Moniker.com's new and revamped interface is a disaster - <AUTHOR> http://jacquesmattheij.com/moniker-com-is-being-murdered <comment><USER2> I'm in the registrar space (not affiliated with moniker at all). I will tell you what the real issue is. New gTLD's. (think .web,.app,.house,.car,etc) They have forced everyone to at minimum update their provisioning and billing systems. Some had older and crustier systems than others so its not surprising to see this at all.

Once you update, its hard to make sure you caught every single business rule and weird edge case from your old system and given many of the ccTLD's and gTLD's all have slightly different ways of handling things (.eu domains have no admin contact, .be domains must actually be renewed 30 days before they expire or you lose it) its quite the nightmare and if its a really old system, those tweaks are not evident.

Testing is also quite difficult as the ot&e environments the registries provide are 1) not exactly like their live system 2) require you to create a domain in order to do anything else. So in order to test your new system with actual data, you need to create every single domain in your live system on test. Then issue the commands to put it in exactly the same state as live, however, you cannot mirror a domain perfectly as sometimes its state is set by the registry for legal issues (udrp,etc). It would be much simpler if they just copied live to their sandbox periodically.

I'm not defending them, their launch could have definitely gone much better, but I've been in their shoes and I feel for the tech folks there who are probably spending a lot of late nights at the office and working weekends right now.

<comment><USER3> > Once you update, its hard to make sure you caught every single business rule > and weird edge case from your old system

One of the reasons we're trying to migrate our rules to a rules engine. They're scattered across pages, Javascript, controllers, services and DAOs...

No one knows all the business rules of the system, not even the BAs.

<comment><USER4> It seems like the hardest (or maybe just most tedious) part of this sort of thing is keeping the rules on the front-end and the rules on the back-end consistent. Obviously the back-end needs to be the canonical source of truth, but it's nicer for the user if the front-end knows the rules too so that it can do the right thing prior to a full request cycle. I'd be interested to know if you've come up with a good solution to this, because I haven't found any that are very satisfying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It seems like they did not even test the new system. I participate in two of the most popular domainer forums and there are stories of people losing domains they had in their accounts, double and triple charges to credit cards, whois privacy deactivated,etc,etc. Their website was down for around 2 days and there's lots of people that lost domains because they were unable to renew them. It's a huge mess. Some people had to block their credit cards with their bank because they were getting hammered with charges.

I was charged for one domain that was not supposed to be renewed (I was transferring it out). Now I have to deal with their abysmal customer services.

To add insult to injury, they posted a half-assed statement on their website and social media accounts and left it at that.

Their previous interface was very simple, sometimes a bit awkward to use but it worked and had no fancy animations,transitions,etc.

Unfortunately it seems that most registrars lack good UX designers. Namecheap's recent re-design is also a mess. They added some fancy sliding menus and animations on top of their old design and made it even more confusing. But at least their system works.

<comment><USER6> > Namecheap's recent re-design is also a mess. They added some fancy sliding > menus and animations on top of their old design and made it even more > confusing. But at least their system works.

Eh, Namecheap didn't really do a redesign (of their service); once you hit the domain management pages it's the same old 1995-looking views embedded in their new layout. It's just the sales funnel pages that changed.

<comment><USER7> I returned to this thread to comment on Namecheap. I see there are now a few places I might reply.

The Namecheap redesign originally struck me as "design for design's sake" and it continues to do so. A bit more than just the front/"funnel" pages, it also impacted some of the menus and the cart and checkout pages.

With regard to the front pages, I found it no improvement. Some form of "Bootstrap-ification" or whatever that served primarily to hide things rather than to expose them -- both to me, a longstanding user, but also I suspect to a fair fraction of new users.

Checkout also was initially more opaque, although that seems to have been improved a bit since then. (Among other things, the first time post-design, finding and renewing an associated "WhoisGuard" registration was a PITA game of hide-and-seek.)

I found the redesign to be yet one more example of what I consider to be the current, mistaken over-influence of "Design" and "Designers". Taking "stuff that works" and "prettying it up" while making it: Harder to actually see; harder to actually use; more bug prone; less responsive (as opposed to "responsive"); etc.

There are plenty of good redesigns. But there are plenty of "redesigns for redesigns' sake" that should be stopped before they are started.

The other day, I heard someone apply the Hippocratic Oath to an element of software/systems design, and I found myself agreeing: "First, do no harm."

In Namecheap's case, I can understand the design to update a distinctly "old school" appearance. But, as has been pointed out, the older design _worked_. Keeping things working, and clear, should have been a primary -- first -- requirement of the redesign. They didn't fail entirely in that regard, but they certainly annoyed.

Also, the redesign did look more than a bit like someone "slapped" a Bootstrap theme or similar onto the site. Maybe it looks better particularly on phones and tablets than the old site. But I didn't/don't find it particularly attractive. If I'm going to devolve into discussing its "Design", I think they could have done a fair amount better.

Anywho, the site is working, and on the rare occasion when I need customer support, they've always been very responsive via IM (integrated into the site).

Setting Namecheap aside, I hope that "the Web" in general, or at least the parts I care about, can get past this apparent outsized influence of... "Design" (/Craig-Ferguson-dramatic-expression-mode).

P.S. While I'm here, I'll just add: Darn it, Namecheap. "autocomplete off" your credit card security code field!!! You got the message about the credit card number field, but this change remains needed and outstanding (and has carried over through the design change).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Wow, that's insane. But that result is fairly typical when a feisty new CEO hands down an ill-defined "new vision" for an existing product, and the people left to implement it have to figure out what that looks like. But it sounds like no one even tested core functionality at all, which is sort of scary for something as infrastructure-y as a domain registrar!

I moved most of my stuff to IWantMyName and haven't looked back. Super smooth experience and they add new TLD's often. My initial attraction was .io registration that didn't take a few weeks, but I've since been doing most of my .com/.net/.org registrations there, too.

One day I'll stop being lazy and move everything off GoDaddy over there. :)

</comment><comment><USER9> _imagine Microsoft would re-arrange all the items in the menu system for 'Word' at random_

You laugh but they actually did this. _In realtime._ Behold adaptive menus: [http://www.ehow.com/facts_7167433_adaptive-menu-windows- offi...](http://www.ehow.com/facts_7167433_adaptive-menu-windows-office- word_.html)

<comment><USER10> Truth is stranger than fiction. Consider me totally stunned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Really, this is more an indictment of web based interfaces than anything: users have no control. At least with regular software you can generally continue to use the old version if you don't like the new version.

The most recent example of a bad redesign, in my opinion, was Flickr. The new interface is awful and I have actually left the site because of it.

<comment><USER12> This is a fundamental and very true point - as long as the web remains as inanely centralized as it is presently there will never be stability/usability on par with desktop applications. Not because web-apps are worse than desktop- apps but because users can never manage to build up their skill sets before the web-apps are changed and "improved": in conclusion this situation is the bane of sanity and the course of the rise of the Slow Web movement!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> In all fairness, their old interface was a disaster too. From their confusingly interconnected upsells, to DNS management, to renewals - its only my distaste for GoDaddy's misogynistic attitude that's kept me from crawling back (and hatred from transferring domains from finding something new #theDevilYouKnow)

<comment><USER10> The old interface had two killer features that the new one lacks: it worked, and I knew how to use it.

<comment><USER14> I don't know if you're part of the "oh, users just hate change" crowd, but I kind of hope more software developers get bit by nonsense changes to interfaces. What you're saying here is _exactly_ what we hear, all the time, from Firefox and Chrome and Office and online services users.

A shame about Moniker BTW. The registrar I've been with since around 2001 has also recently made a mess of things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The CEO responded to reports of issues in an interview:

[http://domainnamewire.com/2014/06/05/moniker-ceo-bonnie- witt...](http://domainnamewire.com/2014/06/05/moniker-ceo-bonnie-wittenburg- discusses-botched-transition/)

<comment><USER10> "Moniker formerly operated off a legacy code base built on outdated technology that would not support the introduction of new products and services in line with our goals."

I hope their goals include long term survival, the way they are going about it I really wonder what sort of 'introduction of new products' would warrant a non-incremental approach like this.

I've moved over a website a few years ago under heavy use (much heavier than monikers ever would see) without the users noticing the switch had even happened.

This was totally uncalled for and plays fast and loose with the moniker brand as well as with the customers who typically depend on moniker to deliver.

The comments section underneath that article is absolutely terrible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The new Moniker looks a lot like the new Namecheap - lots of change and a poorer user experience.

<comment><USER17> ^ This. Ever since Namecheap went through their 'rebranding' the site has been slow and at times completely unusable. I consistently get timeouts when performing basic tasks. The old site was ugly but it worked. The new site is slightly less ugly and it barely works. They had a lot of goodwill built up which they are slowly chipping away at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've been using Moniker since 2006 and the change has been pretty frustrating.

I also noticed that they changed the pricing for privacy from the $1 I've been paying for years to $4. All the reps that got me the pricing are long gone and no one from support has responded to my request to fix the pricing.

I'm nervous to transfer a few hundred domains to a new registrar but given what I'm seeing I don't know how much longer I can tolerate what Moniker is doing.

</comment><comment><USER19> Moniker has been a disaster since Monte left and that was no secret. All you had to do was look at the forums or read some of the posts on the domain blogs. Do yourself a favor and move your names out now.

I would recommend:

www.dynadot.com

www.uniregistry.com

www.namecheap.com

www.pairnic.com

www.dyn.com

www.name.com

<comment><USER20> I've found namesilo.com to be a decent registrar. Growing at a rate, which is good to see.

<comment><USER21> I'm on namesilo as well. Going well so far.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> If UI/UX is your primary concern, check out Name.com. One of the best UI/UX's on the web, period, much less among registrars. Perfectly Ajax-ified, eg, not too much not too little, lots of attention to detail and every little thing just works the way you'd expect.

That said, they supported SOPA and have been caught in the past redirecting unused subdomains of registered domains. I switched to Namecheap and Gandi.net as a result, but still Pine over Name.com's UI/UX. I rank it up there with Gmail.

<comment><USER23> Where did you get that they supported SOPA? (This is important to me.. I have about 30 domains at name.com)

I found this, which seems to indicate the opposite: [http://www.name.com/blog/general/domains/2011/12/it-aint- abo...](http://www.name.com/blog/general/domains/2011/12/it-aint-about-the- transfer-stopping-sopa-and-giving-back/)

<comment><USER22> Hmmm, not finding it now, only Name.com's blog posts opposing SOPA at the time. Maybe I'm hallucinating, or maybe their opposition to SOPA was only lukewarm and Namecheap's more aggressive stance got them all the credit. Not sure now, but they were my main registrar then and something about the SOPA was the last straw that got me to move my domains. Will try to remember what and post it if I do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I just migrated from Moniker to eNom after having used them for years. Their support is abysmal. Two weeks for them to manually change a nameserver since the web interface wasn't working properly, and another full week for them to remove a domain from my account that I had transferred out, yet was still receiving pending deletion notices for.

</comment><comment><USER25> I moved to Moniker a couple years ago since there was so much praise for it on Slashdot. I didn't check out the new interface yet. I don't have that many domains, but if they're so interested in obliterating their core functionality for no real reason, I think I'll play it safe and look into migrating registrars.

<comment><USER26> I'm in the same boat. A handful of domains, moved there because of Slashdot. If I hadn't seen this story on HN, I could have lost all of my domains upon their expiration: my contact email reverted to an email I haven't used in years and it appears my credit card reverted to an old (now invalid) number.

The new interface is awful, too.

Do any registrars have decent interfaces?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> _imagine Microsoft would re-arrange all the items in the menu system for 'Word' at random and would rename a couple for good measure_

Um, they did exactly that when they changed from their traditional menus to the "ribbon." That's when I gave up on MS Office.

</comment><comment><USER28> When did "design" become more important than "works." Namecheap did a big redesign as well recently & while it didn't "break" anything, it didn't really add any value besides a new coat of paint.

</comment><comment><USER29> I was about to pull the trigger with eNom as a reseller before I read this. Any recommendations? I'm currently using OpenSRS.

</comment><comment><USER30> wow - agree 100%. what did they do?!

i needed to renew a domain, just logged in and dug around in the interface for at least ten minutes and i still can't figure out how to do it. can somebody help me? how can i manually renew a domain right now? not set it to auto-renew but renew it and pay now.

<comment><USER10> I haven't figured this part out yet. I've been billed for 10 domains but they are all listed as 'payment pending'. It's completely crazy. If you figure any of this out please post here, I promise to do the same.

<comment><USER30> What a PITA this interface is...

This explains how to renew domains:

[http://wiki.moniker.com/index.php/Faq:renewdomain](http://wiki.moniker.com/index.php/Faq:renewdomain)

The credit card I have on file is old so the payment didn't process, but it created an invoice. I was then able to go to 'Payment Options' in the sidebar and click 'PayPal' and then pay the invoice. That renewed the domain instantly (or actually, within about 10 minutes after I received the emails).

Be sure to set all of the domains you don't wish to auto renew to 'delete at expiration' or they'll auto bill your credit card on file. They reset them all to auto renew by default.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > Sometimes this can be a good thing but imagine Microsoft would re-arrange > all the items in the menu system for 'Word' at random and would rename a > couple for good measure.

Perish the thought!</comment>


Pyweek registration open - game programming challenge - <AUTHOR> http://www.pyweek.org/

<comment><USER2> I like this idea. It reminds me of the <http://experimentalgameplay.com/>, which has similar competitions on a monthly basis. Pyweek maybe is closer to a traditional rapid development competition like Ludum Dare though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link. I've bookmarked that site and plan on participating at some point.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to find a co-founder? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I genuinely say this because I want to be helpful and not because I am trying to be snarky:

Search past HN posts and even Google the topic. People have written a lot about this, and nothing that will be said here will be any more useful without more context on your situation...

If you really want feedback to YOUR post on HN, I'd say to rewrite it with more context on your idea, background, and what you are looking for in a co- founder (skillset, money?, location, commitment, etc.).

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, the answer depends to some degree on the kind of co-founder you're looking for, but I'd strongly suggest starting with LinkedIn and looking for people with previous startup experience, particularly in your area. Previous startup experience is _the_ best predictor of success, even if their previous ventures failed (though it's always good to know _why_.) Also, make sure you get people who can think and communicate clearly - this is important even (or as often, especially) for the tech leaders. I get a few people a year approaching me for IoT startups - I'll almost always meet with them and point them to someone who might be able to help them if I'm not the guy. (I'm not interested in raw startups anymore - I've got plenty of great product ideas of my own if I've got to go flog funding...)

</comment><comment><USER4> Read the Founder's Dilemma[1].

Don't "look for a cofounder".

Collaborate with friends and loose connections on projects ("date") and escalate from there. (Don't undershoot "loose".)

You need to be friends[2].

Get hitched when you're sure.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating- Founda...](https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Dilemmas-Anticipating-Foundation- Entrepreneurship/dp/0691158304/)

[2] [http://www.paulgraham.com/really.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/really.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> I also have the same question, but I'm specifically interested in a non- technical co-founder. Someone smart who has innate business acumen and is a shameless salesperson.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think finding a co-founder is harder than creating a successful company. So, either I'd go solo (not recommended at all), or I'd simply use time as the only helpful way to find the right person. It doesn't have to be tomorrow, could happen anytime. "Simply" force yourself to meet new people over and over. Time will make it happen for you.

</comment><comment><USER7> In addition to what others have said, one other avenue is to go to local startup/entrepreneurial/tech events and meetups in your area. I've met my co- founder at a local startup-related meetup. And I know some people that were introduced to their current co-founders through people that they met during such events/meetups.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's possible you could just be looking for someone to motivate you. If that's the case, I'm in a similar boat, got a project, but I get lazy sometimes, I could use feedback to help me go forward but I can't find anyone to even look at my work.

</comment><comment><USER9> What kind of business are you building ? What would the cofounder's role be ?

</comment><comment><USER10> It's like asking how to find a wife because that's what a co-founder is :)

<comment><USER11> Finding a wife (or husband) is far easier than finding a co-founder (at least when comparing for the same level of quality).

And on many occasions, a business divorce is far more financially painful than a marital one.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Remote Work Consultants - <AUTHOR> https://remotehub.io/remote-work-consultants <comment><AUTHOR> Now that a lot of companies had to start working remotely overnight, there's even more demand for professional remote work experts who help companies with things like:

\- Design a remote workflow

\- Train the team

\- Write remote work policies

\- Find remote talents

\- Provide ongoing coaching and support

I've made a page where:

\- experts can submit their profiles and

\- companies can find remote work experts

Let me know how I can improve this!

</comment><comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22613943](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22613943)

Once again

<comment><AUTHOR> You mean that there's this new BS profession "remote work consultant"? Yeah, looks like at lot of people are doing this! And this is exactly why I built the page – the idea is to find legit remote work consultants who have been working on this field even before the virus :)

Everyone can sign up, but at least for now it mostly consists of people who have been working as a consultant for years. I'll see who sign up and maybe I can then add more filters and rearrange the sorting so you'll first see consultants with more years of experience.</comment></comment>


OpenTable Fires Employee for Making Fake Reserve Bookings - <AUTHOR> https://chicago.eater.com/2018/3/5/17078210/opentable-reserve-fake-reservation-scheme-no-shows-chicago-restaurants-valentines <comment><USER2> >Reserve's security team conducted an investigation and brought that evidence to OpenTable and started a dialogue between the two rivals. OpenTable confirmed that it fired the employee in question

lesson to the youngsters - never do anything smelly/unethical (dont even mention criminal) without manager approval in writing. Otherwise at the first sign of trouble you'll be made to take one for the team as it seems to have happened in this and countless other cases.

I mean even in normal situation, whenever some details of feature, project, etc. are discussed and decided/assigned in some informal way, i find it is very useful to send a summary note so the manager/PM/etc wouldn't come later with the very different version of what happened.

<comment><USER3> They will be verbal about it. If you request it in writing or email their own request to them, you will be fired or 'burned'.

Source: Worked in finance. Most inappropriate requests was verbalised. They not only came from management but from other members of team (ie, bullying). I had a coworker get really angry at me when I 'confirmed the task' to her and cc'd my manager for a task she was offloading to me that wasn't related to my department.

<comment><USER4> If you're concerned about that, pull it back one step, and go "sure, I'll confirm in an e-email". And watch lots of excuses for why the request suddenly isn't essential anyway.

The point is that if you don't create a paper trail, you risk being set up as a fall guy for much worse than being fired. They know it, and you know it, and your safest way out is to make sure that they know that you know that they're asking you to do something inappropriate and that you're smart enough to ensure there's evidence implicating them if they force the issue.

If they get angry or keep making those kind of requests it's a good reason to look for another job anyway, before they find a way of pinning something else on you.

<comment><USER5> > If you're concerned about that, pull it back one step, and go "sure, I'll > confirm in an e-email".

Or the old, "I'll go ahead and open a ticket."

<comment><USER4> Yes, pretty much anything that innocently announces your intent to put it in writing somewhere, and gives them an opportunity to back off and pretend the conversation never happened will do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _We extend our sincerest apologies to the restaurants in Chicago that were > impacted by the disgraceful, unsanctioned activity of a lone OpenTable > employee._

I have a hard time believing he/she just thought of such scheme without silent knowledge, approval, and/or encouragement of others.

<comment><USER7> Quotas/commissions will do that to sales people.

<comment><USER8> Wells Fargo method. We don't know anything, we just set up a system to encourage fraud and close our eyes.

<comment><USER9> I believe OpenTable when they say it was a rogue employee, but I was hoping to see some mention in their apology of looking at their incentive system.

<comment><USER10> Why do you believe them without any evidence to (or against) their claims? For all we know there could be a direct verbal request from a manager.

<comment><USER9> I believe them because that's my default position, and I don't see enough evidence to believe otherwise. A poorly-incentivized rogue employee sounds perfectly plausible. But I don't think something like that happens without _some_ culpability on the companies part (poor incentives, lack of oversight), which is why I'd like to see them take responsibility for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Read this and ctrl-f "cat's paw" or "execution failure": [https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/10/14/the-gervais- principle-...](https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/10/14/the-gervais-principle-v- heads-i-win-tails-you-lose/)

I love how many of the Gervais Principle examples are actually something you can see in real life. Also hating it though. I wish we would live in a better world.

<comment><USER12> Again and again, I come back to the Gervais Principal as _The_ best literature for understanding the corporate environment. Thanks for the refresher!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It seems a great many people believe that everyone else, and particularly, everyone in management, is unethical; the system is corrupt, all management is corrupt, and the only way to advance is to sacrifice one's values. I used to believe this too.

To the ethical people out there, I'd like to say that there is a battle and we haven't lost yet. It sure looks that way, given the behavior of the government, large corporations, even NGOs. But its a battle. And the first front in the battle is mindshare. If ethical people believe that everything is corrupt and hopeless, then the unethical people have won.

Consider this: the rogue employee at OpenTable could genuinely be a rogue employee. They might even be a nominal ethical employee who perceived behavior around them as unethical, or who believed that the only way to success given their performance targets was to behave unethically. They may have believed that the only explanation for the performance targets were that OpenTable wanted them to act unethically, when in fact they were just impossible targets set by an aggressive, but ethical manager.

I'm sorry to say that ethical behavior is something we have to fight for continuously. We don't get to create a constitution a few hundred years ago and call it done. But it doesn't help if we declare, as I used to, that the government has been "rooted", and the US is just an unethical cesspit now. Get involved. Demand ethical behavior. Call out moral hazards. Talk about ethics.

</comment><comment><USER14> Actual article title: "OpenTable Infuriates Restaurants With Fake Reservations Scheme"

</comment><comment><USER15> > _Wesner and Reserve CEO Greg Hong said this was the only time they've ever > tracked such behavior, which they don't believe is criminal in nature._

Isn't this a reasonably straightforward CFAA violation?

(I'd agree with "we don't believe it _ought to be_ criminal.")

<comment><USER16> The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is such a broad and poorly written law that even common behavior can be called a CFAA violation, such as breaking terms of service.

It was created during the enduing moral panic after the movie Wargames was released (1983 release, 1984 law). The House Committee Report about the bill literally references the movie.

Here's the Wikipedia page on it:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act#Criticism)

<comment><USER17> I didn't know that! JESUS that is lame.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > We extend our sincerest apologies to the restaurants in Chicago that were > impacted by the disgraceful, unsanctioned activity of a lone OpenTable > employee.

What about apologizing to Reserve?

<comment><USER19> That can be done internally. No open letter required

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well, that explains why the restaurant I took my wife to on Randolph St had a surprising number of empty tables on Valentine's Day.

<comment><USER21> This is one aspect not addressed in the article; just because tables were falsely reserved, doesn't mean they were actually responsible for the lack of business - if no customers were going to show up anyway. No real way to ever gauge that though.

<comment><USER20> I've been to the same restaurant on other nights and it's always been packed, so it was quite suspicious that it was so empty on what should be an even busier night...

<comment><USER21> Oh ok, you're likely right in that case!

On a positive note, at least you got a little peace for dinner

<comment><USER22> What's to stop anyone else from doing something similar if they want a quiet dinner?

<comment><USER20> That's a great idea, sounds like a niche for no-shows-as-a-service.

<comment><USER23> Why isn't this a thing already, just like hotels, pre-authorize a minimum table charge to a debit/credit card (ensure AVS and/or names matches - most CC processors fraud systems provide this info - so you have correct details to blacklist in the event of a chargeback) - infact actually the reservation provider should be handling and swallowing the chargeback risk - they have the aggregated data and taking a big fee for essentially a risk free SaaS.

<comment><USER21> They probably don't want to raise the bar any more for potential customers: too many hoops and I'll just use the phone instead; it'll take less time to call than type my CC#

<comment><USER23> The idea would be that they do the same on the phone, it's much easier to type than have someone try to process a CC over the phone 5494 2442 what was that again 5494 242.. etc.. It's almost impossible to secure a hotel without a CC nowadays even for pay on arrival, it will take some first movers but I'd suspect most would follow suit pretty quickly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> shaki-dora HN should really stop meddling with headlines until they find people who don't replace "reservations" with "reserve bookings".

<comment><USER24> Seems fine to me when "Reserve" is, as in this case, a proper noun.

<comment><USER25> Really?

Reservations is what EVERYBODY calls it. I've made thousands of reservations in my life. I had no clue what a "reserve bookings" is. You _can_ figure it out from context... but why go out of our way to make things so difficult to understand.

<comment><USER26> Title case (which is itself an abomination before the Lord and a destroyer of communication) is the problem here.

It is not "fake reserve bookings" but "fake Reserve bookings" (that is, in longer form, "fake bookings on Reserve".) As GP pointed out reserve is a proper, not common, noun in this use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > which they don't believe is criminal in nature

With all the silly things people want to regulate, I'm always baffled how intentionally deceiving people with the intent to cause harm isn't just plain illegal, and your only recourse is civil court. It seems to me it would cover a lot of situations that people try to fix with very specific (and thus loophole-y and high-overhead) regulations.

<comment><USER28> My non-lawyer opinion: I would be shocked if a motivated Illinois Assistant State's Attorney couldn't turn this into a criminal conviction. The definition of wire fraud in Illinois (720 ILCS 5/17-24) is "A person commits wire fraud when he or she... devises... a scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain money or property by means of false pretenses, representations, or promises" and as part of that scheme communicates using a wire or radio waves. Basically, if you lie in connection with a financial transaction and use a telephone or the internet, you've committed wire fraud. The state doesn't prosecute many wire fraud cases as far as I know, but nearly every white collar federal case includes a wire fraud charge, because basically anything nefarious is wire fraud in addition to whatever else it may be.

Of course, just because a prosecutor _could_ prosecute someone for a crime doesn't mean they will or should. And I think Reserve's lawyers have probably come to the conclusion that the State's Attorney probably has better things to do with her staff's time than prosecute this case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "Reserve's software engineers noticed a spike in prospective fraudulent activity on the afternoon of February 14"

Interesting that they would be monitoring for fraudulent reservations. Are fraudulent reservation 'wars' between these companies pretty common that they would be tracking such behavior?

Also, if this isn't criminal, is DDoSing a SaaS competitor not criminal then, since they are pretty similar?

<comment><USER30> I don't know about the restaurant business, but I've been told by people in the flower trade that the long-stemmed rose business right before Feb. 14 is full of antics, deceptions, broken promises, dummy orders, etc. that are absolutely terrifying if you're new to the game.

So much money to be made so fast. It tends to attract . . . operators.

<comment><USER31> Do you know of good sources, articles, documentaries, etc exploring this or these events that attract "operators"?

<comment><USER30> It would make for a fine bit of investigative reporting. Wish I had an article to recommend.

My source is a medium prominent tech executive who tried to disrupt the Valentine's Day flower business (with its high mark-ups). His plan was to set up his own, lower-priced regional alternative -- which would bring in planeloads of flowers from Central America, right on time.

Things did not work out the way he had hoped. Everything went sideways the first year. He tried again, and the second year was catastrophically worse. There was no third year.

<comment><USER32> That's why you should always have a domain expert on board when trying to enter a business you deem ripe for disruption. Chances are very high that you do not completely understand it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Oops, it's the good old-fashioned principal agent problem.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem)

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm wondering how they found out it was someone from OpenTable.

Detecting someone using multiple fake accounts (maybe from the same IP) is one thing, but how to track its origin? Did they use approximate location of the IP and saw it's close to OpenTable offices?

<comment><USER35> Probably because the cancels were followed up by aggressive sales calls that mentioned the issue. A quote from the article:

"The no-shows were accompanied by an OpenTable inquiry about Tavern's 'sagging sales,' with a renewed attempt to convince them to switch."

<comment><USER36> So they were too aggressive. They should have used fake bookings much less and increase them much more slowly, and don't show with "hey, wanna switch?" right after.

<comment><USER37> Should have? You realize you're arguing _for_ something that's morally reprehensible and legally questionable (fake bookings) in the context of something else whose morality is dubious at best (how should OpenTable know about sagging sales in the first place if they're not already affiliated with OpenTable?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Seeing this from another perspective, shouldn't Reserve's engineering team have been able to pre-empt this kind of attack? If they could do a postmortem and determine the requests came from a single range of IP's (assumption), they could have foreseen it. Or if they had set up alerting around frequency of reservations, they would seen an outsized number of requests which they could further look into. These are pretty easy to set up, so I'm surprised they're so naïve about this kind of vector.

</comment><comment><USER39> I suspect there are some restaurants who are just now finding out what that mandatory binding arbitration and class action waiver clause in Opentable's terms[1] really means, today.

On the other hand, there's an Opentable lawyer who is getting an extra martini at lunch today for saving the company by including that text.

[1] [https://www.opentable.com/legal/terms-and- conditions](https://www.opentable.com/legal/terms-and-conditions)

<comment><USER40> The affected restaurants don't use OpenTable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Didn't Uber used to do this to Lyft et al whenever they show up in a new town?

<comment><USER42> No. Uber didn't use to have lone rogue sales people that were immediately fired when the company learned about it.

<comment><USER37> Take this source from 2014 as you decide, but there have been mainstream news articles in the past stating contrary:

[http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride- re...](http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-requests- lyft/index.html)

<comment><USER43> You and others missed parent's dry humor.

FTA: > it's not just a rogue employee or two

<comment><USER37> Sarcasm and dry humor do not befit the internet

<comment><USER44> Thank you, inetknight, brave Knight of the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> > ...and the employee was terminated immediately.

Jesus! C-can they do that?

</comment><comment><USER46> So there are four different start-ups that focus on making restaurant reservations... I had no idea it was so difficult to call a restaurant and make a reservation, I guess the person would need access to a phone in order to make the call.

<comment><USER47> It's pretty awful. Hold times, the potential for multitasking staff to forget to log a RSVP, determining how to best allocate tables... Not only is online reservation a necessary component, it's just one piece of a multi-component automation solution to the many problems that arise from a desire to efficiently and effectively seat and serve as many people at once as possible.

I recognize your comment is in jest, but I appreciate you making it. This challenge is rarely understood.

<comment><USER30> In our household, we make a fair number of restaurant reservations at 11:30 p.m. . . . and some more at 9 a.m. (Two-career couple; hard to align schedules, etc.) Online services like Open Table don't mind this at all. By contrast, restaurants are not eager to keep staff by the phone at those hours, just in case we call.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What tools do you use to manage your personal projects? - <AUTHOR> I tend to work on a lot of small personal projects and want to know what I could use to manage all my tasks, timelines, links to related articles, information, etc. <comment><USER2> I found "Trello" to be helpful. One can create multiple lists. Personally, I create lists as "To do", "Doing" and "Done" and move the cards under those lists from "To do" to "Doing" when done and so on.

</comment><comment><USER3> I use gitlab's issue board. I have a short term task list and a long term task list.</comment>


Can I charge all these employers for wasting my time? - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/ChoosingBeggars/comments/bq2dh1/can_i_charge_all_these_employers_for_wasting_my/ <comment><USER2> This is silly. Spending time doing interviews is a part of running business and doing some prior research on a candidate helps not to waste too much time and money bringing them in only to find out they lied on their resume.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is this legal? It can't be, right, as no agreement was made?

<comment><AUTHOR> I wonder what the ramifications of paying are? He could now say he purchased a service, and that he got rejected was a problem with that service and demand his money back. Maybe he can get a second interview by saying he is not happy with the quality of the first interview he purchased.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is most likely fake.

<comment><USER5> It may not be fake, but it's certainly a repost that I've seen before. (pretty sure it popped up on HN back when it did)</comment></comment>


Git-number: Use numbers for dealing with files in git - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/holygeek/git-number

<comment><USER2> Not sure how necessary this is - interactive adding (`git add -i`) does all this much more elegantly.

<comment><USER3> git add -p Is also a nice alternative. Sadly, it doesn't allow you to revert an add files like darcs does.

<comment><USER4> Not sure exactly what you mean but you should be aware of checkout -p and reset -p

<comment><USER3> Close, but not truly the same. In interactive mode, darcs hands you every change it can find and asks you what to do with it (including reverting the change). So, if i added a file using `touch`, deleted one using `rm` (but not `git rm`), added a debug statement to a file and a change in another, the workflow would be the following:

* Add file foo: Ynr? Y * Remove file bar: Ynr? n * Add debug statement? r #revert, I don't need it anyways * Add change xyz? n # I want this in another commit

Its a real handy way to iterate over _all_ changes in your repos that it finds. I used it heavily to review all my changes before committing them as multiple patches.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I find I just use tab-completion. I'm quite used to writing the names of the files in my project anyway, and find the "hard core" interaction through the shell quite pleasant, it simply is in line with what you tend to do in the shell.

Micro-plug: if you use the Geany editor/IDE, you might like <https://github.com/unwind/gitbrowser> to make switching between files (opening them if necessary) by substring-searching the filename from the Git repo pleasant.

</comment><comment><USER6> Neat little tool. For add's though probably 99% of the time I use 'git add -p' Not only do I not have to type the file names, but I get a quick little final code review to boot which seems win all around.

<comment><USER7> 'git add -i' can also be very helpful. This is my preferred tool for staging files to commit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Looks similar to scm breeze : <https://github.com/ndbroadbent/scm_breeze>

But scm breeze (which I use every days) seems much more powerful.

</comment><comment><USER9> Interesting and useful if your are using the command line version of git.

However since starting to use Magit (git mode for Emacs) I never feel the need to drop to the console in order to interact with my git repo because Magit has such a brilliant interface. I encourage people to try out!

</comment><comment><USER10> This is nice but to be honest I'm surprised it's not a feature already built into git. It seems strange that for a command line tool the fastest way to interact with files is to use the mouse to double click and then right click . Maybe you could submit a patch to git itself?

<comment><USER11> Are you sure you're using your shell with full fluency? I can identify a file in a nontrivial source tree with the shell far faster than a mouse, and the advantage only opens up if I start specifying more than one file.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The case of adding some files or bits of files is one of the few cases where I spin up a GUI tool. I find git-cola is excellent at this.

The other GUI case is using qgit when browsing logs in detail.

<comment><USER13> for the logs in detail case, you should check out log's graph command. i find it much quicker than any gui tool at the same thing. here's my alias with color etc:

      lg = !git log --all --graph --pretty=format:'%Cred%h%Creset -%C(yellow)%d%Creset %s %Cgreen(%cr) %C(bold blue)<%an>%Creset' --abbrev-commit --date=relative $(git stash list --format=%h)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is fairly similar to git shortcuts, although I think that git shortcuts is more featureful

<comment><USER14> I assume you are referring to the same thing as canop_fr, <https://github.com/ndbroadbent/scm_breeze> ?

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that's the one. I think the title of the blog that introduced it used the name git shortcuts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yeah, now I can throw away tig for staging files :D</comment>


Introductory course to iphone development - <AUTHOR> http://courses.csail.mit.edu/iphonedev/

<comment><USER2> If you know C/C++ and want to get into Objective-C I recommend the "Objective-C Guide for C++ Programmers": <http://ktd.club.fr/programmation/fichiers/cpp-objc-en.pdf>

It goes through step by step and explains how the OO terms you know map from C++ to Objective-C, e.g., "If you want to declare a static class method, you use this syntax..." If you're familiar with OO in general it's pretty good, too.

It really lowers the Objective-C syntax hurdle, IMO.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Besides of this course from MIT and the one at Stanford (<http://www.stanford.edu/class/cs193p/cgi-bin/index.php>), what other sources are you using to get into iphone development?

<comment><USER3> The two things that got me started were "Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X (3rd Edition)" by Aaron Hillegass: [http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/browse/book/isbn/97803215036...](http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/browse/book/isbn/9780321503619) and iCodeBlog which has excellent tutorials for beginners: <http://icodeblog.com/>

<comment><USER4> I was trying to follow along with the Stanford course but found myself lost early on. Do you think the Cocoa Programming book covers enough Objective C / OOP basics for a beginner?

<comment><USER3> The preface of the book says 'This book is written for programmers who already know some C programming and something about objects'. I'm not a strong coder, but it has been great in getting me started and teaching exactly how Objective C / Xcode / interface builder work together to create an application. I bought the book but if you want to have a quick flick through the older second edition before purchasing the someone has it on rapidlibrary.com.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> <http://www.mobileorchard.com/> is another resource dedicated to iphone development.

</comment><comment><USER6> Are there any iphone development tools for Linux?

<comment><USER7> There was a thread about this on Stack Overflow:

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/276907/starting-iphone- ap...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/276907/starting-iphone-app- development-in-linux)

In summary, it is not impossible, but if you want to distribute your app through the app store, you should probably get a Mac.

<comment><USER6> That's pretty lame.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is Google too slow for you? - <AUTHOR>

Google Search, Maps and Gmail are almost unusable. Is anyone experiencing this? I started noticing it a few days ago and now it's getting really slow.<p>Some other users on the Internet are also complaining. Anyone else is affected by this? <comment><USER2> Hasn't affected me yet. GMail is slow but that's nothing new but the others are fine so far

</comment><comment><USER3> I noticed it two days ago. I actually used Bing for a search.

</comment><comment><USER4> No such problem here.</comment>


Shopify's 1m competition - <AUTHOR> http://www.shopify.com/build-a-business

<comment><USER2> This is an incredible way to lead by example and help entrepreneurs get the push to really make their ideas thrive. Well done!

Hopefully Canadian entrepreneurs will take advantage of it, seeing as this seems to be exactly what we're missing here (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4212010>)</comment>


Poll: YC 2005 Alum, how much are you making a year? - <AUTHOR>

Include salary and investment income. <comment><USER3> Is this an attempt to karma-whore, or did you just not understand how to properly create a poll?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> More than 250K

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Less than 60K

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> 101K - <USER2>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> 60K - 100K</comment>


Taping of Farm Cruelty Is Becoming the Crime - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/us/taping-of-farm-cruelty-is-becoming-the-crime.html <comment><USER2> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

<comment><USER3> As an outsider, it appears to me that almost the entire US legal and political system is driven by, and for the benefit of, corporate and big business interests. The only other major factor at work seems to be fear - witness the ever increasing power of the TSA

Probably appears worse than it is, but it does appear to be in a pretty sad state now.

The Founding Fathers are probably turning in their graves.

<comment><USER4> > As an outsider, it appears to me that the almost the entire US legal and > political system is driven by, and for the benefit of, corporate and big > business interests.

This is the case in every country. Those at the top will take an inordinate amount of time to make rules that benefit themselves and their friends.

The primary difference between the US and other countries is that the US constitution provides a means for the citizens to fight back against the most outrageous of offenses. Now, that doesn't mean it always works. In fact, it rarely does. But it does, in fact, work occasionally, which is better than nothing.

<comment><USER5> Oh, absolutely. As a Canadian, I live in hope that the US will invade and replace our system of government.

<comment><USER6> No doubt you're joking, but one thing I've repeatedly noticed in my many visits to Canada is the extent to which Canadians define themselves as being "not American" (meaning not US citizens). Can't blame 'em, more power to them.

<comment><USER5> This is a fair point. I actually can't stand that too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is not meant to defend cruel people, I just want to raise a few points about farms.

While I have only been to small farms, I have definitely seen what some people would consider animal cruelty. But I think it's important to understand the mentality of people that work with these animals.

Animals on farms are seen as property, not a pet in any way. Most owners and workers of animals distance themselves from the animals to keep themselves mentally healthy as they will be putting these animals to slaughter to sell or eat. When distance yourself from an animal, you won't be treating it as nicely as you would your family dog.

When talking about farm help, they may hold a grudge against the animals they are working with. A friend would work his uncle's farm every saturday to help clean up after the pigs. His job was basically shoveling pig poop for 8 hours (or other equally not-fun jobs). It would take a day before he smelled normal again. Doing this kind of work can make some people resentful of the animals they work with.

Farmers and farm help see animals as money, so they won't do anything that could jeopardize being paid (won't damage the product).

When people are disconnected with the animals they are working with, it is easier for some people not to be so nice to those animals. This isn't to say that all people working with animals will be abusive towards them, but it creates an opening for those people that aren't as nice to take their anger out on the animals.

<comment><USER8> As of a couple of years ago, the average job tenure of an employee working in a slaughterhouse was 6 months. Many people lasted half a day to three days. The emotional stress and trauma of witnessing living animals being put through the kind of things factory farming does to them is emotionally overwhelming to even the most hardened people.

The people who have to witness that day in and day out frequently end up with extreme emotional turmoil/psychological trauma similar to PTSD and it is these traumatized employees who end enacting much of the crueler practices talked about in these videos.

It's very challenging for a person to witness what goes on in a slaughterhouse and to maintain their sanity. Trying to keep the idea that these are living creatures with rights but also that it is perfectly fine for them to suffer the horrible treatment they are subjected to requires a tenuous mental gymnastics that apparently seems to break down after only a couple of months of exposure.

<comment><USER9>
      | factory farming

Slaughterhouses aren't just for 'factory farming.' It's mandated by law that only licensed/register abattoir can kill animals used for meat, so even the animals coming from 'humane' farms go through the same process.

Also, I remember reading some statistics about how domestic violence is higher among slaughterhouse workers. Too lazy to look it up, but IIRC it was _after_ they started working there (not necessarily that violent people were attracted to the trade).

<comment><USER10> This depends on the animal. My recollection was that one must process cattle through a USDA approved facility, but there were no such restrictions on pork or poultry.

(The lack of a poultry restriction is obvious to anyone who's bought an organic bird from a local farm.)

Further, as the local eating movement grows, there's an increase in the number of "boutique" (if you will) slaughterhouses. [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/04/153511889/small-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/04/153511889/small- scale-slaughterhouses-aim-to-put-the-local-back-in-local-meat)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "One of the group's model bills, "The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act," prohibits filming or taking pictures on livestock farms to "defame the facility or its owner." Violators would be placed on a "terrorist registry.""

This sounds like a line out of some futuristic dystopian film

<comment><USER12> To me, it sounds as if it's taken from George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty- Four."

<comment><USER13> Animal Farm also comes to mind, but that's awfully literal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is nothing but plutocracy fighting its final battle.

No one is _actually_ suggesting that animal cruelty is OK. But when documenting such (immoral, mind you) acts raises awareness that eventually harms business, in the meat and dairy industry in this case, then big money raises its head in the form of legislation that favors the $$$.

We see the same pattern when hackers are cast as the new terrorists.

<comment><USER15> I wonder how the tech community would respond if undercover reporters were breaking into offices and documenting the "incomprehensible" C that managers are forcing down on employees when they could be purportedly writing software in English, and people stopped using software to help free the abused employees who are stuffed in a small cubicle to write nonsensical gibberish day-in, day-out?

That is what this situation seems like. Animal cruelty is definitely not okay, but I have noticed a growing trend of reporting best practices, _that attempt to minimize animal suffering as much as possible_ , as animal cruelty. And the solutions people are coming up with to improve on those best practices are as non-sensical as a non-industry expert suggesting that we write software in English. In a perfect world, sure, but the real world has real constraints.

I would like to see real awareness, not people who feel they are experts on all rural affair matters after watching a two hour documentary and a YouTube clip or two. A video ban is definitely not the way to do that, but I can see the other side. Google isn't going to be too happy if you go around filming their datacenter, lamenting that you could do the same with a server in your closet at home, either.

<comment><USER16> Not that this is really relevant to the topic at hand, but are you actually drawing an equivalency between people who get paid to write code for a living and an animal being slaughtered? I don't think the analogy works at all.

<comment><USER15> No. I'm saying people who do not understand technology could be lead to believe such things if people started reporting it. Nobody is going to take the time to realize that people actually enjoy writing software using programming languages.

And I'm not suggesting animals enjoy being slaughtered, but if it is going to happen, do you not support doing it the most humane way possible?

<comment><USER17> I support free information. If "best practices" in animal slaughter gross people out, then maybe we need better "best practices" or maybe we need to rethink our agriculture system. Just because something has been decided upon by a group of experts does not make it socially just or appropriate. The treatment of slaves was, I'm sure, generally done according to what, at that time, would have been considered "best practices", and people wanted cotton. But that doesn't mean that slavery should have been ignored and "left to the professionals".

<comment><USER18> Unless you switch everyone to a meat substitute, killing will be required for eating meat.

I've eaten: cow, chicken, pig, turkey, duck, frog, octopus, salmon, tuna, and I'm sure other meats too. All of them required to be killed, for processing.

Don't get me wrong. I eat meat. I've also done slaughtering as well and know what goes on when you do kill. I also strongly prefer eating humanely treated animals, before and during slaughter.

<comment><USER17> Fine, that's perfectly fine with me. But nothing you said suggests that recording slaughter practices should be some sort of special "first amendment black hole". If it grosses people out, then maybe we'll just end up with more vegetarians, oh well.

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure it is quite that simple. The article seems to indicate that it isn't about hiding information per-say, but to keep the people, who come with the specific intent of destroying the farm, away. You will notice it is not just about videos.

I think most farmers respect, and even often agree with, with normal animal rights activists, but they also have a real fear towards the "crazy PETA types", and with good reason. I think you'd find any industry trying to push for similar laws in the presence of similar activists, and we do have laws for similar cases that have come up.

Its unfortunate that those who have a real concern for the well-being of animals, and actually want to work with farmers to see improvements, get wrapped up in the spectacle that others bring.

<comment><USER18> And the harsh fact: for you to live, something else must die.

We only focus on factory farm operations and the possible illegality of filming illegal actions. Yes, there are horrible practices in many parts of industry (I would say more horrible than not).

I just got done watching a documentary about plant communication on Nature (PBS). They also seem to be able to identify self, relative, and non-self. They communicate across species about predator information. They initiate active chemical defenses against organisms that attack them. They also respond to negative stimuli (pain). All things considered, they seem to be able to think and feel similarly to the animals.

Now.. I say this why? Most people would have no compunction about killing a plant for food, yet many I know would strongly object in killing a cow or chicken to eat meat.

My point is this: plants and animals seem to feel pain and seek to minimize it. Plants and animals are both living. I would not say that any specific plant is any more or less important than an animal (including us). However, for us to live, something must, inevitably die.

I make a thanks to the beings, plant and animal, I consume before each meal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you eat factory farmed meat, eggs, or dairy, you are almost guaranteed to be supporting animal cruelty. There are many fantastic books and documentaries detailing the horrors and dangers of factory farming and I've linked to a few below. This is an open secret.

I would be willing to bet that almost anybody here, once they've looked deeply into factory farming, would come out the other side and look at factory farmed animal products in a completely new light.

Do you truly want to stop farm animal cruelty? Investigate this industry and consider no longer buying factory farmed animal products.

[http://www.amazon.com/Food-Inc-Participant-Industrial- Poorer...](http://www.amazon.com/Food-Inc-Participant-Industrial- Poorer-/dp/1586486942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365429391&sr=1-1&keywords=food+inc)

[http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Animals-Jonathan-Safran- Foer/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Eating-Animals-Jonathan-Safran- Foer/dp/0316069884)

<comment><USER19> There is no such thing as humane meat, eggs, or dairy, even in the absence of factory farming. Dairy requires that cows be forcibly inseminated, male chicks are ground alive in hatcheries, and it is impossible to produce meat without killing an animal. "Humane" meat is just a way for the wealthy to absolve themselves of complicity in killing for taste and convenience by paying a premium for something that is anything but humane.

<comment><USER20> You're wrong about this.

-dairy animals can be chosen based on their long-term milk production (my goats haven't been bred in 2+ years and are still giving more milk than I know what to do with, and when they are finally bred we have other uses for males around the farm).

-I hatch my own chicks and the males are not ground alive (or tossed in trash, or euthanized, or whatever). My chickens get as much love as my dogs do.

-Of course it's impossible to produce meat without killing an animal, but it is very much possible to produce meat while caring about the animal immensely and ensuring its quality of life is never compromised (save for the last instant). It is the hardest thing in the world- and it should be. Raising my own animals for meat has changed the way I consume other meat (or rather, the way i DON'T consume other meat) unless I'm sure it has been handled, beginning to end, with the same care and concern that I give my animals.

Humane meat is possible without being elitist, expensive, and inhumane, and I take personally your accusation that there's any convenience in it. Attitudes like yours are just one more factor that a small farmer has to deal with in this uphill battle against backwards attitudes towards meat raising and I'd appreciate it if you'd cool it on the propaganda!

<comment><USER21> Thank you for this. Moral absolutism with respect to killing animals for meat doesn't advance the conversation; it just gives vegans a way to feel superior. You seem to understand that what matters (to many people) is the quality of life for the _living_ animal.

A note to all hard-line vegans: If you want to do something to improve the welfare of the animals we raise for meat, engage people in discussions of humane farming practices w.r.t. livestock. Most meat-eaters you talk to aren't ready to give it up. So ask yourself: Would you rather live in a world of factory farms, or a world where animals are raised and slaughtered in the _most_ humane way we can manage? Give up on the idea that you'll convert everyone you meet to a vegan, and you can still do a lot of good in this world. When you take hard-line stances like the poster above, you alienate your meat-eating audience and end the conversation.

<comment><USER19> Ending chattel slavery probably didn't seem that feasible to abolitionists in 1820s United States. That doesn't mean they would have gained anything by compromising though. Advocating for welfare reforms rather than abolition sends mixed messages and suggests that there is a tolerable level of (to put it bluntly) exploitation.

<comment><USER21> I guess we'll be forced to stick with the status quo, then. Politics requires compromise. Not everyone's moral yardstick is the same as yours. I don't think you would find a great many people who would think that the slave analogy is appropriate, so the only option I have left is to exclude you from the conversation. You're in a very small minority when you equate the rights of animals to the rights of a human.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As an animal researcher, I'm of two minds on this.

Obviously, it's better if animal cruelty is exposed. The practices mentioned in the introduction definitely constitute cruelty. They should not be allowed to happen, and whistleblowers should be permitted to record them so that evidence may be presented in court.

On the other hand, people with ties to animal rights organizations have a habit of finding animal cruelty where there is none. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys> for a classic example. The pictures produced by PETA portrayed a researcher's work as an open-and- shut case of animal cruelty when, in fact, the research was scientifically justified and it was ambiguous whether there was any negligence in the way the animals were cared for.

<comment><USER19> There was no doubt whether the animals subjected to unreasonable suffering. As for the question of scientific justification, there were non-animal models for neuroplasticity research available at the time. The widespread use of monkeys in neuroscience is more of a matter of convenience and entrenched interests. Just because a study produces scientific results does not mean that it is ethically valid, take the Tuskegee syphilis experiments or San Antonio Contraceptive Study for example.

<comment><USER22> This debate has been covered to death in other sources. The majority of scientists disagree with you. It might be because there is a vast conspiracy; it might because most peoples' values differ from yours; or it might be because we know neuroscience better than you do

EDIT: Just to make clear, I don't want this to be taken as a wholehearted endorsement of the treatment of the animals in the Silver Springs case. There were some questionable practices. However, I feel that there was a scientific reason to be performing the general class of experiments.

<comment><USER23> Scientists who don't feel strongly about animal rights defend the position that is most convenient and efficient for them. If using a monkey instead of spending months cultivating petri dishes is easier (e.g. more deterministically successful for publication) then of course they will advocate for using the monkey. This argument leaves the animal rights activist unimpressed. In the end most animal experiments are certainly useful but few are strictly necessary. Researchers complain about all the paperwork required but I wish it was 100 times more difficult to get these experiments approved. Then people would really make sure the experiment is well thought-out and important. And I would happily delay some scientific discoveries by 50 years if that can spare a few million animals (thanks to better computer models or new noninvasive techniques)

<comment><USER24> And if the delay costs human lives? perhaps lots of them?

You make it sound like there is no consequence of the delay except time. Alas, time is among the most precious things each of us has, and I personally don't have another 50 to spare.

<comment><USER23> How is that the animals' problem? But note that I was referring to _some_ discoveries. I just don't believe we're close to making an efficient "use" of the millions of animals subject to experiments every year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Why not require video cameras be installed in factory farms, and have footage independently reviewed? I feel like a lot of this abuse is due to poorly educated workers in a stressful environment and no observation.

<comment><USER26> I just pasted this quote elsewhere in this thread but I'm going to paste it here again because it's so bold-faced.

      The videos may seem troubling to someone unfamiliar with farming, said
      Kelli Ludlum, the group's director of Congressional relations, but
      they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time.

      "They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider
      it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open," she said.

Some of the behavior filmed is standard operating procedures, and they don't want that viewed by the otherwise ignorant public.

<comment><USER16> And yet, in contrast, we have surgeons posting their videos for all to see on YouTube because they are proud of the work that they do and they want people to see what goes on in the OR.

<comment><USER27> It helps that "victims" of successful surgeries end up playing catch with their kids, and not in a clearance bin in a supermarket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I love these short pieces on stupid legislation in the land of the free.

Makes me so happy I don't live there.

Who in their right mind would even propose such legislation. What kind of immoral, capitalistic people are in charge in the US.

<comment><USER29> Newsflash: it's extraordinarily unlikely that you live in a country with stronger protection of freedom of speech than the US. In fact, if you live in Europe you almost certainly don't.

<comment><USER30> If you live in a free county, say fuck on TV. If not don't lecture others about free speech.

<comment><USER31> We have plenty of channels using the word "fuck" on tv at any given moment. In fact, it's highly likely that you regularly watch a few of those shows.

<comment><USER30> Actually no. I prefer shows from the UK.

<comment><USER31> You don't watch a single US-produced television program. I believe this.

<comment><USER32> Your sarcasm indicates that you think this is somehow a preposterous concept. Despite being American, I have not watched a single American TV show in more than a month, and that instance was a single episode at a party gathered to share food and watch it (I was there for the people, not the show).

Granted, I watch very little TV, but what I do watch is from the UK.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> As a US citizen, this scares the crap out of me. If the government is actively and publicly preventing people from exposing rampant crime, it speaks volumes. At least if they were trying to be covert or slick about it, it implies they know what they are doing is wrong.

<comment><USER34> They just rammed a bill through congress to make Monsato above the law. They have drones scouring the globe for vans filled with people they can drop bombs on if they think they may associate with "bad" people. If you talk about it you're a conspiracy theorist. Which means you go onto a list. Gotta watch what you're doing now. They try to disarm the public in the name of safety while arming themselves to the teeth and solving every problem they have with the threat of violence.

Think this is crazy talk? Well that's my point. It's become crazy to even mention some things. Frankly, the stuff is getting outright creepy and they better be careful because they are playing with fire.

<comment><USER35> I find this bit to be on the 'oh-please' side of crazy:

>They try to disarm the public in the name of safety while arming themselves to the teeth and solving every problem they have with the threat of violence.

because I have a friend who used this basic argument to say gun control increases the likelihood of a nuclear strike on DC by North Korea.

<comment><USER34> Well is it not the truth? The US has the world's most heavily armed police forces. Their military makes others look quaint. They have military actions going on today right now all over the world. They always need more $ to continue the violence. Yet they claim that violence is wrong. It's really no wonder we're like a bunch of crazy people.

The simple fact is uncle sam solves every problem with violence so I'm not surprised when it's citizens act the same way.

<comment><USER35> In the overall argument, I find a distinction between citizen and government. I disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the second amendment, so that gives a basis of where I come from when equating ownership of firearms for personal protection to a standing military.

However, I can't stop my eye's from rolling at someone telling me that if everyone had guns, there would be no nuclear threat from any person/group/country. I honestly don't understand how one can connect to the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I am totally for people being able to expose farm cruelty if the goal is an open debate to enact political change. I wonder, however, if sometimes people use their free speech rights to terrorize potential supporters and advocates, folks who are unfamiliar with reality and context, in order to raise money through FUD. That doesn't mean I don't support their right to free speech. Just means that the speaking part and the recording part need to be considered separately.

I added that caveat because what we're going to see is all sorts of people with all kinds of interests taping things, especially with drone technology and ubiquitous surveillance. This isn't somebody writing a play, novel, or an editorial. It's somebody taking something that you thought was private and displaying it for the world to see, inside their own editorial frame. It's something we should think about carefully. While I am completely in support of MLK's right to make the speech "I have a dream", I'm not so sure I'd be in favor of somebody secretly taping him with a drone while he was creating it. And then creating their own political content around that tape.

Case in point: here's an article I was going to research and rewrite last week but didn't have time. In Australia, animal activists are planning on using drones to tape farmers looking for cruelty.

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/animal_liberation_au...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/animal_liberation_australia_drones/)

Would you want anybody with a political cause access to your property whenever they wanted to make recordings to support their political point?

</comment><comment><USER34> There's a creepy trend going on in the world and it's always been around, but it's gaining steam - the restriction of information. Make it illegal to talk about or simply ignore it becomes the standard. "These aren't the droids you're looking for" as they speak to the world.

<comment><USER37> I disagree. I think we are trending in the opposite direction, and these kinds of bills are the "bad guys" fighting back against that progress. The Internet and computing generally have really opened the flood gates on freedom of information. We have to fight to keep making progress, but I honestly believe we're trending forward on this.

It's easy to draw an analogy to another fight dear to me, gay rights in the United States. 40 years ago, there were no anti-gay constitutional amendments. Today we're seeing many states pass anti-gay constitutional amendments. Is that because we're going backwards on gay rights, or because the "bad guys" are fighting progress? I think it's clearly the latter.

Don't get discouraged by losing a battle when you're winning the war :) Keep up the fight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can't the people filming the cruelty just re-brand themselves as undercover journalists and get all the protection journalists receive?

<comment><USER38> You can't just "brand" yourself a journalist. You need a licence and accreditation.

<comment><USER11> I wasn't aware that was the case, can't anyone be a self proclaimed investigative journalist?

<comment><USER39> It is not, he's wrong. Whether someone is, or is not, a journalist has been decided by courts in the past as part of the application of the various journalist shield laws.

Working for a well-known publication and having a journalism degree certainly helps your case, but it is not required.

<comment><USER38> You can only get to certain places with a press pass, like war zones and such, and it grants you diplomatic immunity and journalist protection from many things that could happen to you :P

You can't just run in yelling "I am a journalist!" and expecting everyone to accept it. Either you are accredited or you are not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I doubt all the people signing on to this even know it's happening.

American Legislative Exchange Council: <http://www.alec.org/about-alec/>

It might help to contact your representative and let them know about this article and that you associate them to it, and to protecting animal cruelty.

</comment><comment><USER41> I wonder what would have happened if this kind of legislation was in place for the guy who filmed the Mitt Romney "47%" video.

<comment><USER42> That recording _was_ illegal: <http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/florida- recording-law>

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Why did the original posting get deleted? On to the topic, this is just ridiculous, how can anyone vote for such a law?

<comment><USER44> Yeah, I found the deletion really weird too! Good that it's back though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Here's a crazy idea, stop eating meat. It's energy inefficient and cruel.

<comment><USER46> Here's a better idea. Engineer meat from animal stem cells. More energy efficient and less cruel (although maybe less tasty). Plants take less energy but provide less energy to humans (meat is more power efficient). Think of plant and animal like 1.5V batteries vs. 3V batteries.

<comment><USER45> Nope. It would require less farming to feed people than to feed animals and people to eat those animals. Energy loss is an order of magnitude. If you ate the plants instead of eating the animals eating the plants it would be more energy efficient.

<comment><USER46> Would it take less energy to grow meat (in lab) or grow plant?

<comment><USER45> I don't know anything about growing meat in the lab, but it doesn't sound very appealing and I've lost any desire to eat meat long ago so I don't really care either way. The theoretical potential to grow meat isn't in any way a convincing argument to make eating meat right this minute either non-cruel or energy efficient however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> From original article: _but they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time._

 _"They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open," she said._

So should we now ban the taping of heart surgery?

</comment><comment><USER48> Putting the issue of legality of such legislation aside, it kinda surprised me that the farm-owners/workers were not more concerned about the kind of cruelty going on in their property. Do these people not find the videos incredibly unsettling? How can they allow these things under their watch?

<comment><USER26> At least one of the practices mentioned, de-beaking [0], is nowhere near out of the ordinary at factory hatcheries. One of the quoted lobbyists even makes the point that some of the behavior recorded is the norm, not the exception:

      The videos may seem troubling to someone unfamiliar with farming, said
      Kelli Ludlum, the group's director of Congressional relations, but
      they can be like seeing open-heart surgery for the first time.

      "They could be performing a perfect procedure, but you would consider
      it abhorrent that they were cutting a person open," she said.

While some of the abuses may be unusual, I suspect the truth is that they would prefer no one tape the regular day-to-day goings on at factory farms either.

[0] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debeaking>

<comment><USER18> Regarding debeaking, it IS not removal of the whole beak. It is the technique of rounding off the beak.

We've raised chickens before, starting from chicks/eggs. The chicks will peck at anything, including other chicks. We lost 2 chicks that way, because one had a bloodspot, and we don't know about the other one. Having rounded beaks (and the tools to do that) would have saved us 2 animals.

I also saw on Facebook someone moaning about Cannulized cows and the "evil trauma" it must be. Let alone, it is a great way to monitor the herd (cows) along with providing rapid response to bad plants causing problems, like jimpson weed.

If most people had to go through the process of raise animal; slaughter animal; clean carcass; package meat: Most people would be vegetarians. I've done it, and would do it again if I had to.

<comment><USER26> You're right, I should have used the word "trimming" since "debeaking" is a bit loaded. I didn't know that it was still necessary or recommended for raising chickens in smaller operations, thanks for enlightening me.

I still think that most consumers of eggs (and meat, and milk) who have never seen a battery cage operation (or factory farm, CAFO, slaughterhouse, etc) would be surprised, if not horrified, and I suspect that this is the real motivation behind these laws and lobbying efforts.

<comment><USER18> I very much do agree: much of the current factory farm techniques are just plain disgusting.

Many of the big egg-ufacturers calculate space per chick in cm^3. They cannot turn or pretty much move in any direction. General treatment is abhorrent. Feed is not a natural ground-peck but some nutrient paste pellets filled with antibiotics. Sanitation is whatever falls through the cage. What doesn't ends up burning the chickens' feet.

But about my story: We bought 15 chickens. 8 of them were chicks, and 7 were eggs about to hatch. Baby chicks, especially in an incubator, are harsh little evil things. They will all peck at whatever is different. Out of 15, we lost 2, which does seem average for farmers. It's also why you use red lights on chicks too: so they can't see blood.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Can we, as a hacker community, do something about this kind of abuse - irregardless whether taping animal cruelty becomes illegal or not?

My idea would be to set up some kind of wiki leaks for those videos, where animal rights militants would be able to anonymously post their videos.

</comment><comment><USER50> They should pass a law requiring 24 hr cameras in all animal facilities broadcasting to the web. People who care could monitor the feeds.

If no cruelty takes place and those who care about animals not being mistreated cover the costs, it is win win.

</comment><comment><USER51> "But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction"

May we know them by names? "state legislatures" is a body, not a actual person. I want to know the names so next time they knock at my door asking for a vote, I know what to say.

</comment><comment><USER52> These companies can already include non-disclosure, non-disparagement and non- circumvention provisions in their employment agreements. If an employee/undercover investigator violates those contractual terms not only could they be individually liable for damages but the organizations (news or animal rights organizations) sponsoring the undercover investigation could also be liable.

Further, they can contractually prohibit employees from video recording at their place of employment - there is no need for these companies to be lobbying for criminal sanctions for this behavior.

</comment><comment><USER9> Even in the most extreme of cases, I don't see how claiming that A.L.F. even is a 'terrorist' organisation. Sure they 'liberate' the animals from their owners, but you don't call a burglar a terrorist. Seems these days like "breaking the law in the furtherance of a political cause" is the new definition of terrorism (rather than using violence to sow the seeds to terror), and we're creating more laws to make more terrorists. Gotta fuel the War on Terror somehow I guess...

<comment><USER53> ALF is an umbrella term. There was an ALF press office, which would release information and propaganda. But anyone was free to perform an action and claim it for the ALF. Calling an organisation like that terrorist is problematic. But, still ...

There was a campaign against department stores selling fur in the 80s / 90s. The claimed intent was to cause massive water damage from sprinkler systems. People would place incendiary devices into the pockets of clothes (one reason pockets are now stitched closed) and these devices would go off at night. Unfortunately sprinkler systems didn't go off, and stores burnt down. 'Out of hours' does not mean 'empty'; the lives of cleaners, for example, were risked by this campaign.

There have been other arson campaigns against abattoirs, meat packing / distribution plants, dairies, etc.

Animal rights activists have dug up corpses.

There has been an extensive campaign of harassment against anyone linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences; this includes anyone providing any form of service to HLS. People think in terms of 'legitimate targets'. A company is a legitimate target. Anyone working for that company is a legitimate target. The children of, for example, a secretary working for that company are not legitimate targets.

Early members of ALF got advice from IRA.

Breaking the law to further a political cause is, perhaps, fine. But some of the extremes done in the name of animal rights are clearly terrorist offences.

<comment><USER9> Maybe so, but the government likes to label all animal rights activists as terrorists. Even groups like ADL whose expressed mandate is to promote animal rights via legal means.

My point wasn't that all animal rights activists are angels, but moreso that there is a bias against them from government/law enforcement. Some anti- abortion activists have _bombed_ abortion clinics, but you don't see the anti- abortion movement labelled as a bunch of terrorists.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Ah, ALEC is behind it. Color me not shocked. Here's some background:

* [http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/09/alec-what-it-does-and-w...](http://swampland.time.com/2012/04/09/alec-what-it-does-and-why-three-major-corporations-cut-ties/)

* [http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-13/why-are-mcdo...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-13/why-are-mcdonalds-coca-cola-and-intuit-fleeing-alec)

</comment><comment><USER55> If you'd like to take action against Ag-Gag, I suggest signing the petition at <http://www.ag-gag.org/>. You might also want to consider subscribing to the FarmForward mailing list and/or making a donation - <http://www.farmforward.com>

</comment><comment><USER56> Isn't this in direct conflict with whistleblower laws? I mean, it should never be illegal to report on illegal activity.

However, if PETA feels that a perfectly legal and well-maintained slaughterhouse should be taped and the 'horrors' shown, that's a different story. Just because they feel 'meat is murder' doesn't mean that it is.

<comment><USER57> I think that's probably at least the intention of the legislation. When PETA films some normal farm procedure, they'll add ominous music, show only the most horrid parts of whatever is happening, desaturate the pictures and tar the entire industry with being gruesome.

Under 1st Amendment rights, they're allowed to do this. They're not showing anything that didn't happen so it isn't libelous.

Personally I think the first amendment is out of date. The appeal to it's authority is a prime example of the Historians Fallacy[1]. In many other countries there are restrictions on speech -- and that is seen as a generally good thing. Eg. hate speech, and holocaust denial. Defamation cases are also able to hide behind the first amendment in the USA, where they cannot elsewhere.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian%27s_fallacy>

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> At this point in the US, censorship laws like this usually get defeated. Fourth Amendment/privacy/etc. are the areas where I'm more worried about civil liberties.

That said, the reason they get defeated is, in large part, because of the outcry when they're attempted. I don't want to minimize the need to keep fighting for freedom.

</comment><comment><USER59> For anyone fammilar with the US legal system, would you need to be tried for breaking this law before you can challenge it in court (where you would be on the hook for criminal penalties), or can you proactivly challenge such laws without breaking them?

<comment><USER60> Depends!

In some cases, you can make the claim that a certain law is so broad and clearly unconstitutional that it affects everyone and should be struck down. The courts may accept such a case or they may say, "no, doesn't look like that to us, wait until you have someone prosecuted under this law and then come back and argue about the specific case".

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_challenge>

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Burying your head in the sand was always an excellent survival strategy.

</comment><comment><USER62> Sure, it's a silly law, sure, it probably won't survive constitutional review, and most definitely, true cruelty to animals is a crime.

But this is also a rather predictable backlash against groups who aren't looking to correct occasional violations of regulations in the meatpacking industry, but shut down the industry as a whole - devastating local communities by getting rid of a ton of low-skilled jobs. Since we're not exactly making more low-skilled jobs these days, many of the people affected will be impoverished for life, taking their towns with them.

Given that, it's not at all surprising that employees, employers, and local politicians are responding very aggressively. Any industry under the same threat would respond the same way.

<comment><USER63> > devastating local communities by getting rid of a ton of low-skilled jobs

Why would those communities be devastated? People still have to eat, hence low-skilled jobs would still be required to produce other kinds of food in the same local communities.

<comment><USER62> Meatpacking remains labor intensive in a way that other forms of large-scale farming are not.

Even if there was labor parity, they're not usually done in the same places. Meatpacking is usually done near transportation hubs, and ranching is usually on land that's not suitable for agricultural purposes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Unwittingly in this attempt to legislate, they might have found the best way possible to raise moral justification to do farm tapes in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER65> Is there a farm cruelty map? One where locations can be tagged with media, info about the farm and the farm product buyers? There should be...

</comment><comment><USER66> and now, for something different

With the avian flu problem rising again, Maybe to keep these young activists out of the farms and safe of touching avian decays is not as bad idea as it could seem

There are some risks associated to each working place, and is not very sage that any not autorized people can mess with the human food chain

</comment><comment><USER67> This is disgusting. Apparently taping animal cruelty in order to influence economic behavior is now _terrorism_.

This reminds me of how much of the press sat on the wiretapping scandals of 2004 because "it might be political" (meaning it might affect the election, since Bush was directly responsible). As long as the information is truthful, that's the press's fucking job!

Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery, and Truth is Terrorism.

</comment><comment><USER68> I don't think anyone here has been to a farm.

<comment><USER69> Wrong</comment></comment>