Sorry, NSA, Terrorists Don't Use Verizon. Or Skype. Or Gmail - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/hey-nsa-terrorists-dont-use-verizon-or-skype-or-gmail <comment><USER2> It's depressing that this article is so high on HN right now. It's another example of a poor report trivializing an important debate. Meanwhile, many of the comments here are snarky and sardonic which further degrades the dialog. This is a serious subject and should be treated as such.

It's easy to shout hurray for your side. It's easy to demonize your enemy. According to the government, Snowden is a traitor. According to many frequent HN readers, the government is completely out of the control. Neither of these claims is true, but they are difficult to get past.

Although Snowden is certainly not a traitor, the accusation is serious. His life and freedom hang in the balance. Politicians and political pundits are looking for an easy solution when they demonize Snowden. Making him out to be the enemy makes it easier to keep the country calm about the issues he unveiled.

While Snowden isn't a monster, the surveillance programs are not evil either. They are shocking. They evoke emotional response. They can be frightening -- especially since we don't know how much deeper the programs go. Still, they are the largely the result of people trying to defend the country from terrorism. Regardless of the cynicism you bring to the topic, the primary goal of these programs is to save lives. Accept that, take a breath, then reevaluate your grievances.

I'm not suggesting that there's nothing to be angry or worried about. I'm certainly not saying that the programs are right or benevolent. I'm saying that this is important and meaningful and needs to be treated as such rather than another opportunity to win points in some silly political game.

<comment><USER3> Just how many lives has terrorism claimed in the past decade?

Smoking has probably claimed more lives just today than terrorist attacks on US soil in the past decade. So I don't think it warrants any action at all.

Let's face it the aim of terrorism is to scare people and if we are so scared that we're giving away basic human rights (and correspondence secrecy is a basic human right) then the terrorist won.

<comment><USER4> _Just how many lives has terrorism claimed in the past decade?_

It's easy to answer that question now. No one knew the answer to that a decade ago. No one knows how many lives terrorism will claim in the next decade. The government does have to plan for the worst case scenario.

<comment><USER5> Replace "terrorism" with "killer robots" or "sharks" or "bedbugs". Your statement remains as valid as ever, but somehow the government is only spending billions (or trillions) on _one_ of them. Why?

<comment><USER4> The NSA does a lot more than just fight terrorism and of course the US invests a huge amount of money in mitigating the impact of other risks like natural disasters. They have to look at all these different threats and divvy up the money accordingly.

<comment><USER5> Conversely, a lot of US government organizations are involved in fighting terrorism besides the NSA.

None of this answers my question: of all these possibilities, why does the government only go after one?

<comment><USER6> You speak as if the government _doesn 't_ have programs that track sharks or bedbugs.

<comment><USER7> Sure, but there's a point where the government could go too far. For example, if the government starting having random mattress inspections inside peoples homes that would be way too intrusive despite any reductions in bedbugs that might result.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Even with the panic that has happened regarding the revelations of mass- surveillance I don't think the public at large truly realizes how screwed up this situation is.

The common defense of sweeping surveillance is that it serves an important purpose, finding terrorists, and it has succeeded in that purpose.

Ignoring the very serious problems with framing the debate in such a way it's also fundamentally misleading. There have been many cases of "terrorist plots" within the US having been foiled over the last few years, but many if not most of these are not as serious as most would believe. A stereotypical "foiled terrorist plot" begins with a radicalized individual who somehow comes to the attention of the authorities. Then the FBI spins up an elaborate sting to essentially entrap the radicalized individual into committing to some sort of attack, often providing fake bombs in the process. And just before they go through with their planned "attack" the FBI arrests them.

Examples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_El_Khalifi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amine_El_Khalifi) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Osman_Mohamud](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Osman_Mohamud) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farooque_Ahmed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farooque_Ahmed) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Osmakac](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_Osmakac)

Meanwhile, the FBI, NSA, TSA, et al have failed to foil many much more serious attacks, such as the Boston bombings, the Fort Hood shooting, the "underwear bomber", the failed 2010 Times Square bombing attempt, etc.

<comment><USER9> This sort of "entrapment" is legal in the US? But maybe they wouldn't care. Anyway, wouldn't it be more useful to invest the time, money and energy in facilitating social integration of these individuals. Just asking.

<comment><USER8> First off, the vast majority of folks snatched up in these stings end up pleading guilty. It's simple logic, a certainty of spending 20 years in prison is vastly better than the chance of serving a life sentence or being executed.

However, from the strictest legal perspective it's questionable how much the entrapment defense could be used in these cases. From a practical perspective much of this is clearcut entrapment. However, from a legal perspective you have folks who very clearly make strong statements saying they are willing to commit acts of terror and then when presented with the opportunity (in an elaborate masquerade put on by federal agents) they follow through. I can't imagine many lawyers salivating at the prospect of defending that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Actually, they used to. Then they wised up and started using couriers. Both worked to the disadvantage of Al Quaida. When they stopped using electronic communications their organization suffered. Then, it was the movements of a courier that gave away Bin Laden.

So, regardless of whether you think it's OK for the NSA to spy on everyone, this push did break down Al Quaida's organization.

Whether it affects cell oriented terrorism (or 'lone wolf' terrorism) is another matter. For example, for the Boston bombers one of them did mention something about terrorism and came on the radar, but the FBI misjudged the threat.

<comment><USER11> "So, regardless of whether you think it's OK for the NSA to spy on everyone, this push did break down Al Quaida's organization."

OK, so why are we continuing it? We broke Al Qaeda, we killed their leaders. We got revenge for the September 11th attacks.

To put it another way, who is our enemy now?

<comment><USER10> To prevent further attacks. The situation re: radicalization has not changed, and will not change until the economic and social situation in Arab countries improves and/or Saudi influence changes/decreases.

Radical Islam is still around, as you can see by their infiltration of various populist movements in the Arab countries.

Monitoring of social media (as someone mentioned elsewhere here) is probably a very cost effective way of keeping tabs of the flow of money and influence of radical groups.

<comment><USER11> Except that terrorist attacks on the US were rare _before_ this program, _before_ its predecessors, and _before_ the Internet. "Radical Islam" is not a specific threat by any stretch of the imagination. Most Islamic terrorists are fighting _in the Middle East_ , not in America.

Further, this program is _not_ focused on Islamic groups. It is broad, wholesale surveillance. _Everyone_ is being monitored.

Sorry, but the "we are doing this to keep you safe" line is getting pretty old.

<comment><USER10> Re: Terrorism. Yes, most of the death count is at the homes of terrorism (which perversely gives the greatest hope that it will stop). However, radical Islamic terrorism is exported all over the world.

Re: Why have espionage agencies, and what should be their scope. Yes, this is a good debate but along the lines of "How big should our military be?" I believe the answer is very complex. As a citizen of a country I would hope my country has a military and an intelligence agency. I would hope both are independent of political influence, yet are under the leash of civilian government.

What should the scope of a spy agency be? By the very nature of the business it needs to be secret from the general public (i.e. other nations). Countries have spied on each other through out history because you really want to know what the other fellow is up to, especially if you can do something about it.

Snowden's statements re: spying on China/Russia whatever are not surprising. If you are a US citizen I would hope that you hope your intelligence agencies are keeping an eye on China/Russia, just as a Chinese citizen you would hope the Chinese government is trying to get information about the US.

It's a delicate game that all countries play to varying degrees of success.

Where Snowden has crossed the line is that he was working for the government and then decided to embarrass it re: other countries.

If Snowden had said, look China spies on the US, Russia spies on China, and the US spies on both. I think this is illegal, he would have been an interesting person to follow though a little naive.

From what he has done, I would think, there is a pretty high chance he is on some payroll, probably Chinese. Again, as others have mentioned, his timing and his statements are not that of a person trying to correct a wrong. It really sounds like some one who's a pawn in a diplomatic game.

<comment><USER12> Why should embarrassing one's government be 'crossing a line'?

In the emperor's with no clothes story would you suggest the boy should be hanged?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Article seems to kind of miss the point. While the NSA's STATED reasons for these programs is to "fight terror" that doesn't necessarily mean it is their actual reason. If they want to spy on activists and everyday citizens this seems like a pretty solid strategy.

<comment><USER14> Agreed, however, what is the value in spying on activists (assuming you mean the non-extremist type)and everyday citizens?

<comment><USER15> One man's "activist" is another man's terrorist, basically. Activists are liable to convert to extremism with the right set of triggers. This can therefore qualify as "counterterrorism", because if they access all your communications they may be able to flag you as a potential clinic bomber, etc.

Also, I seriously doubt the assertion in the headline that terrorists simply don't use common online services, and even if this were true, the ripples that can be correlated from their associates who _do_ use these services would still be of interest to law enforcement.

<comment><USER14> Yup, I agree with you here... I was wondering if the person who made the comment had any educated reason for doing so...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There seems to be two NSAs in the media right now: the extremely competent one that can access your email from a desktop without any oversight or trouble and the bumbling idiots who don't know more about terrorists than reporters.

It doesn't mesh.

<comment><USER17> Both are portrayals meant to advance a particular agenda. Split the difference, you'll probably find the truth somewhere in the middle.

<comment><USER18> What does that even mean? People usually say this when they want to sound wise but to me it sounds like nonsense cowardly pseudo-intellectualism. So you've determined the truth is "somewhere in the middle" of two vast extremes. How does that contribute to the conversation? It's like playing the "guess what number I'm thinking of" game and the options are between 1 and 1,000,000 and you guess "somewhere in the middle" and proudly walk away. More importantly, it adds to the idea that there is one truth, that the whole thing can be boiled down to any easy and simple truth. This isn't the case, reality is far more complicated than that.

<comment><USER17> Wow, people are reading so much more into that than I intended.

I only _meant_ that portrayals of the government, particularly on HN lately, sometimes seem to assume that it's some kind of ultimately corrupt, death- dealing junta that will put you on a blacklist for just thinking about them, or a useless bureaucratic morass. I wasn't intending to make a value judgement on anything. I probably shouldn't have used the word 'truth.'

<comment><USER19> So, if you're a death-dealing junta, you can always soften criticism by advancing a completely contrary lie? Or alternatively, if you want to attack a group of Girl Scouts, make up and tell terrible lies about them.

>seem to assume that it's some kind of ultimately corrupt, death-dealing junta that will put you on a blacklist for just thinking about them

I haven't seen anyone call them a junta, otherwise, it's not without precedent, you know. Hell, the FBI's headquarters still proudly bears the name of its most disgraceful former director (37 years!), who directed every kind of activity we find antithetical to liberty and justice.

see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO)

and especially, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Post- COINTELPRO_ope...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Post- COINTELPRO_operations)

<comment><USER17> _So, if you 're a death-dealing junta, you can always soften criticism by advancing a completely contrary lie?_

Actually, probably yes. Almost always.

But again, Kylekramer was suggesting it seemed odd for these two contradictory portrayals of the NSA to exist. I was just suggesting that there was no real contradiction, because people can tend to resort to extremes to advance their point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is the rationale behind PRISM really terrorism?

Here in Germany there's a lot of talk that PRISM is ultimately a tool for industry espionage. The Boundless Informant world map shows Germany in bright orange. People are wondering: Is Germany breeding terrorists or is NSA simply interested in trade secrets?

Going by that logic, terrorism is a red herring. By making details about PRISM and NSA's hacking activities public, Snowden is undermining the US's ability to covertly vacuum up trade secrets, thus weakening the US industry. _That_ 's why the US government is freaking out. You can bet that German companies are now reconsidering using cloud services hosted in the US, or cloud services at all, or American (closed source / potentially backdoored) software at all.

<comment><USER17> Don't be offended by this, please, but what could Germany in particular possibly be doing that's so awesome and advanced that the United States would have to resort to theft to replicate it?

If it were the case, I would expect companies to be involved in corporate espionage, not the government.

<comment><USER21> Smart and innovative people live outside of us too. As for the theft, it could be as simple as stealing a patent idea and patenting it in us so no matter what the original inventor does some of his money wil go to us government.

<comment><USER17> Sure, but even so I would expect a competing American company to be concerned about that... there's no reason for the NSA to care, since it probably doesn't affect national security.

<comment><USER22> NSA has it now. Who knows what other organisation is collecting data, going to inherit data collected by other organisations or just leasing access on a "per case" basis.

Once collected and analysed, this data is going to be like a kind of "credit rating". It will show who is a social influencer and what are his/her political leanings and their social network. Even if they are clean, a motivated party could blackmail them if anyone in their immediate circle has done anything illegal.

Imagine if mafia got a copy of this. What could they do with a blackmail database?

<comment><USER17> _Once collected and analysed, this data is going to be like a kind of "credit rating". It will show who is a social influencer and what are his/her political leanings and their social network._

Not that i'm putting on my tinfoil hat or anything, but from what I understand, Obama essentially did that (assigned something like a 'voter' rating) during the last election. Not through any illegal means, mind you (that i'm aware of), but still he was able to win the election handily through efficient social engineering and voter targeting. So there does appear to be a use case for this being effective.

That does actually raise an interesting question -- assuming this network still exists in ten years time, what happens to it? Does it get folded into the tax bureaucracy, healthcare, do lawyers get to access it?

 _Imagine if mafia got a copy of this. What could they do with a blackmail database?_

Strictly speaking, not much more than they could do now, just hacking people's likely easily bruteforced email and social media accounts. They'd be more interested in a credit card number/SSN database anyway I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The NSA isn't focused exclusively on terrorism. It has ~40k employees who work on a wide range of areas, drug cartels, human trafficking, money laundering, counter intelligence, espionage, and hundreds of others. It's mighty presumptuous for people not "in the know" to speak on what is and isn't valuable to the NSA's missions.

As for terrorists, if someone were a skilled terrorist their entire life, they probably wouldn't live digital traces within the US. But this isn't the case; people become terrorists, and some of those become skilled terrorists. There is immense value in having intelligence on people before they become a terrorist and needless to say, before they hone their tradecraft and drop from the grid.

<comment><USER24> Yea, I think what some people are worried about though, are the (a) possibility of many false positives and (b) the collateral damage with "common crimes". In the latter I mean: how far into the realm of everyday rule- breaking will these agencies go? Will you get a ticket mailed to you because you rolled through a stop sign and your license plate was captured? Will you get police officer (with warrant) at your door to search your premises because you purchased a book about marijuana growing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Well, I'll have to disagree in full with the points the author is trying to make.

"A recent Bloomberg piece points to a 2012 report on terrorism which found that most serious terrorists steer clear of the most obvious platforms—major cell networks, Google, Skype, Facebook, etc."

The 2012 report cited wasn't some senate oversight committee, a DIRNSA (director NSA) report, or a truly credible intelligence source. It was from the Dutch Intelligence agency, an agency focused on leftist activity vs. right-wing Islamic terrorism.

"In 2010, Google estimated that it had indexed just 0.004% of the internet—meaning the vast majority of the web is open for surreptitious message-sending business. Terrorists simply aren't dumb enough to discuss their secret plans over Skype or to email each other confidential information on Gmail."

Do you think that it's feasible for terrorists to use couriers/tradecraft to transmit all messages to their group members around the world? If I told you right now to get a message to your cousin in Connecticut within an hour without using Skype/email/phone or anything of the other means listed, could you do it? Let's say you answer that you'll just use steganography ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography)) to hide the message. How are you going to communicate to your cousin where to look for the message and how to break it down?

Armchair intelligence analysis is the same as armchair anything -- you have no basis for what you're talking about except a bunch of redacted reports, news articles, and spy movies. Intelligence analysis is a very straightforward thing, though, which a lot of folks working in tech would be really good at, but articles like this are the equivalent of commenting on the merits of using PHP having never written a line of code in your life.

I understand peoples' frustration with what (if true) would be an egregious slight on the public trust. But, is it more likely that the 4+ million security clearance holders are in on some large conspiracy to take away our freedoms, or that a disgruntled worker wanted to watch the world burn a little. Having worked in every facet of the NSA as a linguist/intelligence analyst/programmer/many other things, and CIA contractor for a year, I tend to think the latter, and I'm very vocal about my thoughts on the intelligence community.

Read my previous comments if you want to see my thoughts on how the media has been getting it wrong, and what the deal is from the perspective of someone who worked in this community.

<comment><USER26> This is just patently not true. If you read up how Osama bin Laden practiced tradecraft, you'd know that he did not even so much have a land line at his compound when they offed him, definitely not a cell phone. If you'd like a credible news source for these sorts of things, read Stratfor. They're relatively cheap as far as these things go. Terrorists do not use gmail, skype or cell phones.

You are right that armchair BS isn't going to get us anywhere here. To that end, your comment is ironic because _do_ know that the real terrorists know they're being snooped on.

<comment><USER25> While I can't comment on the UBL part, I will say that the stratfor part made me pee a little in my pants. I don't mean this to come off as condescending, but stratfor is one of the biggest jokes by people who do real intelligence. It's like saying "if you want to know what's really going on in the world and what's really important, watch Fox News.".

<comment><USER26> You know... it's a joke, but it's still less of a joke than everything else out there, kind of like Hacker News or /r/programming. ;-) The people who actually do "real" anything tend to think that everything beneath them is a joke.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Should post the original article that did the research: [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-23/u-s-surveillance- is...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-23/u-s-surveillance-is-not-aimed- at-terrorists.html)

<comment><USER28> Thanks! I have been trying to make this point to my friends in light of recent events

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I can think of three possible reasons (I claim no expertise here) to doubt that FISA orders and phone metadata are completely useless against terrorists even if (as seems likely) serious terrorists know to steer clear of Skype, Facebook and friends.

1) By monitoring Internet services like these, the NSA denies their use to the terrorists. It's not as if exclusively using couriers, dead drops and the like has no costs to an organisation (say, have you moved off GMail yet?) Apparently some fairly serious terrorists are using the Internet in more secure ways, but the spooks have some ability to go after those too.

2) Any big network or organisations is going to have slipups, no matter how good it is. It would be hard to imagine that no serious terrorist ever gets lazy, or decides to take a risk under time pressure.

3) There have to be a lot of guys who start out as Facebook jihadis, and only later get serious and realise (or have it explained to them) that they need to stop making it easy for the authorities to track them. But by that time they'll already have left a useful trail of contacts and activity through FB. (By the way, that's one reason why I think it's wrong to assume that PRISM has been useless even if it hasn't stopped any specific attacks. Realistically, that kind of intelligence is going to be less about discovering big plots _just in time_ and more about gathering enough information to locate and move on terrorists - espcially if you can then turn them into informers. Running "touts" is central to effective counterterrorism, if history is any guide.)

</comment><comment><USER30> Criminals (I hate to use the word "terrorist" because it has a distracting political bias - we're talking about people doing bad things to other people) are not some sort of hyper-disciplined super spies. They do some pretty dumb things. A while back I met a guy looking to put together a Twitter system designed to combat drug cartels, who, yes, communicated via _Twitter_. This was several years ago, but still.

The whole reason I'm so upset about what the NSA is doing is because it _works_ , and over time it will work much better than it does today.

</comment><comment><USER31> The author is focusing on the wrong issue. He is mostly concerned with whether or not the surveillance is effective.

If effectiveness were the only consideration, he would have a weak argument. Even if most terrorists are smart enough to avoid Gmail, Skype and cellular networks, it might still make sense to eavesdrop in these places.

After all, smart criminals sometimes get caught because they make dumb mistakes. For example, my understanding is that Sabu (a member of Anonymous) was caught because he forgot to use Tor in one instance when he logged into a social network.

But we can argue all day about whether or not PRISM is effective. I think the author would have a stronger argument if he focused on the fact that the program is unconstitutional, regardless of how well it works.

<comment><USER32> Why limit your argument to one or the other? Some people will think PRISM is effective, others may not. Some people may think the privacy issues are important, others may not. But surely they balance each other out - if the NSA cannot catch any terrorists, then it doesn't matter if the privacy issues are not important, PRISM is clearly a waste of money, case over. And presumably somewhere along the line it could go the other way - if 50% of letters contain anthrax, would you not be happy sacrificing some privacy to let the NSA to screen them for you? Or a wider example, what if there was evidence that without PRISM, terrorists would be killing 1000s of Americans on a weekly basis - would we all be so against it still?

<comment><USER31> You're welcome to make any argument about PRISM. But if your goal is to discredit the program and ensure others like it won't be established, the legal argument is stronger and more direct: Government programs can't violate constitutional rights, regardless of their efficacy. Period.

Why dance around your opponent when you know where to place a powerful right- hook?

<comment><USER32> Clearly the right-hook hasn't knocked them out yet - which is perhaps why even the strongest boxers supplement their fist power with at least a little foot movement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I think the next leak will show they've redefined 'terrorist' and that a terrorist these days is anyone who does anything the US doesn't like and is vaguely related ultimately back to national security. So, I think already we've established that any drug crimes (even low-level ones) are national security threats. Bitcoin miners will soon be terrorists I think. People encrypting email are highly suspect and probably a national security threat. People running free web hosting will soon be terrorists. It directly serves the interests of the government for everyone to be considered a terrorist. It's probably one of the biggest loopholes our country's seen.

</comment><comment><USER34> "In 2010, Google estimated that it had indexed just 0.004% of the internet."

I don't believe this. Does anyone else?

<comment><USER35> Infographic with source at the bottom here: [http://urlm.co/blog/2010/10/28/the-awesome-size-of-the- inter...](http://urlm.co/blog/2010/10/28/the-awesome-size-of-the-internet- infographic/)

<comment><USER34> So Google has indexed 200TB? My cat pictures alone are 1TB!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't buy the concept that terrorists don't use common online services. Does anybody actually believe things are safer if you use HushMail et al as your provider? While it's unlikely that the NSA has asked HushMail to FTP up all of its account data as it apparently did with PRISM participants, one would be highly naive to assume that intelligence services have just decided to leave certain providers' data untouched just because they're unwilling to lay out the welcome mat. One would therefore logically conclude that with very basic steganographic measures, it's easier to hide among the hundreds of millions of mails that Google processes each day than the thousands processed by HushMail or other minor email providers (or even a fully-hosted custom mail server at "terrorists-r-us.com").

Furthermore, if you use any cryptography at all besides SSL you're probably already on an NSA list somewhere, but GnuPG alleviates all of these concerns and I'm sure that some terrorist organizations have discovered it. In this case, there should be no issue using Gmail or other services for your communication.

</comment><comment><USER36> I've really nothing more to say about the NSA at this point. I'd just like to give a shout out to Vice for being one of the most vital and relevant news organizations of the modern era. Whenever people say journalism is dead, I just point them to a Vice article. They make me proud to have a journo background.

<comment><USER37> They certainly seem less beholden to whomever the mainstream media is trying not to upset.

<comment><USER36> Indeed, but more than that, they cover some amazing material and actually put people in places and shed light on some really uncomfortable topics. They manage to make news as informative as it is enthralling. I can't imagine a better way to cover news.

<comment><USER38> As someone whose mother was born and raised in Karachi and who visits the city with some frequency, my jaw dropped when I saw their reporting from there. The local media won't even go near half the people they managed to get interviews from. They were a bit jumpy but their brio more makes up for it. That and the Mexican Mormon drug war were the real kickers.

<comment><USER38> Well to be a bit more accurate, the media will interview them but with kid gloves. The last time a TV station aired someone obliquely criticizing the MQM political party (as Vice did), all the cars in their parking lot got torched and the windows got shot out of their studio while they were broadcasting live.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Well apparently both Al-Qaeda and some CIA employees uses public email accounts like Gmail to communicate in secret.[0]

The method is a little bit different than normally email. They used Gmail as a electronic dropbox by saving messages in the draft folder, but now that NSA have direct access that are probably picking up that also. So be careful not to make a draft with text like "the drunk monkey sings at midnight", or the NSA may come knocking :)

0: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12/heres- the-e-mail-trick-petraeus-and-broadwell-used-to-communicate/)

<comment><USER40> Wasn't this 1) how Petraeus and his biographer carried on their affair, and 2) how they got caught?

<comment><USER6> Yes and yes, though #2 didn't happen until the FBI had been tipped off for other reasons, IIRC.

<comment><USER40> Right, and I think it was correlated against other records (hotel stays?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Don't the people that the terrorists need to recruit use Skype, and GMail, and Facebook? Find the recruiters & PR types that have to be where the people are, and that's one more in you have with a nascent terror cell.

<comment><USER41> Indeed. If the objection is that people drop off the easy to see communication systems and start having more shielded communications as they radicalize, then the objection carries within itself a description of very pattern that one can use such a internet traffic surveillance program to search for.

A naive version would generate plenty of false positives, but following up on random entries in the list generated would quickly reveal classes of other reasons that people's comms go dark (having children, new job, moving to a new town, major injury or illness, depression, etc.), and one could start filtering using that. Also one might get some use out of looking for clusters of people going dark in various social-connection graphs, and commonalities of what people fitting the comms-going-dark pattern read and say online.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Some clearly terrorist elements have used all three of the services in the headline. It still doesn't make NSA's domestic surveillance, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, right.

</comment><comment><USER43> I would just like to crosspost a comment from reddit user MarcusHalberstram88 which I found to be insightful :

Ok, I feel I have to speak up. This is why I take issue with subs like /r/politics, and I would hope for more from /r/technology.

Most people who see this post will only read the title and not follow the link to the article (even though the title sensationalizes the article). If someone does actually click, this post links to a Motherboard article, which basically just cites, summarizes, and links to a Bloomberg article. The Bloomberg article[1] cites, extrapolates, and links to AIVD UK (a Dutch website). Said Dutch website[2] (finally) links to the actual report that all these different sources are supposedly reporting on. That report was by the General Intelligence and Security Service for the Dutch Ministry of Interiors and Kingdom Relations.

The actual report itself is just shy of 30 pages long and dedicates one of its four chapters of findings to "How does online Jihadism work?" (roughly 4 pages).

I think 4 pages discussing where and how (it is thought) 25,000 Jihadists gather online is one thing. Making a blanket statement saying that terrorists do not use Verizon, Skype, or Gmail is another. But anyone who just reads the title of this post, or just reads the article that the post links to, or even the article that THAT article links to, may believe otherwise.

[1] [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-23/u-s-surveillance- is...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-23/u-s-surveillance-is-not-aimed- at-terrorists.html)

[2] [https://www.aivd.nl/english/publications- press/@2873/jihadis...](https://www.aivd.nl/english/publications- press/@2873/jihadism-web/)

</comment><comment><USER44> From the original brochure:

> Of course, jihadists are also active on the surface Web, where they use > social media and various applications, such as email, Internet telephony and > chat programmes, to name a few. They use these means of communication to > actively spread jihadist ideas, recruit new jihadists and proactively > distribute and promote propaganda material. Jihadists that are active on the > surface Web are afraid of being detected, which is why there is no (or very > limited) dynamic interaction, as opposed to what is observed on core forums.

> "Your talk on YouTube can be monitored by the Kuffar. _Many a brother were > arrested based on intelligence from YouTube_ , they will not hesitate to > handover your IP details to Kuffar. Therefore, it is NOT the place you > should be social networking."

The brochure in general seems light on science, and I'm not sure it "drew a convincing picture", although I admit I didn't read the whole thing.

</comment><comment><USER45> well they don't use it anymore, thanks to snowden

We all better hope that Bloomberg/Vice is more authoritative on this subject than the intelligence community or else the NON-ZERO number of terrorism cases involving these types of comms just went dark.

Btw, wasn't it UBLs courier who was caught through his cell phone?

<comment><USER46> That's crap, anyone paying attention knew that modern communications have been compromised by various governments over a decade ago, if not longer. The smart ones never used such unsecured communications in the first place. Nothing Snowden released changes the fact that only stupid people communicate over third party services when they are trying to keep secrets. It would be like the US military issuing unencrypted cell phones to troops on the front-line.

<comment> brown9-2 _The smart ones never used such unsecured communications in the first place._

I don't understand why people always trot this argument out. The dumb terrorists are capable of killing and injuring innocents also.

<comment><USER46> Just because you don't understand doesn't make it wrong. I agree that dumb terrorists are capable of killing and injuring innocents, in fact I would say the dumb ones are the most dangerous because they are rather difficult to identify beforehand; regardless of spying capabilities our government has.

But none of this has anything to do with my disagreement with the top comment in that all of the world's terrorists suddenly stopped using Verizon to discuss their dastardly plans just because of Snowden.

<comment> brown9-2 Apologies, I misread your comment. I've seen a lot of people trot out "well the smart terrorists already knew this" line in defense of these leaks purportedly having harmed national security, that it's proof that these leaks could not have harmed national security.

(which then is a bit ironic to claim that these leaks are not dangerous because terrorists already knew this, but that these leaks are important for civil liberties because apparently Americans did not know this)

<comment><USER46> First off, I don't necessarily feel apologies is warranted for this discussion.

Yes, I find that defense somewhat questionable in some terms because I do believe the leaks do in fact harm national security. The problem is that it seems that these programs are dangerously close to crossing the line of leading into a surveillance state and that the reason it may have crossed that line is because the people who have the responsibility to reign such things in have apparently failed to do so.

Therefore, yes, national security was harmed but I'm willing to sacrifice that somewhat to make sure our liberties are still intact. I don't feel the need to trade liberties for security if that security is essentially making the populace prisoners to the state for "their own safety".

I also enjoy seeing the contradictions such as you describe. The reports are full of "but" moments that no one seems to be addressing. The media is a big fail on all this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I also have to disagree with this statement and the article in general. It's very difficult to say what terrorists use when they are living in the US, let alone make a general statement that they don't use them because they'd be stupid to use these services. That actually makes the argument for why using these services might be advantageous for them even stronger. If you (the general population) doesn't think they'd use it, that makes it more of a reason for them to use it.

Let me big clear that this is not an argument for NSA-type surveillance, however, I don't think we should be arguing against the surveillance using general statements or more accurately opinions like these. Argue against surveillance with more factual/strong cases.

</comment><comment><USER48> This reminds me of the Streetlight Effect, also known as observational bias. [1]

I just find the whole situation quite disappointing.

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

</comment><comment><USER49> I often say, tongue firmly in cheek, that if Google doesn't know something it is not meant to be known - or exist. Obviously this is not true. I would hate to think that in the future if "intelligence" does not exist in an NSA database then it does not exist. Unfortunately, I feel this will be the case. Let's take the recent Boston Bombing, not only did the US get a tip off but certainly they had sigint from various sources. Were they able to connect the dots? No, they were not.

"Intelligence" is more than just rows in a database.

</comment><comment><USER50> > The NSA has to collect the metadata from all of our phone calls because > terrorists, right?

No. The NSA is keeping an eye on us. The National Security State has ossified into a cult. All non-members of the cult are viewed with suspicion.

When the Inquisition made excuses for its excesses, it was in the name of the "salvation" of the flock. When the Church of the NSA makes excuses for its excesses, it's in the name of our "security".

There are always people willing to be fooled by priests and bureaucrats. Priests and bureaucrats love those people.

</comment><comment><USER51> Actually, they were using Gmail drafts to communicate with each other?

<comment><USER52> Exactly the point I was going to make. That's how Petraeus was communicating with his mistress, and they found her by cross referencing checkins at all the hotels revealed by IP addresses that were at the other end of the conversation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm undecided on the issue, however it seems completely logical to me that terrorists wouldn't use venues that are being monitored by the NSA. Would that still be the case if those lines of communications weren't monitored at all? In addition, if the NSA started monitoring whatever the terrorists use at present, would they continue to use it? Doubtful.

I don't think this article comes to the clever conclusion that it thinks it does.

</comment><comment><USER54> I dislike this article because it asserts that the NSA has ever said "a lot of terrorists use X, Y and Z." In reality, the NSA has said "tracking this data w.r.t. terrorism doesn't always prevent terrorist crimes, but it has been successful in the past." It seems like nonsense to assert that none, zero, nil terrorists use these services... I agree with Arnor in his comment - this is a trivializing report.

</comment><comment><USER55> For the definition of 'terrorist' that includes well-informed, trained cadres, and not the definition of 'terrorist' that includes rampant amateurs, the kind that get stopped before they do anything serious. The author has a fairly naive view of what a terrorist is

</comment><comment><USER56> Spoiler alert: It's not for terrorists at all. [http://www.reddit.com/r/misc/comments/1gziqi/obamas_lobbyist...](http://www.reddit.com/r/misc/comments/1gziqi/obamas_lobbyists_admit_to_wanting_webcam_spying/)

<comment><USER57> How fortunate for them that Xbox One exists now.

<comment><USER58> Not this crap again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> _>.. may only be good for gathering information on the stupidest, lowest- ranking of terrorists_

Yes, of course. And 99% of them _are_ in stupidest, lowest-ranking part. As for the smartest and highest-ranking ones, there is undercover agents and informators.

</comment><comment><USER60> Of course. It's all about the $$ and perceived security theater.

</comment><comment><USER61> Don't they use snailmail, tin cans with strings, chalk marks on objects, and sign language? Lowbie tech.

</comment><comment><USER62> What about the Boston marathon bombers? One of them was on welfare. Strong assumption in the title.

</comment><comment><USER63> Pretty sure the Boston Bombers used exactly those services.

And they were/are US citizens.

</comment><comment><USER64> Plenty use yahoo and MSN messenger, though, historically.

</comment><comment><USER65> This one made me chuckle: "So, essentially, the NSA is deeply compromising our privacy so that it can do an extremely shitty job of looking for terrorists. Nice."

Would be so funny, if it wasn't so sad...

</comment><comment><USER66> They don't use it because NSA monitors it

</comment><comment><USER67> one thing i could tell,survilencing the people in USA is bearable(non- american). but other countries are.

<comment><USER67> one thing i could tell,survilencing the people in USA is bearable(non- american). but other countries aren't</comment></comment>


From Ptolemy to GPS, a Brief History of Maps - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/brief-history-maps-180963685/?no-ist <comment><USER2> This was a really cool article, and is also the reason why I set my Mapping applications to navigate me "north up" instead of "heading up." This way, I always have to keep my mind active and can see where I'm headed towards</comment>


The Most Important Questions About Coding Bootcamps - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@hackupstate/the-most-important-questions-about-coding-bootcamps-beea11b914e0#.i8f8re344 <comment><USER2> Go to city college, get an AS in computer science. It's cheaper, the credits transfer, and it still looks better than a 'bootcamp'.</comment>


Founders Run Amok: It Starts With a Term Sheet - <AUTHOR> http://www.thisisgoingtobebig.com/blog/2014/5/27/founders-run-amok-it-starts-with-a-term-sheet.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Core premise:

       I hate to break it to anyone, but the creation of a board, the building
       of a strong legal base, and, to take it a step further, tedious little things
       like values statements and human resource policies, are all the work
       of building a real company.  Terms that hold founders accountable make
       them better founders and company builders.

       It ain't all coding, selling, and raising money, people.</comment>


Startup School 2009 - <AUTHOR> http://startupschool.org Where: Wheeler Auditorium, UC Berkeley. When: 24 October 2009, 9:00 am. <comment><USER2> I got an acceptance email, but the confirmation link says the application was rejected.

<comment><USER3> Same here. I'm showing up anyway.

<comment><USER4> I've rarely seen 6 words that reflect the entrepreneurial spirit so well as this post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I also got an acceptance email but the link says my application was rejected.

Did anybody get a rejection email?

</comment><comment><USER6> Will videos from the speakers be available online after the conference?

<comment><USER7> They have been in the past.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is the first startup school that I didn't get into =/

My coworker, who I told to apply since we're thinking of branching off to our own thing, got in and he's never even heard of yCombinator.

At least it will be on justin.tv!

</comment><comment><USER9> I love the videos from Startup School 2008. I wasn't aware of the application deadline, but I'll make sure to apply early for next year. Do most of you who are going book a round trip flight?

<comment><USER9> 2008 Videos - <http://www.omnisio.com/startupschool08>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Did anybody who got the acceptance letter end up at a page denoting that they were accepted? Or is everyone who got the acceptance email getting to the rejection page?

<comment><USER11> I first got a rejection, then tried about 10 minutes later and got the accepted page. So... wait around and try again.

<comment><USER12> That's the first lesson of Startup School. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is it going to be streamed over justin.tv or something?

<comment><USER7> It appears so.

<http://www.justin.tv/startupschool>

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Great! Just got an acceptance letter :) See you there. I am @yurylifshits <http://yury.name>

</comment><comment><USER15> I got it in (yay!) but I was just thinking -- how do they verify that you've been accepted when you show up?

</comment><comment><USER16> I've heard nothing -- no acceptance nor rejection. Nothing in Spam. Anyone in the same boat?

</comment><comment><USER17> Will be missing out, a little sad.

<comment><USER18> You're not alone, major bummer this morning :(

Screw it, I'm going to start my own Startup School... with hookers and blackjack! Actually forget the Startup School.</comment></comment>


Sun Flyer, an Electric Trainer Aircraft - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/cheaper-lighter-quieter-the-electrification-of-flight-is-at-hand <comment><USER2> >its high torque, available over a magnificently wide band of motor speeds

A broad torque curve isn't really useful since aircraft engines are already optimized for sustained operation at cruising speed and the range of speeds you can operate at is limited by the propeller and physics. There's no need to have a ton of torque at 1800rpm and at 6000rpm

>At 20 kilograms (45 pounds), the motor can be held in two hands, and it measures only 10 centimeters deep and 30 cm in diameter

And what's the horsepower rating and duty cycle rating on this motor? Power density is not an area where electric motors have a large advantage over ICE unless you're trying to build a cylindrical package. The article talks about doing away with durability requirements that impede a lightweight design.

>with no power-sapping transmission

Most small aircraft are direct drive.

Electric power certainly has advantages but this article may as well be a marketing brochure full of fluff.

<comment><USER3> The weight of the electric motors is definitely a lot less, but what most people don't think about is that the main weight of an electric airplane is in the batteries. The battery pack in a Tesla Model S is ~1300 lbs. The batteries required for an aircraft to have an hour long flight time still add too much weight. Batteries have gotten light enough to make it feasible, but we still need major advances in energy density to make electric airplanes make a lot of sense.

<comment><USER4> Petro-fueled airplanes also have the advantage that they can be flown lighter for short trips, trading off either performance and/or cabin load for fuel load. They also land shorter (by virtue of being lighter) at the end of typical flights.

Battery airplanes that carry the full weight of the batteries all the time have worst-case takeoff, climb, and landing performance on all flights.

It's easy to notice even 100 pounds difference in loading on light airplanes. That's a little under 17 gallons of avgas or about 90 minutes' fuel burn for a typical trainer.

If I want to take 2 extra 175# adults on a local flight, I can just leave off 60 gallons of fuel and have the same performance for a short flight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One thing that always bothered me about airplanes is the energy used to take off. On aircraft carriers, they use a launch device, allowing the airplane to "push off" against the carrier. Compare this to airplanes taking off on land, they just nail the throttle and take off by pushing air...

A land-based launch system would have a lot of advantages; lower peak power would be needed from the motor and batteries, the engines could be made smaller, the energy used to take off doesn't have to be stored on the plane, everything gets lighter and more efficient.

<comment><USER6> Catapults don't save energy--they shorten runway. The jet is at full throttle on takeoff and military aircraft are not exactly fuel misers.

<comment><USER7> Sure, they don't save energy in the sense that the laws of physics must still be obeyed- but by using the power of the catapult to increase the plane's velocity at takeoff, the motor can be optimized for flight rather than takeoff and less battery weight needs to be carried.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For the record, this is not new. Pipistrel has had a relatively successful electric trainer for a couple years now based on one of their popular LSA airframes. The only catch is that at this time I don't believe it has yet achieved FAA certification in the states.

Flight instruction is currently about $100-120/hr for aircraft rental and $40/hr for the instructor (not paid if you are soloing). This would likely halve the rate for the aircraft as fuel is currently averaging about $4.50/gallon and a C172 burns on the order of 6-8 gallons/hour and requires more maintenance. Insurance on electric aircraft will likely be cheaper too given the lower mechanical complexity, though this has yet to be seen.

<comment><USER3> Fuel ends up being about $50 an hour (depending on the price of fuel, but most C172 trainers burn close to 11 gal/h). While an electric trainer would save almost all of that money in fuel costs, most FBOs don't pay for a _new_ C172 they but one of the thousands of used ones. Buying a new electric trainer would be quite a bit more expensive than a used C172 and I'm sure that would change their rental rates for the aircraft. I think it's likely to offset the cost savings you'd get otherwise. Then again, maybe with the additional reduction in maintenance costs it might end up a bit cheaper to fly.

<comment><USER8> I actually just emailed sunflyer about pricing since that's the biggest factor initially. I will update if they get back to me. I suspect that they'll be relatively inexpensive compared to a new C172SP @ around $330,000. Maintenance is the biggest difference IMO. Aircraft ICEs burn through oil and parts like nobody's business and only last ~2000hrs before they need a $20+k overhaul. The motors should last the life of the airframe, but this will be offset by battery degradation. By the time these need battery replacement, it could be quite cheap though.

<comment><USER9> > Aircraft ICEs burn through oil and parts like nobody's business

Yikes, trainers don't have turboprops yet? I get that the initial cost would be higher (though not that much, I would think), but _engine on time_ is the commodity that training airfields sell, it seems ludicrous that they would accept the piston tax.

<comment><USER8> A 550hp PT6 turboshaft engine (pretty much the smallest one you'll see in use) is around $300k new. OEM pricing on an IO-360 180hp piston engine is about $30k. Turbocharged engines in the same hp range as the PT6 can be had for around $100k.

The dirty secret they don't tell you is that turboprop's have miserable efficiency. A 1950's era carborated piston will outperform them every time in terms of fuel economy. The Cessna caravan or Pilatus PC12 will burn on the order of 50gal/hr of jet fuel at cruise and as turbine engines get smaller, they lose further efficiency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Please someone invent better batteries that can be mass produced. My drone, my airplane, my car and my phone desire you!

</comment><comment><USER11> does anyone know the viability of hydrogen fuel cell electric motor airplanes? It seems like this is a more logical step, since from what I've read the energy density of batteries really isn't optimal for something like an airplane, even with technologies projected to come to market in the next couple of decades. And the whole thing still has the possibility of being zero-emissions.

<comment><USER12> > And the whole thing still has the possibility of being zero-emissions.

Well, so does a hybrid plane, if it's fueled with biofuels. Zero net CO2 emissions anyway. I would imagine other emissions are less problematic since it happens far away from populated areas.

I'm not sure why hydrogen is desirable. Hydrocarbons have higher energy density and is easier to store and fuel.

I can imagine that the closed loop of H2O + electricity <-> electricity + H2 + O is more efficient than the hydrocarbon equivalent. But neither technology is near their theoretical limits, so it's a bit hard to say yet.

Regardless, if we build hybrid planes, we can use whatever technology makes the most sense. It shouldn't be too hard to swap out the energy storage mechanism. Who knows, maybe we'll invent a good rechargeable aluminum-air battery and replace everything with that.

<comment><USER11> why does bio-fuel mean net zero emissions? I assume you're talking about bio- disel or ethanol? Don't both of these still produce cO2 when you burn them?

But if you're producing the hydrogen with zero emissions, then it's a 100% cO2 free process, isn't it?

<comment><USER13> When a tree makes wood, it takes CO2 out of the atmosphere. When you burn the wood, you release exactly that carbon.

Similar for making ethanol.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is there any way to do the analogous of regenerative braking on the descent in an electric airplane?

<comment><USER15> I think the issue is that by the time you are on descent, the flight is nearing an end, so the benefits for range extension aren't great.

<comment><USER8> In this case, the students will likely be doing pattern work in these aircraft which involves repeated takeoff and tochdown. In particular they will often do a touch-and-go where the aircraft maintains forward speed and takes off again. In this case, the regeneration should allow one extra circuit for every ten or so circuits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I didn't read the whole article, but if they even mentioned how long it will fly for, they sure hid that carefully. Stop wasting my time until you have a decent product!

<comment><USER17> 3 hours of flight time is more than adequate for training purposes. Not only is it a huge win for fuel savings, but safety is the number one reason I can see primary trainers going 100% electric over the next decade. Learning to deal with the intricacies of an ICE across the full range of flight conditions is half your training time wasted, and the myriad of things that can go wrong simply wont exist anymore.

<comment><USER18> Unfortunately that defeats the purpose of a trainer, because "real" planes, which the trainer is supposed to prepare you for, won't be electric for quite a bit, so you _do_ need to learn all about the intricacies and issues which can crop up on those planes.

Even assuming a rather speedy pace of improvement in battery tech, the power/weight ratio won't be there for quite a while. Batteries also don't get lighter as their energy is consumed, like fuel does, and many planes cannot even land with the same weight they are allowed to take off with.

<comment><USER19> Of course, this means a student can start in this electric trainer, and focus on learning the _flying_ right off the bat.

When a student has that down, they can graduate up to a trainer with an ICE, and then learn all of that stuff.

Exactly like learning to drive a car in an automatic first, then once you have the actual vehicle control/traffic/etc down, you graduate up to a stick shift.

<comment><USER20> Except that in countries where stick shift dominates, you start off learning to drive a stick right away.

<comment><USER21> Unlike airplanes, cars have no stall speed. You first lesson involves driving at very low speeds, away from traffic. If you have any trouble shifting you can just stop. Airplanes are less forgiving.

<comment><USER8> Electric vs ICE trainers won't have much in the way of differences. The main procedural differences will be engine start (just follow the checklist) and low power conditions where carb heat is required (becoming slightly less common now that fuel injection is available and relatively cheap). The most common trainer is the C172 which is high wing and therefore doesn't need an electric fuel pump or tank switching so that's about it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Create a playlist from your favourite artists to help find new music - <AUTHOR> http://playlist.hallofbrightcarvings.com.au/ <comment><AUTHOR> I wrote a playlist generator that uses related artists map found at music- map.com and last.fm to generate a YouTube playlist of artists you might like based on the supplied seed.</comment>


A swift Introduction to Swift - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/giordano/a-swift-introduction-to-swift <comment><USER2> > Unfortunately 95% of the complexity is in the massive API set, not language > syntax.

Can't agree with this more. I'm a web developer (with Scala experience) and was watching the WWDC live streaming. As soon as I heard about Swift I had just one aim - download Xcode 6 and give the playground a go. Within two days, I managed to go through the iBook on Swift. But I still don't have a single app ready. Most of swift tuts teach only about the language and the Obj C tuts are hard to port (for a beginner). The new language is surely more approachable to newcomers but its still going to take time to learn the Cocoa framework, Storyboard and other parts involved in building an app.

<comment><USER3> That said, the Cocoa/iOS ecosystem has better resources for diving deep into its style and capabilities than any other I have worked with.

The Big Nerd Ranch set of books [1] is fantastic. It explains "how we do things" and "how we learn about new things" for its community better than any other book for any other community I've tried. It doesn't just teach a language or show a few examples, but actually walks you through the experience of reading documentation for, playing around with, and ultimately building a finished app using a new API or part of the ecosystem. After you're done with the books, there is plenty to learn, but you know where to look and how to go about doing it.

Then I compare that to what it took me to become a web programmer. While it seems "easy" now, the amount I had to read about http, OSes, browsers, the dom, security, performance, etc. is astonishing. Without any of these topics, I would have made terrible mistakes. And each of these topics was covered in a separate book, which often showed best practices for that topic mixed into code using poor practices with regard to the other topics.

[1] [http://www.bignerdranch.com/we-write/](http://www.bignerdranch.com/we- write/)

<comment><USER2> Absolutely. I am quite averse to IDEs (prefer Vim) but Xcode is just fantastic! Committing the massive iOS API to muscle memory seems next to impossible and I'm glad Xcode makes your life so easy (Can't say that about Android / Eclipse certainly).

PS: Much thanks for Big Nerd Ranch! Didn't know of these guys before.

<comment><USER4> I'm the same way (averse to IDEs, preferring Vim over them) and while I haven't tried Xcode, I've got to say, I'm really enjoying the opposite direction of Visual Studio. Especially with ReSharper, it's one of the better IDEs I've used. Haven't tried the latest VS (2013) but 2010 and 2012 have been great. The only thing is, as of late, VS2012 feels a bit chunkier than 2010 did, making it feel slower. Having said that though, it's still very usable.

It's nice to have Vim for my Ruby/Python scripts and something like Visual Studio for C#, I really don't mind given the lovely environment it provides.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I got mixed feelings from the presentation I have done on Swift, most of the presents were scared by the huge size of the language and the mixing of functional and Object Oriented programming, which can lead confusion into developers, mainly the not so experienced ones. Any other comments?

<comment><USER5> As one who has shied away from IOS development because of Objective-C it looks pretty attractive. My own background is C#, Python, Javascript and a smattering of Java and Groovy. Swift has whetted my appetite to revisit IOS development again, there's lots of familiar looking stuff there. I could probably become dangerous in a couple of weeks or so, but effective inside a month. Sure I'd need to learn the IOS SDK but that stuff is very well documented.

That said I'm a developer with around 20 years experience under my belt so the ability to learn new stuff quickly is in the blood, and I've got the advantage of working for many years with different development paradigms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There was a relevant Ask HN thread [0] but it didn't get much traction so I'll ask here:

What would you recommend to someone just starting out in iOS, starting with Obj-c or diving straight into Swift?

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7875208](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7875208)

<comment><USER7> Aaron Hillegass wrote a post on this, and makes a case for learning objective-c.

[http://www.bignerdranch.com/blog/ios-developers-need-to- know...](http://www.bignerdranch.com/blog/ios-developers-need-to-know- objective-c/)

* For those unfamiliar with Aaron, he's one of the foremost authors and teachers of Mac and iOS development -- going all the way back to NeXT. He's gonna be a little biased towards Objective-C, but what he has to say is definitely of interest.

<comment><USER8> I've read this post. I would still recommend that you jump straight into Swift. Objective-C has its own set of quirks and pain points. If I was starting over, I would go straight to Swift. It's an altogether nicer and more consistent language.

<comment><USER9> I agree if just to not go back 15 years and start writing header files again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If one had done Ruby programming in its early days, he/she would come across an epiphany. I tried swift and the best part was the similarity to Ruby and the ease of use. Plus, loads of built in lib functions just make development easier. Added to that, the amazing lldb support for Swift is wonderful.

But what's not so great?? The fact that there will be two languages with greatly different syntaxes in the same file. It would just remind you of the initial days of iOS programmer's surge when many realised that Objective C file could also contain C code.

Some find this mixture of languages fun, and some would probably not feel the same.

If the acceptance is the same as it was for Objective C, maybe this is the Objective C 2.0 successor.

<comment><USER11> This IS the Objective-C 2.0 successor. Apple does not do acceptance tests. (This is a good thing, if you ask me.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Regarding the slide with the Objective-C book on the trash can, probably don't want to throw that out if you want to make use of C or (C++ in your .mm file). Can you do that with Swift? Game programmers write C++ a lot.

<comment><USER13> I don't think that slide was meant to be taken literally, you can integrate Objective-C with Swift.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This slide deck takes 24 slides until they get their hands dirty, which is a new record in my book.

<comment><USER15> It can be difficult to gauge presentation tone for completely unknown audiences. If the audience for the presentation was mostly a group of "corporate friends" with unknown common technical background, it probably went well. If the audience was a bunch of unrelated HN people who want information _now now now_, a meme every other slide is a bit tiresome.

(gratuitous self promotion): I'm starting a long-form intro-to-Swift ebook series: [https://matt.sh/books](https://matt.sh/books) — no meme graphics, guaranteed.

The first book was released yesterday and more are on the way!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I haven't seen it mentioned how you would do composition in Swift. I assume it has a feature like Scala's traits –– hopefully with a better syntax? Does anyone know?

<comment><USER2> This might be helpful - [https://leverich.github.io/swiftislikescala/#protocol](https://leverich.github.io/swiftislikescala/#protocol)

<comment><USER17> Thanks for that, interesting comparison.

Extensive usage of var in the examples, that's not suggested best practice in Scala, val is king, but I guess for one-to-one comparison each language does indeed express mutability similarly.

`return` is implicit if expression is the last in a block, so none of the `return` statements on the Scala side are needed.

Pretty interesting grab bag of functionality, I'm seeing a lot of Scala, but then bits of Python, Groovy, and Kotlin (extension methods) as well.</comment></comment></comment>


Startup School: Great Variety of Speakers - <AUTHOR> http://www.sproutly.com/2008/04/20/y-combinator-startup-school-2008/

<comment><USER2> "Another interesting observation was how many people were coding at the event. The crowd was full of true hackers and not people who waste half their days at meetings."

Hopefully not whilst the speakers were actually speaking, that just sounds rude.</comment>


Are you older than your boss? - <AUTHOR> http://www.focus.com/images/view/10051/

<comment><USER2> That infographic accomplished the unenviable task of making me want pie charts for some of the tables.

</comment><comment><USER3> I would just do something they can't do and at some point, I'll be able to get a higher salary or start something on my own. Otherwise, you're in the wrong field.</comment>


Show HN: Write.my – Your Content Creation Engine - <AUTHOR> http://write.my

<comment><USER2> How are you pairing up writers to those who want something written? I applied as a writer, but nowhere did it ask to list any previous experience, examples, specialty etc. What's the process of selecting writers?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey there,

We hand screen all of our writers and take into account writing experience and education background. Once you have applied and we feel you would be a good fit, you will receive further requirements and instructions.

Thanks for your interest!

<comment><USER2> Sounds good, but how do you screen them? The application to become a writer asks for an email address and name and education level, none of which determine whether the writer is good or not. Don't you think it makes sense to ask for at least a portfolio, websites, links, etc. to judge whether they are good? Are you contacting everyone who applies as a writer right now?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you bring up a good point and that is something we will look into as we grow our writer base. Currently, we are contacting all writers who have applied with additional requirements and instructions to complete the process. I appreciate your input.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


We can rebuild him: Philadelphia hackers offer brotherly love to fallen robot - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2015/08/we-can-rebuild-him-philadelphia-hackers-offer-brotherly-love-to-fallen-robot/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+arstechnica%2Findex+(Ars+Technica+-+All+content)

<comment><AUTHOR> While Philadelphia can have its share of Broad Street Bullies it is a good city. Glad to see some of the makers and roboticists here were willing to lend a helping hand.</comment>


David Ebersman, the Man Behind Facebook's I.P.O. Debacle - <AUTHOR> http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/david-ebersman-the-man-behind-facebook%e2%80%99s-i-p-o-debacle/?ref=technology <comment><USER2> It was only a debacle if you're a predatory investment banker. For Facebook, it was a smashing success: they raised lots of money and gave away not so much equity.</comment>


Rickroll: An Oral History - <AUTHOR> https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/an-oral-history-of-rickrolling <comment><USER2> Not a bad write-up but I clicked mostly due to my interest in why this specific song became a meme and the article does little to establish it. Their reasoning boils down to 'it's a relic of a bygone era, it's cheesy', which is kind of weak. I wonder if there's some guy out there who did the first proper Rickroll on 4chan and he's the one who kickstarted Astley's career resurgence.

That said, Astley totally deserves some popularity, he seems like a genuinely nice guy and he recently posted a video of him doing some growling vocals on Reddit. [0] That really made my day and it's nice to see a man have fun with the fame he got because of a really weird set of circumstances.

[0]: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/edd4vz/love_you_redd...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/edd4vz/love_you_reddit_merry_christmas_rick_astley_x/)</comment>


Should Your Startup Stay Stealth? - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2010/09/should-your-startup-stay-steal.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+readwriteweb+%28ReadWriteWeb%29 <comment><USER2> Derek Sivers explains in a 3 min TED talk, [http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_keep_your_goals_to_you...](http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_keep_your_goals_to_yourself.html), that by keeping your goals to yourself, you become more motivated to achieve them (because you haven't made them part of your "social reality"). In the very early stages I suspect that might be the biggest benefit of stealth mode..

</comment><comment><USER3> staying stealth could benefit in that you are able to build your own product without as much of an outside influence, but for some products, advice from experts helps and could lead you to better opportunities too.</comment>


Ask HN: Startup income/expenses software? - <AUTHOR>

I'm forming an LLC for my business and I need simple software to keep track of income and expenses.  Do you guys have any recommendations? <comment><USER2> I've been using <http://www.gnucash.org/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Gnucash or Moneydance.</comment>


EA Takes Down 'Open Source' SimCity 2000 Remake - <AUTHOR> https://torrentfreak.com/ea-takes-down-open-source-simcity-2000-remake-180730/ <comment><USER2> I'm a bit surprised the author expected EA to reach out to him first. The game is still being sold, EA's reputation is well-known. One could easily see what this would result in.</comment>


New Tricks for an Old Z-Machine, Part 3: A Renaissance Is Nigh - <AUTHOR> https://www.filfre.net/2019/11/new-tricks-for-an-old-z-machine-part-3-a-renaissance-is-nigh/ <comment><USER2> Damnit now I wanna kick back with a good drink and some paper to slowly draw a map upon and have another go at _Curses_.

But first I have to pick an interpreter for my Mac. The list[1] pointed to in this article is spectacularly unhelpful, what with being a series of directories with names largely derived from spells in Enchanter and no hints as to what platforms they're on, or what the strengths and weaknesses of each is.

The IFDB page for Curses[2] that this article links to points me to a page on another site entirely[3] for interpreter recommendations. Its suggestion for Windows, Mac, and Linux is Lectrote[4]. Which is an Electron app that binds together no less than four different adventure game interpreters. I am generally adverse to Electron apps for the usual reasons (CPU/RAM hogs that consistently break OSX's built-in spellcheck/text expansion on all their text input fields) but somehow, contemplating the teetering pile of virtuality that running a Javascript Z-machine with an entire web browser strapped on the side entails, I feel like this is entirely appropriate in this case.

I also feel like the process of digging through this twisty maze of web links, all different, may have made my score go up.

1: [http://mirror.ifarchive.org/indexes/if- archive/infocom/inter...](http://mirror.ifarchive.org/indexes/if- archive/infocom/interpreters/)

2: [https://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=plvzam05bmz3enh8](https://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=plvzam05bmz3enh8)

3: [http://brasslantern.org/players/howto/tadownload-c.html](http://brasslantern.org/players/howto/tadownload-c.html)

4: [https://github.com/erkyrath/lectrote/releases](https://github.com/erkyrath/lectrote/releases)

<comment><USER3> On Linux (not sure if Mac is similar or not) I just use Gargoyle as one commenter pointed out below. It works amazingly well and can run all kinds of IF formats.

I'd love to find a group of people to play IF with some day as a group activity. I was too young during its popular days. Now it is too niche for me to convince any friends or co-workers to give it a go.

Curses is super long. If you want something just as beautiful (perhaps more so), but shorter, try anything from Emily Short. She has a few that take anywhere from 15 minutes to a day to play through (Galatea, Alabaster, Bronze...etc). I never finished City of Secrets, but really loved the world.

A completely separate author wrote Blue Lacuna which I'm about 1/2 through.

<comment><USER4> > I'd love to find a group of people to play IF with some day as a group > activity. I was too young during its popular days. Now it is too niche for > me to convince any friends or co-workers to give it a go.

I've been joking that my Twitch channel is an exercise in finding extremes that likely no one would actually watch. It mostly only has stuff streamed to it, for instance, because Sea of Thieves gives some small in-game rewards for streaming, and I like finding a lot of the less exciting parts of SoT to stream (including jokes about some of it being Pirate ASMArrr for how quiet and soft I play it sometimes).

Anyway, long rambling prologue to: now I really want to try Twitch streaming some text adventures. This sounds like a very appropriate use of the wonders of modern game video streaming technology, both sarcastically in the sense of my above finding silly things to stream for streaming's sake, and not at all facetiously in that if it did somehow attract an audience magically or mysteriously that sounds like an amazing way to play such games.

<comment><USER3> So there are still people who make Commodore and ZxSpectrum games (apparently commercially too).

I found this one recently ([https://thestoryfix.blog/2019/02/03/interview- stefan-vogt-ta...](https://thestoryfix.blog/2019/02/03/interview-stefan-vogt- talks-hibernated-1/))

and since I couldn't play it (don't own the hardware or want to fool with an editor) I watched someone play the entire game on YouTube one night when my wife was out of town. It was a blast.

I've only looked at twitch once before and it was kinda fun. Do you have a username there or something I can watch for?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I loved being there at the time, my sorely aging interpreter Jzip was used to bundle the Inform winners of the first IF competition on the Lost Treasures of Infocom CD back in the day.

The competition was started by G. Kevin Wilson, who has since gone on to tabletop boardgaming fame as one of the designers behind the boardgames "Descent: Journey in the Dark", "Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame", "Arkham Horror", "Elder Sign", and many others. ( ref: [https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/2336/kevin- wilso...](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamedesigner/2336/kevin-wilson) )

</comment><comment><USER6> The Inform Designer's Manual[1] has to be one of the most enjoyable books on a programming language ever written.

[1] [http://inform-fiction.org/manual/DM4.pdf](http://inform- fiction.org/manual/DM4.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER7> ZIL is sometimes still used; there is a new implementation called ZILF. Also, I wrote a document called "The Tricky Document" which describes many new tricks for Z-machine, most of which nobody has ever used as far as I know, which can allow even more efficiency than Inform and ZIL.

I also wrote my own implementations of Z-machine, and other people who want to try, can also try to do so.

<comment><USER8> Random awful thought: it wouldn't be that hard to write a Z-machine LLVM backend.

<comment><USER7> I thought of to have a LLVM backend to target Glulx. Some things are done easily enough; the ! operator of C corresponds to "ushiftr 1,$,$" in Glulx (this is using Glasm syntax). Calling conventions are simple. The Glk functions can be converted directly to Glulx code, with a few exceptions; the Glk type "S" means a different thing in C and in Glulx, although for most of them you can instead use ones that take an array and length, making the function to calculate the length before calling Glk. The C strlen() function becomes "linearsearch 0,1,$,1,-1,0,4,$" in Glulx.

However, one thing with both Z-machine and Glulx is that there is no alloca(). However, you might be able to emulate it with a "shadow stack", I thought. (If programming in assembly language, this is not a problem since you can take advantage of those specific virtual machines instead.)

Also, does LLVM support targeting 16-bit computers so well? (I don't know how to write a LLVM backend.)

For Z-machine, one thing I thought might work better to compile into a Z-machine code might be a variant of BASIC instead.

But when programming in Z-machine or Glulx, I just use assembly language; you can then run those programs on other computers anyways, so it wouldn't be as much problem. (Many of the tricks in "Tricky Document" assume the use of assembly language, although some could be implemented by optimizers.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Curses was a wonderful, if weird & slightly disjoint at times, experience. I believe I did (eventually) finish it, but doubt I could do so now!

Interactive fiction is alive and thriving these days, with an active community of authors & players. Last week was the end of the annual competition, where people submit short (2-hour) games which are collectively judged. There were 82 entries this year, some of which are well worth your time.</comment>


UN declares clean water a 'fundamental human right' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10797988

<comment><USER2> Unless this resolution also creates an obligation for someone to pay for it, it's just words.

How about booting countries out of the UN who spend billions on submarines, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons and a space programme while their people lack basic essentials? I'm looking at you, India.</comment>


2011 CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Software Errors - <AUTHOR> http://cwe.mitre.org/top25

<comment><USER2> Seems to be a comprehensible list.

> _[5] 76.9 CWE-306 Missing Authentication for Critical Function_

> _[6] 76.8 CWE-862 Missing Authorization_

Take a look at the sprawling REST articles and postings on the internet. How many of them even address authorization and authentication?</comment>


Einstein's theory of happy living emerges in Tokyo note - <AUTHOR> http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/einstein-s-theory-of-happy-living-emerges-in-tokyo-note-9333938 <comment><USER2> Here[0] is a much larger (2000x1333) image of the letter from an article[1] in _The Japan Times_ for those who love period details like fonts, telegraphic addresses, penmanship, etc.

And the tl;dr:

"Stilles bescheidenes Leben gibt mehr Glück als erfolgreiches Streben, verbunden mit beständiger Unruhe."

translated as:

"A quiet and modest life brings more joy than a pursuit of success bound with constant unrest."

[0] [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/n-ei...](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/n-einstein-a-20171023-870x580.jpg)

[1] [https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/10/22/national/einste...](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/10/22/national/einsteins- theory-happy-living-emerges-tokyo-note/)</comment>


How's Your HTML5? App Skills in Demand  - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703956604576110044198747076.html

<comment> tomh- This article is behind a paywall, any other url?</comment>


React Kawaii – Cute React SVG Components - <AUTHOR> https://react-kawaii.now.sh/ <comment><USER2> The author gave a talk on this at ReactConf 2018:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gG8rtm- rq4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gG8rtm-rq4)

</comment><comment><USER3> Neat to see a small MIT-licensed clip art library wrapped up in a convenient React API. Would it be hard to render these to static SVG files?

<comment><USER4> There's a .sketch file included in the repository ([https://github.com/miukimiu/react- kawaii/tree/master/sketch](https://github.com/miukimiu/react- kawaii/tree/master/sketch)). Opens fine in the free version of Figma ([https://www.figma.com/](https://www.figma.com/)). Just requires a bit of effort/time to export all the faces on all the components into SVGs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Sometimes things go wrong and when it happens nothing can be more boring and > frustrating than an awful screen just displaying the error message!

Please don't do this. Nothing frustrates me more than a "OOPSIE WOOPSIE!! Uwu We made a fucky wucky!! A wittle fucko boingo! The code monkeys at our headquarters are working VEWY HAWD to fix this!" when I'm already annoyed at the thing for not working.

<comment><USER6> Depends on the target market. I personally would love to see exception logs every time a page 500s, but (1) it's a security risk, (2) It's a bad idea for your average user.

Your Average Joe would be confused when they see the error description. And if it has one of those good-on-paper/bad-in-practice phrases like "contact our webmaster" it's even worse.

They'll start calling you or writing emails, thinking that they're helping but the conversation is something like:

I'm trying to buy a sweater for my grandkids, there's 5 of them. Jimmy is 6 years old ... So when I got to the sweaters page I typed in: "turtleneck"

Then they start asking — no, DEMANDING, explanations they won't understand. So how do you explain to Joe that you were in the middle of a DB migration?

And even if you just have a bot answer his email or whatever, then why did you even bother writing the bot if it's not a human reading it?

So I think oftentimes the best solution is a cute lil dino saying "try refreshing, and if not, go to our homepage and try again."

<comment><USER5> I don't like keeping my users in the dark, no matter how "untechnical" they are; it makes me feel like I don't respect them enough to understand, even at a high level, what's going on. In your case, usually I'd say something like "We're having issues with our database right now; please try refreshing or going to the home page. If this happens again, you can contact support at support@". So they have a general idea of what went wrong, which they can mention when contacting support (if I get a bunch of these, maybe the database migration isn't going well?) and they don't feel like I'm treating them like a child. More technical users can try to stay away from operations that will touch the database, or optionally take a look at the logs that I hide behind a "details" button.

<comment><USER7> What if they are a child?

<comment><USER8> Children don't have to be treated like adults to be happy, but in this case I don't see what you or they could gain by treating them differently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of the demos fails: [https://codesandbox.io/s/23rk7j098j](https://codesandbox.io/s/23rk7j098j)

"SecurityError Permission denied to access property "dispatchEvent" on cross- origin object"

</comment><comment><USER10> Demo works great! [https://i.imgur.com/hmplvqu.png](https://i.imgur.com/hmplvqu.png)

</comment><comment><USER11> Why tie this to a specific framework when you can make it more generally applicable?

(I'm not a React user)

<comment><USER12> Because React is a framework built around reusable components. As a React user I'm much less likely to use your library if there's no React bindings.

<comment><USER11> That sounds a little selfish; think of people using other frameworks.

Also, in this particular case, the graphics are simply two layers of SVG: an image of a ghost, backpack, browser, etc. and superimposed on top of that a "mood". You can compose these images with two lines of CSS, no React required.

<comment><USER13> Can you share the two lines of CSS that would make something like this work?

or this:

Edit: it should also work with a color user defined color.

<comment><USER14> Webcomponents were invented to do this. You just need a polyfill for now.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


DNS Resolution and Records for Developers - <AUTHOR> https://www.arbazsiddiqui.me/dns-resolution-and-records-for-developers/ <comment> yjftsjthsd-h If the author is here, a typo:

> seem less manner.

Think that's "seamless"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for pointing out. Fixed :)</comment></comment>