can't tell Angry Birds to not send out my info.

<comment><USER13> You are correct, it is different.

IP Geo-Location is a hack for when GPS Location and uniqueID aren't available, so the prudent choice to gain accurate analytic info would be to use the most accurate. Especially if you are a developer / publisher trying to tailor your functionality to your particular audience.

Android does inform you, in advance of installation of exactly what information the application would like access to so you can be absolutely aware of what information you are freely giving up when installing an application. Your only means to block access however after installation is if you have root access and modify host entries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Angry Birds Privacy policy: [http://www.rovio.com/index.php?page=angry-birds ---frequently...](http://www.rovio.com/index.php?page=angry-birds--- frequently-asked-questions-faq#privacy)

I was pissed until I read the FAQ and discovered when they're using data and what they're using it for. Basically: If you've registered with Crystal Something-or-Other they send your data to them. The WSJ article, at least in the Angry Birds case, seems to have sensationalized things.

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't think anyone should be surprised that indeed, phone apps, like all other apps, send data to analytics providers.

<comment><USER16> Well... you don't sell many papers when you put it THAT way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> In the submitted subject title, the claim is that private info is being sold. However, in the original WSJ article:

      Free and paid versions of Angry Birds were tested on an iPhone.
      The apps sent the phone's UDID and location to the Chillingo unit of Electronic
      Arts Inc., which markets the games. Chillingo says it doesn't use the
      information for advertising and doesn't share it with outsiders.

Chillingo does not deny collecting the info, but they _do_ deny using the information for advertising or sharing it with outsiders.

</comment><comment><USER18> I guess Lifehacker (gawker) is content to give user's personal info away for free.

</comment><comment><USER19> Oh, the stuff you can do on the iPhone.

Just the other day I implemented a hidden webview in an iPhone app. The webview subscribes users to third-party affiliation programs (e.g. Groupon) automatically ... basically the thirdparty service is chosen based on how much money it gives to affiliates / if it's available at the user's location (that's why it needs to be automatic).

Behind the scenes a Javascript is loaded in the webview that does plain requests to these services. Because many do not provide an API, I have to fake it ... XmlHttpRequest is not enough because of all the restrictions. So I implemented my own XmlHttpRequest-type functionality by using webview- delegates, but without the restrictions.

The logic behind using a WebView is that you can load / update the subscription logic on the server-side, without updating the application in the iTunes Store. Best thing of all, this works even with Apple's earlier restrictions related to dynamic languages.

Also, the logic behind doing this client-side is that many services complain when requests come from the same IP. You cannot be caught when moving this client-side.

Just to be clear: users are properly informed they are going to get subscribed for spams from their city.

</comment><comment><USER20> Am I the only one wondering how can I hook up with the advertisers paying for this data?

</comment><comment><USER21> Apparently, the youtube app sends your username and password to... * gasp * _Google!_

Oh, the horror. Though I'm quite thankful for the breakdown, as a lot of this is probably almost _completely_ unknown to people, some of the inclusions seem rather suspect. I wonder if they included legitimate data transmissions to pad the icon gallery / table.

</comment><comment><USER22> jailbroken users can install a opt-out pref : <http://blog.iphone- dev.org/post/164789333/a-pinch-too-much>

<comment><USER23> Also don't forget Firewall iP off Cydia. You get notifications and can set permissions _per_ app.

Ah, I would never use a jailed iPhone. So much less usable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Honestly, I'm not surprised - the most valuable thing most of these applications do is produce lucrative information that big budget marketers would love to sink their meathooks into.

There is nothing wrong with this business model per say, but doing it without the express consent with your users is wrong and making it personally identifiable is wrong.

</comment><comment><USER25> Anyone who provides data to mylife.com (Pandora on Android) is evil in my book.

</comment><comment><USER26> With the Commerce Department and FTC reports both calling for better consumer protection, articles like this highlight how badly the current self-regulatory approach _isn't_ working.

</comment><comment><USER27> It isn't "stealing" if the user agrees to the app's User Agreement that probably mentions what's happening with the data that is collected.

</comment><comment><USER28> I have root on my Android phone. How can I give certain apps fake UUID and phone number information?

</comment><comment><USER29> So they need to create paid versions and you pay for this stuff. A game of the same caliber of angry birds would sell for 20 bucks or so as a computer game. There you go, shell out the money. Oh wait since everyone wants it for free you better be willing to pay something. That something is something people see little value in giving away, but is of high value to advertisers.</comment>


They were guillotined 72 years ago today. And they deserve remembering - <AUTHOR> https://wellthisiswhatithink.com/2015/02/23/they-were-guillotined-73-years-ago-today-and-they-deserve-remembering/ <comment><USER2> Sophie Scholl's last words were, "How can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause? Such a fine sunny day, and I have to go, but what does my death matter, if through us thousands of people are awakened and stirred to action?"

Hans Scholl's last words shouted from the guillotine were, "Long live freedom!"

</comment><comment><USER3> I can recommend the film made about Sophie Scholl and the White Rose group called "Sophie Scholl - Die letzten Tage" (The last days)

</comment><comment><USER4> German literary figure Gunther Gräss recalls his days as a young conscript into the Waffen SS:

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/06/04/how-i-spent- the...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/06/04/how-i-spent-the-war)

One of his peers finds the strength to resist -- and the witnessed struggle is a heartbreak.</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone move from GraphQL back to rest? - <AUTHOR> Interested in hearing stories of organizations who went from graphql back to REST. <comment><USER2> I'm not even at "rest" let alone "graphql" ... more like create a motley bunch of endpoints via http!

<comment><USER3> I feel ya

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I see the drive to GraphQL from REST for some SAAS and think its a mistake.

I find REST is much easier to use - I read the docs and look at one or two examples then I can get started

GraphQL is a different story - Im hunting round the documentation to figure out the syntax and rules.

I much prefer REST

</comment><comment><USER5> I can see no reason to go back unless you did it badly - maybe you'd support both if you exposed apis to end users - REST is easier to grok initially.

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://www.graphiti.dev/guides/why](https://www.graphiti.dev/guides/why)

<comment><AUTHOR> How is this relevant?

<comment><USER7> It's literally a library that's main value proposition is that GraphQL loses a lot of benefit of web http infrastructure that rest provides and that with a few conventions you get many of the most widely cited values of GraphQL.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I haven't left GraphQL myself, but after seeing what's necessary to expose GraphQL for consumption, it's very clearly an attractive waste of time.

After having worked on a codebase with it, I would prefer RESTful endpoints backed by RDBMS or document stores instead.

<comment><USER9> I feel the same pain and end up built a library to try to solve it. [https://github.com/charlie0077/graphql-server- crud](https://github.com/charlie0077/graphql-server-crud)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> We're using gRPC.</comment>


Data about parents and children breached in VTech hack - <AUTHOR> http://www.troyhunt.com/2015/11/when-children-are-breached-inside.html <comment><USER2> I wonder if parents can build a strong enough lobby to require (de facto or de jure) some sort of certification to apply to web applications for children?

<comment><USER3> I certainly hope not: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children)

<comment><USER4> Can you elaborate? The article discusses something that _actually_ is dangerous to children, so suggesting considering protecting children from it is not necessarily a "think of the children" appeal to emotion fallacy.

<comment><USER3> "Terrorism" is actually dangerous to adults, but despite that, most laws passed to to "prevent terrorism" represent appeals to emotional fallacy. (Not least of which because of its rarity compared to many other day-to-day risks.)

In this case, first of all, the parents had the choice to not share their kids' private information with a third-party service to begin with, as alistairSH pointed out in another comment. Evaluate risk and reward before sharing any information.

Second, no amount of "certification" will prevent data breaches from happening. Software, like most things, cannot be made 100% safe; the thought that it can would have a chilling effect on all software development. There's a reason the majority of software licenses include prominent disclaimers of warranty, either disclaiming it entirely or limiting it to no more than the price of the software; only the largest software development companies could afford to risk operating otherwise.

Attempts to do that kind of thing led to regulations like COPPA, which in practice almost completely prevents children under 13 from using many online services without lying about their age. See the various instances of kids having their gmail or similar Google accounts deleted, as one of numerous examples.

Third, people operating under a "think of the children" mentality do not typically allow any kind of tradeoff or middle ground. If any possible measure can be taken, it _must_ be, no matter the cost, risk/reward, or efficacy, you heartless children-hating monster. Naturally, such people are perfectly capable of designing sensible software requirements.

<comment><USER5> It is quite ironic how in the age of helicopter parents most online activity by minors is entirely unsupervised. I'm not advocating some kind of draconic parental filter, just finding the whole thing ironic.. probably because it wasn't my data lost.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Of Browsers and OS - Some Statistics - <AUTHOR> http://bonchibuji.blogspot.com/2008/05/of-browsers-and-os-some-statistics.html

<comment><USER2> I suspect the "underdogs" of the web browsing world may be more common than statistics currently show.

To track statistics, don't these systems rely on the same JavaScript features that allow so many sites to artificially break on browsers they don't like?

If you don't configure Firefox (or in my case, OmniWeb on the Mac) to lie and say it's IE5 on Windows, a percentage of the web is basically closed off. It's sad that this is still true in 2008, but it is.

I do try to contact site maintainers when I'm forced to lie, hoping they'll turn off their JavaScript junk and realize what the browsing landscape really looks like. But I never expect anything to come from it.</comment>


Show HN: Search Instagram and use real life photos - <AUTHOR> https://lefty.io/search <comment><USER2> awesome

</comment><comment><USER3> Incredible

</comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for posting this This is so convenient for finding photos on Instagram</comment>


Ask YC: Opinions on using a CMS like Joomla? - <AUTHOR>

I am about to begin building the back end of my site. What has been your experience with/ is your opinion about using a CMS such as Joomla to provide a framework for doing so? <comment><USER2> Don't.

If you're going to use _any_ CMS for a framework for your site, use Drupal or something of the sort, but not Joomla.

I've had experience with Joomla for years (and Mambo before the fork.) It's powerful, but to a fault: it's large, bloated, and has too many features that you don't need.</comment>


Roulette beater spills physics behind victory - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428644.500-roulette-beater-spills-physics-behind-victory.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

<comment><USER2> Actually getting access to a European roulette wheel (comparable in quality to what is in use in casinos) seems the hard part to me. I ended up buying a 70's wheel, but I don't feel my measurements on this antique are good enough to start betting real money.

One manufacturer told me they only sold to accredited casinos, and these had to return the wheels to them at the end of their useful life. Not sure if he was just playing me or if they were actively trying to keep the wheels away from roulette-hackers.

<comment><USER3> Probably true. When I asked a blackjack dealer why they didn't have automatic shufflers, she mentioned the shufflers aren't purchased, they're leased.

<comment><USER4> They're leased because of patents. The manufacturer makes way more money leasing then selling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You can do this even without a computer. There are two approaches that still work (i.e., that don't focus on biased wheels, as the casinos fixed that bug since years): Wheel watching and distance counting. The first lets you watch the rhythm of the croupier when he spins the wheel and the ball. The second just lets you count the distance between the results in the wheel. The first works way better, but requires much more training.

But I guarantee you: This kind of work is mind-numbing. I did this for a while in 1999 and let it go, members of our group continued with it over years and really suffered from the boredom. The same with gaming the slot machines (they have certain regularities or bugs, depending on the model) or poker and other games. So if you're a hacker, the challenge and fun wears off pretty quick and you wish you had a cubicle job instead.

Anyway, there are books from the mathematician and physicist Pierre Basieux, unfortunately only in German.

</comment><comment><USER6> Last month, I was having lunch with my friend, John Boyd, and he came out with this incredible story about using computers to beat roulette in Vegas back in the 70's. He was part of Doyne Farmer's original team from UCSC, and apparently plays a reasonably big role in the book. I've known him for ten years, and he never bothered to mention it. I was so riveted that I made myself late for class plying him for more details. I'm sending him this link now; I'm sure he'll enjoy it.

</comment><comment><USER7> The Newtonian Casino is a book that tells Farmer's story. It is fascinating and I've read it twice: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Newtonian-Casino-Thomas- Bass/dp/...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Newtonian-Casino-Thomas- Bass/dp/0582057523)

<comment><USER8> It has a different title in the US, which was where I read it. Agreed, it's a great book.

<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eudaemonic_Pie>

<comment><USER9> And "The Predictors" follows the further adventures of Farmer, et al, and is worth a read too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Also interesting is the book "Calculated Bets: Computers, Gambling, and Mathematical Modeling to Win" which talks about one man's quest to beat the odds at Jai alai (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jai_alai>) by modeling the game and the players. It's a fun, humorous and technical book.

[http://www.amazon.com/Calculated-Bets-Computers-Gambling- Mat...](http://www.amazon.com/Calculated-Bets-Computers-Gambling- Mathematical/dp/0521009626)

</comment><comment><USER11> _In the 1970s, Doyne Farmer, then a graduate student, used the world's first wearable computer to beat roulette tables in Nevada, but never revealed how he did it._

Wait, I thought Claude Shannon with some help from Ed Thorpe were the first to build a wearable computer back in the 60's. Also to beat roulette. They shelved it though, because there were too many practical difficulties and there were better ways to make money - the stock market.

</comment><comment><USER12> I read about this years ago in The Eudaemonic Pie, I believe.

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Eudaemonic-Pie-Thomas- Bass/dp/0595...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Eudaemonic-Pie-Thomas- Bass/dp/0595142362)

</comment><comment><USER13> Is this legal? What happens if you get caught using a smart phone to do this? (BTW this would be a cool iPhone app for someone to make)

<comment><USER14> It's not illegal, but it's against the rules of the casino, and you will be thrown out. (And probably banned.)

<comment><USER15> Didn't casinos used to frown on camera use? It's hopeless now that everyone has a camera with them all the time, but I thought I'd heard way back that cameras and casinos didn't get along.

<comment><USER16> In my experience, if you're near the actual gaming, they won't let you use a camera (with exceptions). If you're taking pictures of craps tables or something that are currently shut down, you can probably get away with it.

Also cellphone rules are pretty restrictive, so even camera phones would probably get you a reprimand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's no surprise that it should be possible to predict the trajectory of a roulette ball with today's technology, but doing it back in 1970 is seriously impressive.

<comment><USER18> just remember what kind of a computer got astrounauts to the moon back then.

that's impressive.

<comment><USER19> Those computers didn't have to fit in a shoe!

<comment><USER17> And they weren't built by "some dude" in his spare time.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Scientists figure out how to preserve vaccines without refrigeration - <AUTHOR> https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-scientists-figure-out-how-to-preserve-vaccines-without-refrigeration-a-potential-public-health-game-changer <comment><USER2> Wait, there's a herpes vaccine? Since when?</comment>


Artificial sweeteners could be worse than sugar - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/artificial-sweeteners/

<comment><USER2> What about sweeteners like Zylitol and Stevia? The women in my family consume them exclusively.

Frankly, the signal to noise ratio is so bad whenever I try to look up these things that I've grown immune to the discourse. Every few months, there's also a new blog post explaining why coffee and vitamin supplements are bad for you, then suddenly they're good for you again. One day, coffee is the average American's greatest source of antioxidants. The next day, laxative effects of coffee shed free water and nutrients for a net loss.

Since artificial sweeteners in their cup of morning tea probably isn't the straw that broke the camel's back of obesity in those studies, I think it's safe to say that we should just focus on a healthy diet and quit looking for ways to find a surrogate for raw willpower.

</comment><comment><USER3> Grouping aspartame and sucralose as if they are the same substance is a huge problem with this article.

Too little science.

</comment><comment><USER4> In other news, scientists find that water appears to be wet.</comment>


Joint Statement of Solidarity with Unjustly Fired Lanetix Workers - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@techworkersco/joint-statement-of-solidarity-with-unjustly-fired-lanetix-workers-354daaa4b306 <comment><USER2> Absolutely disgusting, and illegal to boot. I think we're likely to see more stories like this, especially when the economic downturn hits. Hopefully we can get organized before then. Thanks for posting this.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great article, it's time that tech workers unite and unionize and stand in solidarity with other workers. This kind of behavior from employers to employees is unjust and despicable.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is unconscionable. We must unite against employers who think they can treat workers like interchangeable resources. I think we should start organizing a solidarity strike.</comment>


Chatroulette - <AUTHOR> http://biofare.org/2010/03/07/chatroulette/

<comment><AUTHOR> No one wanted to add their comments?</comment>


Greplin (YC W10) expands team and office - <AUTHOR> http://blog.greplin.com/a-growing-team-and-a-new-home-2

<comment><USER2> Good news, but why is your landing page exactly the same as Evernote (mac book pro, mobile devices, search bar)?

<comment><USER3> Presumably because Evernote will have tested this (and has proven traction) and when you're Evernote for x ("your personal data") it makes sense to use terminology/messaging your target market is familiar with? (or, coincidence)

<comment><USER2> Even if Evernote has already tested it, you shouldn't just rip off your competitor's look and feel. It's in bad taste and fails to show why your product is unique at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Congratulations on the new office, which looks nice, but... I have to admit that the most exciting aspect of this post for me was finding out that there's a restaurant in SoMA devoted entirely to grilled cheese sandwiches.

<comment><USER4> PS. I just tried the programming challenge. But apparently the result I get for the third one (115) is wrong, and damned if I can figure out why.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Umm before someone tells you off for it, you need a link to greplin.com on the sidebar of individual blog posts. Or best to have it in the header.

<comment><AUTHOR> in the sidebar now - thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Welcome to the neighborhood! Unfortunately our startup is moving out of South Park in the next few days.. but if you get sick of grilled cheese, some of our favorite lunch options have been: D'urso Deli, Mexico Au Parc, and Centro. At least one person in the office has a Au Parc tostada ($7) in here just about every day.

<comment><USER7> Also, South Park Cafe makes a really delicious burger for $9.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't have to feel too bad because at least you're not right across the street from an awesome brewery

Oh wait...

21st amendment and a grilled-cheesery!!! Not Fair!

Awesome that you are expanding and I can't wait to see what you guys do next.

</comment><comment><USER9> Glad to see that I'm not the only one using a printer box on top of a regular desk to make a standing desk. I'm pretty sure if we ever need to use this printer it's going to have elbow dents in it.

</comment><comment><USER10> Cool - glad to see the challenge paid off in finding some new talent. I remember having fun doing it when it came out!

</comment><comment><USER11> Jealous? Me? Nooooo. I promise. I'm not jealous.

Ok, yea, I'm 100% jealous.

</comment><comment><USER12> Don't forget Little Skillet</comment>


FEATURE: A struggle within MIT's IT department over its future (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/mit/comments/458xli/feature_a_struggle_within_mits_it_department_over/ <comment><USER2> Covered previously on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11232724](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11232724)

I do wonder how they are doing now though. Seems a really sad state of affairs.

See also:

By installing NAT, MIT stifles innovation [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14637850](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14637850)</comment>


Comcast got me fired after billing dispute, says California man - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/10/comcast-got-me-fired-after-billing-dispute-says-california-man/ <comment><USER2> Each time I think I may consider Comcast as an option for my internet/entertainment package, I read a story like this and I conclude it's not worth it.</comment>


The pressure to publish pushes down quality - <AUTHOR> http://www.nature.com/news/the-pressure-to-publish-pushes-down-quality-1.19887 <comment><USER2> Is it possible to model the rate at which human knowledge is increasing or decreasing? Given that:

A) claims about reality are a lemon market, and it's often expensive or impossible to evaluate the truth behind purported facts.

B) false claims undermine the value of true claims by decreasing trust in them, and by causing people to stop believing things that are true so as to realign their worldview to be logically consistent with misinformation.

It stands to reason that if the percentage of true claims made in papers is less than X, the sum of human knowledge is actually decreasing even if good papers are still being published.

<comment><USER3> I can't even think of a way to measure human knowledge which isn't problematic in immediately obvious ways.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, what is a 'true claim'?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really, _really_ hate to ask the obvious, but doesn't this apply to damned near literally everything?

Did we genuinely need a column to remind us of this? Is this how bad it's gotten? I'm not asking rhetorically; I'm dead serious. Has publishing gone so far off the rails that we have to restate the blindingly obvious just to reboot the conversation? I'm nowhere involved in the process and will readily admit that I've got not a single paper to my name, so I'm clueless about the current state of affairs when it comes to published research.

Edit: Wow. Yeah, things actually look pretty bad if we take the opinion at its word. Particularly telling are the examples given, such as:

> For example, a breast-cancer cell line used in more than 1,000 published > studies actually turned out to have been a melanoma cell line. The average > biomedical research paper gets cited between 10 and 20 times in 5 years, and > as many as one-third of all cell lines used in research are thought to be > contaminated, so the arithmetic is easy enough to do: by one estimate, > 10,000 published papers a year cite work based on contaminated cancer cell > lines. Metastasis has spread to the cancer literature.

<comment><USER6> It indeed seems to be bad. If you try reading some papers you can find everything from conclusions obviously based on formal fallacies, confusing statistical significance with practical significance, experiment designs that couldn't provide any new information no matter how they turn out, to outright bizarre flaws of logic such as dietary intakes calculated so that the body isn't able to excrete more than it absorbs.

The medical science has decayed into a strange cargo cult where experiments are made and papers are written, but the essence of science, the pursuit of better understanding, is lacking. It's no wonder there has been no major progress in the last few decades and we have an epidemic of obesity and other metabolic disorders.

<comment><USER7> Where can I read about medical science having been more focused on understanding in the past? I think the focus on small increments in (relatively) unimportant medical knowledge is perhaps the greatest tragedy of our time.

Also, who calculates dietary intake that way?

"Confusing statistical significance with practical significance" \-- that's a great phrase!

<comment><USER8> >"Where can I read about medical science having been more focused on understanding in the past?"

As far as I know no one has really written this up, it is just something you figure out by reading the literature. You see that despite the technological limitations at the time they tried to include tables of the data in as much detail as was practical and rule out competing explanations, etc. Over the decades this degenerated into testing null hypotheses and reporting p-values and averages. Now there is somewhat a recovery due to the sheer ease of transmitting information, but it is still amazing how little this is taken advantage of in general.

I've thought about a book but not sure people would buy it. How much would you pay for something like that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So in other words, publishing papers in journals has gone much the same route as the media, where getting something out quickly is rewarded more than doing a good job.

<comment><USER10> and consumer tech, and manufacturing in general, and politics, and policing, and...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> In other news; water is wet.

</comment><comment><USER12> Pressure is a good thing. Pressure does affect quality. We never have enough time to ship things. There are always improvements that we can make.

Pressure is always there. It's one of those things which expands to take up whatever space which we are given. More time (shipping less) doesn't necessarily mean better quality. There are days when I can get twice as much done just because my task list has twice as much things. Then there are days when simple things on a short task list seems to take me forever. I feel I have more time so maybe I'm more susceptible to going down rabbit holes. Or maybe I procrastinate until I have enough time that I know the task will really take.

I wonder if people would really improve the quality if given the time to do so. Maybe the issue is that they don't have the tools to improve the quality in the first place. At a certain point your brain calls the task done and you aren't going to do anything more to it. Give more time to a developer writing spaghetti code and you'll probably just get more spaghetti code. To really improve, the developer would have to go through some big personal change (a steady diet of code reviews, reading good code and using other resources for improvement).

Maybe it's best to improve the processes. In software we can ship something with a beta label and expect problems. Then we can iterate on the software to improve it.

And is publishing less a solution to drowning in noise? That seems to be a separate problem to be solved using different tools. There will always be a growing volume and with volume comes noise.

<comment><USER13> For the first part of your comment I will just say that research does not work like this.

However, that is interesting:

> Maybe it's best to improve the processes. In software we can ship something > with a beta label and expect problems. Then we can iterate on the software > to improve it.

That's more or less an analogy of what people talking about open peer review are saying, and I think it is quite right.

<comment><USER12> I don't live in the world of publishing. But pressure is what pushes me to pay the rent. And that's probably the case for most people.</comment></comment></comment>