Pinterest, We Have a Problem - <AUTHOR> http://whatblag.com/2012/03/07/pinterest-we-have-a-problem/ <comment><USER2> Pinterest has a market valuation of > 200 million dollars...

30%+ of its images are flickr images...

... 99%+ of which are "All Rights Reserved".

How many

... page views,

... new subscribers,

... and $$$

have the most-pinned flickr images generated for pinterest, with the author not seeing a single cent... not even having the satisfaction of seeing their popularity on pinterest reflect in their flickr stats?

And: Pinterest does not even have the decency to display the author name and license info next to the image.

Pinterest's business model is flawed; it is based on systematic violation of copyright. At some point, someone will start a class-action lawsuit and invite flickr photographers whose works got "pinned" to sign up, to reclaim part of that >$200 million pie.

In fact, this seems like a valid startup idea to me: Create a one-page website explaining to flickr users what has been going on. Do a systematic reverse image search to find out which authors have been affected and invite them to join. Arrange with an interested lawfirm to get a % of their fee in exchange for delivering the list of potential plaintiffs.

<comment><USER3> Recently, I wanted to make some picture postcards of various locations around the US for personal use, so I went looking for images. I found many on Flickr. I wanted to compensate the original photographer. There is no easy way to do this.

At best, some photographs have a "request to license" link that bounces you to a third party (typically Getty Images) which offers to "Review the photo to determine if it's a good fit for licensing through us; Contact the photographer; Handle the details like releases and pricing" and takes "between two and seven days to arrange licensing." with prices typically around $100 for usable resolution for a postcard.

At worst, you have to sign in to Yahoo so that you can send the photographer a message about wanting to use their photo. You may or may not get a reply, and you have to arrange how to pay the photographer, if at all.

This may make sense for images which are to be used in a commercial context, but for personal use like how I wanted to use the images, it's way too expensive and much too much friction.

The vast majority of images will never be used commercially. There should be an easier way to remunerate the photographer, and at more reasonable prices. A "Pix Store" if you will. Maybe that's what the stock photo sites are supposed to be, but they don't have nearly the inventory.

Sorry for the tangent.

<comment><USER4> "This may make sense for images which are to be used in a commercial context, but for personal use like how I wanted to use the images, it's way too expensive and much too much friction."

That's why Flickr lets you search for Creative Commons images, for which the photographer gives you that personal use permission in advance.

<comment><USER3> There are shades of a grey between commercial use and free use which are unaddressed.

<comment><USER4> You think so? I license photos through Creative Commons, and differently depending on the shades of personal to commercial I consider inherent in the potential market for a photo.

I find it covers all the shades of commerciality I've considered. Meanwhile, for a purely commercial photographer, the getty images option is there, and those won't come up in the Creative Commons search unless licensed appropriately.

The CC search tool on Flickr is a fantastic tool for finding photos of the exact "shade" of use you're looking for.

<comment><USER3> CC photos are all free for non-commercial use, correct? What if you'd like to be compensated, but not at rates that justify the overhead of Getty Images? Many of the images I found were not CC licensed, nor did they have a Getty Images option. Those are the images I'm referring to.

e.g., go search Flickr for "drawdy falls". No results in Getty, no results in the Commons, but a handful of images from photographers that are retaining full copyright, but have't posted contact info. Maybe they don't want compensation and just failed to select CC when they posted. Who knows. Regardless, many of the images I found were in this middle ground. I'm not trying to sound entitled here, just pointing out that there's lots of images that sadly cannot be used.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have one direct comment and one meta-comment about the issue of Pinteret and copyright.

First, I see no issue with their Terms of Service. That language is 100% cover-your-ass boilerplate, and any site that allows people to upload content will have a similar clause in their ToS. Facebook, YouTube, SoundCloud, etc. all do.

See, e.g., section 6.C of YouTube's ToS: [http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms](http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms)

If you find people are sharing your copyrighted material on Pinterest you should file a DMCA claim with them. That's how the mechanism is designed to work, for better or worse.

Second, when you react viscerally to what Pinterest is doing or enabling, think carefully about your opinion of YouTube. With respect to content, is there a substantive difference between these early days of Pinterest and the early days of YouTube?

The MPAA is probably saying, "See? You don't like it when it happens to you, either."

<comment><USER6> The indemnification clause is definitely 100% boilerplate and used in most any site that allows user-generated content. Facebook contains it near verbatim in item 15.2 of their terms. The license grant is a bit different, since Facebook allows you to terminate the license, though under particular conditions.

The significant issue here is the idea that the intended primary use for Pinterest may infringe on the rights of others. This is what took down Napster, and, to me, indemnifying Pintereist is too risky at this point.

It's my understanding that Pinterest is attempting to move to licensed and sponsored pins and they haven't annoyed any large industry groups and might even fare better legally than YouTube did. Who knows.

<comment><USER5> Yes, they're definitely playing with fire, and they'll have to address it soon given the rate they're growing.

But the outrage, _outrage_ , OUTRAGE at Pinterest over this clause here just tells me people are ignorant of (1) what this clause really means and (2) how many times they've agreed to it in the past.

It's 100% nerdrage in my opinion, and a month from now nobody will be talking about it.

<comment><USER7> I cannot see how you can have (in reality, not legally) agreed to a clause without first knowing about it.

<comment><USER5> Much of it is a conceit, yes, and I'm not qualified to comment on the legal precedents surrounding such licenses.

I'm sure Pinterest makes you check a box saying you agree to the Terms of Use before they let you create an account.

Whether that's sufficient is up to a court to decide, and an attorney could tell you the likelihood of a successful suit given a specific fact pattern.

I'm not an attorney, though.

As I said below, people -- engineers, especially -- get caught up in contractual technicalities. The fundamental question is: do you trust Pinterest to do right by you?

Flickr has a similar clause that every photographer who has uploaded their photos has agreed to, but they do right by their users and so nobody believes one day Flickr is going to undo all that work. It would alienate their customers.

If you think Pinterest is untrustworthy, why do you think some text on a screen that _they wrote themselves_ is going to impact their behavior one way or another?

<comment><USER8> Actually, Flickr's TOS (now a general Yahoo one) is quite different. They make it clear that their rights are limited to the specific uses obvious and essential to the function of their sites:

> _Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for > inclusion on the Yahoo! Services. However, with respect to Content you > submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the > Yahoo! Services, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and > non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:_

> _With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make > available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services > other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, > adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! > Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made > available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to > include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time > you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services._

The key here is "solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available." Pinterest's ToS doesn't have such language.

Additionally, Yahoo's ToS doesn't indemnify Yahoo against all possible liability or force their legal bills w/r/t copyright claims &c. onto users. The relevant language is much more constrained:

> _You agree that Yahoo! has no responsibility or liability for the deletion > or failure to store any messages and other communications or other Content > maintained or transmitted by the Yahoo! Services. You acknowledge that > Yahoo! reserves the right to log off accounts that are inactive for an > extended period of time._

<comment><USER9> Although Yahoo is definitely more constrained then Pinterest in terms of their license language, they actually do have a similar indemnity clause:

"You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo! and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, employees, partners and licensors harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post, transmit, modify or otherwise make available through the Yahoo! Services, your use of the Yahoo! Services, your connection to the Yahoo! Services, your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any rights of another."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Oh please, not again.

Absolutely any and every product you use has ridiculous Terms of Service.

These documents are drafted up by lawyers. Their job is not to please the end users who care to read through the legalese. Their job is to create a document that will protect the product vendor in court, if and when the time comes.

Lets put an end to finding eccentricities in ToSs/EULAs, it's getting kind of redundant. If this is some sort of game to see who can find the most absurd clauses in these documents, we're all losing.

<comment><USER4> For "content" creators, these are not absurdities, these are terms that can make or break your ability to get paid for your work and put food on the table.

A photographer having to go to court to defend his ownership of photos they'd exhibited through twitpic and get paid by newspapers who claimed the ToS said he'd released his rights, demonstrates this is not a "please not again" problem, this is ongoing, big corps are misusing these at the expense of individual artists, and the problem's getting worse.

Every day I talk to artists who have no idea that posting their latest music video to a video sharing site could give that company performance rights in other media, or, as in this case, that pinning their own photos to Pinterest would let Pinterest publish a "Best Pins of 2012" book w/o compensating the artist.

This needs to be called out and both consumers and creators deserve to be informed.

<comment><USER11> Let me rephrase GP's comment, since I felt the same thing as them. Allow me to set out a hypothetical.

You find that Pinterest's terms are awful, and stage a very successful revolt with your own site, sans the offensive terms. Users flock to your site, and Pinterest dies a sad death. One of the copyright owners of your "pinned" content decides to go after you, and decides to sue the pants off you. So you freak out and hire a top-notch lawyer, who will draft a new set of terms for your users to shield you from the liability you now realize you have.

Repeat, iterate, and before you know it -- your top-notch lawyer guarantees that you will face no more expensive liability, but you now have the onerous terms set out in practically all sites that allow user-generated content.

Basically, these terms allow you to bump the liability from yourself to the user who uploaded it (because they have pinned the pictures in bad faith, in violation of your terms, etc.)

So there's really no point railing against the terms -- they aren't going away, and the best you can hope for is very minor modifications of wording with sufficient popular pressure. Good luck on that.

<comment><USER12> This post we're discussing _is_ the popular pressure. And yes, I also wish them good luck because the pendulum is currently far too in the direction against fairness to end-users.

<comment><USER13> Exactly. Saying that this is just the way it is is ludicrous. They could under sufficient pressure change the wording so that they aren't assuming ownership or unlimited use and that it is something more akin to fair use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There was a similar HN post/Google+ post last week. I can't remember where I read it.

Something along the lines of an avid lawyer decided to kill her account because she read the ToS and drew exactly the same conclusions as what you had just wrote.

While it's quite easy to regard this as been a ticking timebomb, a few things to probably note.

If you are a photographer or someone who holds copyright in a work you would most likely just issue a DMCA.

Now, lets assume that you aren't content with that. You might argue that you have incurred losses and want some form of damages. You are first going to have to contact Pinterest to get the information of the user who has listed this said work. Are Pinterest goijng to give up this information so willingly? Probably not...

<comment><USER15> >You are first going to have to contact Pinterest to get the information of the user who has listed this said work. Are Pinterest goijng to give up this information so willingly? Probably not...

IIRC, in this case you sue John Doe and have the court compel Pinterest to identify him.

<comment><USER16> Does pinterest require identifying information in order to register?

<comment><USER17> It requires a facebook or twitter login. Plus it should have some kind of IP log somewhere. Pinterest won't have the entire identity, but this is how e-discovery works. You keep sending subpoenas up the hierarchy until you get to the ISP. The ISP provides the subscriber information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Speaking of the DMCA Safe Harbor...

Images on Pinterest, in some cases, were not even uploaded from a user's hard drive; they were pulled in via a the 'Pin It' button (<http://pinterest.com/about/goodies/>)

In this case, Pinterest even acknowledges that the images are not the property of the user, "When you pin from a website, we automatically grab the source link so we can credit the original creator."

I'll bet the 'Pin It' button ultimately gets them in hot water, because it's hard to argue the content is 'user generated' when they know, via their 'Pin It' code, exactly where the content is actually coming from.

§ 512(c) [DMCA Safe Harbor] also requires that the OSP: 1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent,

I wonder if 'the original source URL' of a image may be construed as a fact that would make infringing material apparent. IANAL.

<comment><USER19> _In this case, Pinterest even acknowledges that the images are not the property of the user, "When you pin from a website, we automatically grab the source link so we can credit the original creator."_

And that's fine - their ToS says you need to be either the copyright holder _or_ have consent from the copyright holder. For example, if I "pin" a CC licensed image, I have such consent.

<comment><USER20> _their ToS says you need to be either the copyright holder or have consent from the copyright holder._

I've seen warez sites with exactly the same disclaimer. It didn't work for them either.

<comment><USER19> But Youtube, Flickr, DeviantArt and thousands of other user submitted content sites are still online.

<comment><USER6> As far as I know there is no industry group for still-image photographers anything like the MPAA or RIAA. All three of those sites are and were filled with substantial original content, so they can claim that illegal use is not their primary drive. I don't know if Pinterest can successfully argue the same thing.

It also should be noted that YouTube spent a _great_ deal of money on settlements and arrangements with RIAA & MPAA members, content networks and others to survive.

<comment><USER21> "As far as I know there is no industry group for still-image photographers anything like the MPAA or RIAA."

The American Society of Media Photographers, Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America, the North American Nature Photography Association, Professional Photographers of America. They do not have the deep pockets or political clout of MPAA or RIAA but they are large industry groups.

I think someone else mentioned a class action suite against Google for copyright infringement by photographers. The lawsuit started with scanning and displaying images from the Google Library Project but includes infringement claims for images.google.com, etc.

<http://asmp.org/articles/asmp-qa-google-class-action.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> So you're claiming that pinterest should pay your legal bills for you? That's ridiculous. If you upload a photo that's copyrighted by someone else and get sued, why should pinterest foot the bill for that? There is no way the service would ever be viable under those conditions, because it would create an enormous moral hazard.

<comment> why-el There is no moral hazard when they are claiming the right to sell material that might be copyrighted.

<comment><USER22> That isn't an issue because you are co-assigning your copyright to them, assuming you own the copyright. And if you don't own the copyright then it's not a valid contract, so it doesn't matter. It's not like you're legally able to sign away someone else's copyright. Which is exactly why the indemnity clause is there, to prevent pinterest from being responsible if people are dumb enough to do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I am an attorney (and as far as I can tell, the author is not one, so take his "analysis" with a pillar of salt). This is not legal advice though.

With respect to the following paragraph:

"So, if you snap an awesome photograph, upload it to your blog, and someone pins it, that person is either (1) claiming exclusive ownership of it; or (2) giving Pinterest your consent to reproduce it (and you just thought you were being flattered)."

Actually, no. You can't transfer a right you don't have. All rights to a work are vested in the author of a protected work; only the author can consent to any of the activities protected by copyright.

It's just like selling a house you don't own. First, you're committing fraud if you falsely represent that you have the right to sell it; and second, the actual owner isn't bound by anything you have done (the deed doesn't go to the putative buyer).

<comment><USER24> And there in lies the problem with TOS (or is the problem with the law?) if one needs to be an attorney to understand them, what hope is there for the ordinary folk - just saying. No wonder people just click through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Watermark the pictures in your blog?

By the way, I found out that you can watermark all of your images that you're about to upload to Picasa Web via Picasa Desktop (there's an option to do that before you Sync to Web). I found that feature very useful if you organize your pictures using Picasa (and show them on your blog).

<comment><USER26> Problem is, copyright is implied on the part of the creator. It does not need to be applied for, nor is there any _requirement_ for a copyright notice.

Just because you didn't watermark your image doesn't mean the copyright now belongs to Pintrest (or imgur, or Google+, or Facebook, etc) because people who didn't hold the copyright and didn't have the standing to give it away posted it.

<comment><USER19> And that's why you can send a DMCA takedown request and they'll have to take it down. I fail to see the problem here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> 'The "pin" button remains inactive until the user types something. Anything. Might this count as "criticizing" or "commenting"?'

Interesting. I'd like to see a court case further define what constitutes a "comment" on the web. Other sites do this too, for example Buzzfeed.com's entire business model is based on taking content from bloggers and then hosting it on their own site, without providing any kind of insightful comment _.

_[http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/if-both-of-angelinas-legs- wer...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/if-both-of-angelinas-legs-were-showing)

<comment><USER28> "commenting" is only one aspect of fair use, and it generally is interpreted to mean "copying a small snippet as an example" or "reproducing a low- resolution copy for reference" to provide context.

Another aspect of fair use is "not depriving the owner of their own commercial use of the work".

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If I'm a copyright holder who feels like my work is being misappropriated by Pinterest, I'm going to sue Pinterest, not the user. Their Terms of Service won't stop them from getting sued, and the indemnity clause won't magically make money appear in their pockets to pay for their defense. If they decide to start suing their users for recovery, that would be pretty amusing.

"I trusted the person who gave me the image" is not a legal defense for copyright infringement. Their only chance is to stay within the DMCA safe harbor or else they will eventually be shut down.

<comment><USER29> As my lawyer explained to me long ago, who eventually "wins" a lawsuit is rarely interesting. Cost, time, and agony to get there are much more relevant factors.

The "our users represent that the content is theirs" may not keep Pinterest from losing an eventual lawsuit, but it does complicate things enough that it discourages legal action. That may be sufficient for them to cash out long before the suits are complete.

Or, like YouTube, things like that may allow them to grow big enough that they end up with sufficient negotiating power that they can get away with quite a bit, and possibly reshape what's considered reasonable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think many are dismissing this as "standard TOS/EULA legalese" and missing the point. Let's consider a scenario: let's say you post some photos online, and license them under the CC-By-SA license (<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>). Then someone pins the photos you took to Pinterest. Next, Pinterest sells the photos you took, then catches someone copying or modifying the photos you took and sues them for copyright. To top it all off, Pinterest doesn't even give you attribution.

This is _exactly_ the sort of thing that CC and GPL were created to combat: ruining someone's life through the legal system based on abuse of the copyright system. You want to sue someone over copyright violations of information you have copyright on? Fine. You want to sell something licensed under CC-By-SA? Fine. But you better be ready to comply to the license and allow whoever you give those works to the right to copy, sell and modify those works. I highly doubt Pinterest is prepared for this, and their TOS _is_ overreaching.

</comment><comment><USER31> Maybe all the buzz about Pinterest is because so many people think that finding an image online makes it publicly redistributable. "Pinning" is just another way of sharing.

I get the impression that there's much wider public acceptance of sharing (pirating?) pictures than music, movies, or software. I don't have a good answer as to why this might be, but I'd be curious what HN thinks.

<comment><USER32> > I get the impression that there's much wider public acceptance of sharing > (pirating?) pictures than music, movies, or software. I don't have a good > answer as to why this might be, but I'd be curious what HN thinks.

Anecdotally, it's because photographs and images are seen as "easier to reproduce" (whether this is true or not is another matter), and therefore possibly easier to justify by those doing the sharing.

That, and there's far less friction to sharing photos/images than video and software.

<comment><USER33> Perhaps it's also that photos seem less valuable than songs or movies, since pretty much anyone can take a decent photo? (Decent by the person's own standards, at least; maybe not by a professional photographer's.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Could this argument also apply to sites like Readability? Since it removes advertising (hence income for the writers) from articles.

<comment><USER35> I don't think so, unless readability grants itself rights to reproduce and sell every article that passes through its engine. Does it?

<comment><USER19> Maybe not sell, but they it'd be impossible for Readability to work without reproducing the articles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Pinterest and Tumblr are by far the worse offenders when it comes to sharing content from other providers as its not 100% clear, or sometimes elusive, on how visitor can view the original content. Its as if these sites are cutting content providers out of the loop which is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. They are essentially going to injure the entire ecosystem of sharing if they keep up with these practices ([http://www.sv411.com/index.php/2012/02/pinterest-gets- caught...](http://www.sv411.com/index.php/2012/02/pinterest-gets-caught- changing-user-links-for-extra-income/)).

What's worse is that these shady sharing practices have begun to support a broader ecosystem of image finding scavengers such as <http://www.whattopin.com> (see below).

Here is a support ticket we received today at Fotoblur which illustrates the problems we are seeing (a bit of broken English but you get the picture):

" _I am user the[http://www.fotoblur.com/portfolio/agnieszkabalut?p=1&id=...](http://www.fotoblur.com/portfolio/agnieszkabalut?p=1&id=370425) Another user Elinka used my photo art- senza titolo2 by Agnieszka Balut....... (via Elinka) in the web-site <http://www.whattopin.com/topic/photography/?id=283634> \- Printerest (commercial use)

and in the [http://elinka.tumblr.com/post/18734723798/senza- titolo2-by-a...](http://elinka.tumblr.com/post/18734723798/senza-titolo2-by- agnieszka-balut) without my permission.

All my images are protected by Copyright (reproduction and printing). All images on these are the exclusive property of Agnieszka Balut and protected by the Copyright . Therefore prohibited the publication and reproduction without written permission from Agnieszka Balut. Any violation will be prosecuted._"

As you can see, this type of sharing confuses people. We usually explain "fair use" to them but they really don't care. They feel they have rights and they want action taken. I can fully understand why Flickr blocked Pinterest if they have been getting the complaints such as we've seen. In the end the burden falls on the image owner and what ends up happening is they have to chase down every site owner whose members improperly post their content. They then lose faith in participating at all because of their inability to control their content.

</comment><comment><USER37> Didn't Pinterest address this to a certain degree? At least from the content creators - <http://blog.pinterest.com/post/17949261591/growing-up> says that you can add a meta tag marking your content as not pinnable.

<comment><USER38> "To a certain degree"... Not so much...

So I, as a Content Creator, have to a) be mindful of, and b) take action to opt out of 1) Pinterest, 2) any other of a potentially large number of sites / applications, purely in order to ensure said sites don't claim commercial rights to and derive income from my work and effort?

Not the way it works, or should work, say I.

<comment><USER19> You can send a DMCA takedown request if you see that someone is misusing your content. What exactly do you propose? Eliminate any website with user submitted content? I mean, what if someone posts a work to Hacker News without permission, should YCombinator be held liable?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> So here is a thought. I presume the article is mostly critical of the terms based on comments here. But consider a service without any "ownership" terms, etc. Two scenarios:

1\. When a user "pins" an image elsewhere online, the image is downloaded by Pinterest to their server. When other users browse Pinterest, it is served directly by Pinterest's servers.

2\. When a user "pins" an image elsewhere online, the image URL is saved by Pinterest to their server. When other users browse Pinterest, they are downloading the image directly from the original source.

Scenario (1) I see legal issues with. But scenario (2)? Isn't Pinterest simply providing a link (ala a search engine)? Moreover, isn't this just how the internet works?

Surely this has come up before yet I am having trouble finding a similar case.

</comment><comment><USER40> This is the problem with importing PUBLIC CONTENT YOU FIND ON THE INTERNET into a website. Not uploading from your computer, or importing from your own account somewhere on another site. If the website actually makes a copy of the media (picture, etc.) and stores it on their servers, they should hope that the DMCA still considers them a safe harbor.

I think their best bet is to store the images only as a cache, and not as a permanent import. If the site owner decides to take down the original, then the cache should disappear soon thereafter.

</comment><comment><USER41> Pinterest is more like a visual social bookmarking service than a blog. When people save bookmarks or share links on delicious or reddit or even twitter, of course they don't claim ownership of that content, it's just a bookmark. Similarly, with Pintrest people are saving a visual bookmark of something they saw that was interesting out on the web or on other social streams, tumblr, etc. I think a lot of people are missing the point here.

</comment><comment><USER42> If posting an image with a comment is fair use, then arguably the combination of the image and the comment constitute the Member Content for which the poster is claiming ownership.

If I publish a review of a work of art, including a reproduction of the work, in a magazine, my copyright would cover the entire article including the reproduction. I wouldn't be claiming copyright on the original work.

<comment><USER43> That's pretty much how I see it too. Yes, you own the review, which includes the right to the image _for the fair use purposes of explaining the review only_. There is no transitive right if you sell that review to use the image for any other purpose.

I too find this insane. If anything qualifies for fair use, surely pinterest does. "Hey look at this cool thing!" is about as close as I can imagine to the platonic ideal of discussing a copyrighted work.

No one freaked out over /r/pics, so what's the deal here? I hesitate to point out that pinterest differs mostly in the gender demographics of the user base, but... yeah.

<comment><USER44> > No one freaked out over /r/pics,

/r/pics is just a collection of links to images; it does not reproduce or redistribute the images.

<comment><USER43> Right, but that's the same sort of legalese excuse-making (or alternatively: just substitute imgur, which hosts most of that content).

It has nothing to do with whether or not /r/pics constitutes fair use, just if-it-isn't-fair-use-who-gets-sued? No one, at the time or now, seriously thought that there was a legal problem for anyone with reddit. So why pinterest? Again, part of me is really suspicious that it's because it's a chick site that doesn't cater to geeks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Funny thing is that Pinterest in their terms of service are asking people to follow rules they are breaking for other services...

</comment><comment><USER46> I was under the assumption that all social-based sites/companies follow the same policy, not so they can resell user content, but so they can eventually go through an acquisition without facing a class action lawsuit from its users who would demand a % of the sale. e.g. Geocities.

</comment><comment><USER47> <http://500px.com/terms>

I prefer the old ones though [http://web.archive.org/web/20110619022738/http://500px.com/t...](http://web.archive.org/web/20110619022738/http://500px.com/terms)

</comment><comment><USER48> One phrase comes to mind after reading this: "so what." It's not about what the terms say, it's about how they're enforced. I don't see any users getting sued, just a bunch of stories on how you could potentially get sued.

</comment><comment><USER49> Just opening the door for business casual G-men [video]:

[http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/382781/business- casual...](http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/382781/business-casual-g-men)

</comment><comment><USER50> Pinterest is caching these images on their servers, not their customers who are only pasting in links. I find it hard to believe that these end-users will be held liable for an implementation detail on Pinterest's end. And linking, I believe is legal.

These are images that are publicly available on the internet and have been made available, in most cases, by the owner. Is there really a case that copying these images off the internet is illegal?

<comment><USER51> It's not an issue of copying images off the Internet. It's an issue with _redistributing_ it, which Pinterest does. Just because an image is on the Internet does not mean it's up for grabs to whoever gets it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> What we have here is manufactured outrage. Total non-story. I hope others don't start piling on now that this has been written.

The real deal is that Pinterest is screwed either way. These terms sound scary but so long as they are enforced sanely there should be no problem. What do you expect them to do? Assume liability for users posting content they should not be posting? They might as well not exist. A lot of startups these days may as well not even try to get traction as long as bloggers keep getting their panties in a twist over every TOS they see.

Pinterest provides a service for free that people seem to love. So long as no one is paying them and they haven't gone public they're damn smart to have these terms. If I ran Pinterest I wouldn't want to assume liability for some asshole who leaks a top secret photo on my site that I let him use for free and as long as I'm giving that service for free I'm going to make some cash out of my users. This is nowhere near evil. It's business. If someone doesn't like it they don't have to use it.

Question: How do you get over writer's block? Answer: Start reading some terms of service or privacy policy docs from any popular online startup and manufacture some outrage over it. Truth is, if you read any TOS or privacy policy you're going to find something you can turn into a big deal most of the time. I've had it with the TOS/privacy policy outrage blogs.

<comment><USER53> I agree completely, but there's a double-standard here. What if instead of (mostly) photographs pinterest was mostly video? Then it would be YouTube, and everyone is pretty clear that you shouldn't upload a video to YouTube if you don't own it. Of course, some people flout that rule, but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case on Pinterest.

So which is it? Is it bad that Pinterest is mostly "stolen" content, or bad that we're not allowed to post similarly "stolen" content on YouTube? The former implies that Pinterest should start cracking down on people who post content they don't own; the latter implies that YouTube should stop doing so (and therefore, copyright law should change).

<comment><USER54> _> but I figure the majority of content on YouTube is genuinely owned by the people who post it, while I very much doubt this is the case on Pinterest._

That assumption seems fairly inaccurate, see this quote: "Remarkably, more than one-third of the two billion views of YouTube videos with ads each week are ... uploaded without the copyright owner's permission but left up by the owner's choice." [1]

[1] <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html>

<comment><USER55> Didn't read the article, but as far as I can see that doesn't disprove his assumption.

The NYT quote is talking just about the videos with ads, and then only discussing them in terms of views (not in terms of percentages of actual content uploaded, which is something like 24+ hours of content every minute).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'm an amateur photographer, and I wasn't too concerned about this until I read that by Pinning something, their TOS says I am granting them rights to sell my work.

I don't like that very much.

      By making available any Member Content through the Site,
      Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Brew Labs
      a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive,
      transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to
      sublicense, to use, copy, adapt, modify, distribute, license,
      sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform,
      transmit, stream, broadcast, access, view, and otherwise
      exploit such Member Content only on, through or by means of
      the Site, Application or Services.

The rest just seems like standard CYA stuff.

<comment><USER5> Again, this is 100% boilerplate. YouTube, Reddit, Facebook, etc. will all have similar clauses.

See for example section 6.C in YouTube's ToS. [http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms](http://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms)

Why? Because without this blanket waiver it opens them up to all kinds of legal issues since a core mechanic of their site is re-pinning.

If you upload a photo to their site and someone else re-pins it, did that person just violate your copyright?

If Pinterest implements a "most popular pins" page and features one of your photos on that page, did they just violate your copyright?

Yes, you can come up with legalese for each potential scenario, but it really does complicate things. It's easier for them to just have a blanket clause and act in good faith, than open themselves up to the possibility of accidentally using someone's work in a way their ToS didn't whitelist.

<comment><USER57> Saying it's boilerplate doesn't make it right. It's scammy.

<comment><USER19> What do you propose instead?

<comment><USER58> Be explicit about what forms of (re)distribution are allowed instead of going for a blanket license. Where appropriate, also be explicit about what is not allowed.

It shouldn't say much more than "you give us the right to use your content to fulfill the services you ask us to provide, and you have the right to remove your content at any time."

<comment><USER57> I like that answer, because it is clear and doesn't seem like a sneaky over- reach.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I am SO fucking sick of douchebag angst driven attacks by sniveling failure- driven wannabees on legalese in terms of service that are essential to make any and every successful consumer Internet site, application or platform work.

If you don't like it, don't use it. Go back to the pre-social web with your mom and grandmother. If you are going to criticize it or upvote it, think for a moment about the reasoning behind it. Yesterday Path. Today Pinterest. Let's hope someone else makes something great for you to kick in the teeth tomorrow.

Shut the fuck up already.

<comment><USER60> don't know why im responding to obvious troll. but they are really no better than megaupload at this point. Redistributing copy righted material without permission. Its a far bigger legal matter.</comment></comment>


Avoid using the term "Cloud Computing" except when being ironic - <AUTHOR> http://everythingsysadmin.com/2011/06/avoid-using-the-term-cloud-com.html

<comment><USER2> Okay, I'm supposed to use ambiguous, obscure, or unpronounceable acronyms when speaking to people?

 _Maybe_ we've reached the point where non-geeks know what "SaaS" is, and don't confuse it with the attitude or the statistical software or anything else. But does anyone outside of Silicon Valley recognize "PaaS" when I use it in a sentence? Anybody want to tell me how to pronounce "IaaS" without inadvertently slandering myself?

Maybe the time has come when the general public needs more fine-grained terms for what folks have come to call "cloud computing", but I doubt these are the right terms.

<comment><USER3> I agree with you, in order to fix a problem the article presents terms that are not suitable.

For instance in the context of a service like gmail, why we should talk about "cloud" or say "SaaS" when it is as simple as a "web application"?

PaaS IMHO it's better translated as "cloud applications platform", or "cloud application service".

Finally I don't think IaaS is acceptable as it covers too much things, especially two things that I would simply call:

* Virtual Machine Service (EC2, Linode, ...)

* Cloud Storage Service (S3, Dropbox, ...)

Edit: yes... I used three times Cloud in the end, so at least for me the problem is that "Cloud" alone means very little.

<comment><USER4> I think Dropbox is considered SaaS (and doesn't precisely fit your definition of "web application"). I would put S3 into PaaS as it boils down to a storage platform.

Right now I agree with saying IaaS is just a VM service, but I'd hesitate because there may be future changes that invalidate that connection.

Keep in mind these terms are provider-centric not customer-centric. For example, Amazon provides their networking and computer infrastructure as a service to you the customer. You realize this service as VMs. Similarly, GAE provides a platform for you to use, and you realize this as a place to run your cloud application. And to finish the triad off, SaaS provides customers with software and they realize it as an application. So it somewhat depends on if you are looking at these things from a customer perspective or a provider perspective.

I believe this NIST document provides fairly clear terminology: [http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication- search.cfm?pub_id...](http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication- search.cfm?pub_id=909505)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Meh. When I say "cloud", people understand that whatever it is, it exists "out there", and not in some server in the basement of my office or as an app they need to install on their computer/device.

Nobody cares about the more fine-grained terminology, and in fact they shouldn't be expected to. This is nothing more than a purist rant.

<comment><USER6> So why use cloud rather than 'Internet-based'?

<comment><USER7> Because it doesn't matter what is it based on. Important is _where_ it is. I mean, yes, instead of "in the cloud" you could say "out there", but that's more confusing, because can mean too much things. Cloud is a nice word that does it's job well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh the list of terms we should avoid.. it could fill a NoSQL database.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's not a big revelation, but you should always use the language that fits the audience. If you feel the audience can handle it, all you have to do is define concepts (with reminders if it's easy to forget them) before you start using them.

</comment><comment><USER10> I would avoid using ambiguous catch phrases or buzzwords completely. For serious discussions anyway. If you are marketing, or just chatting it's fine. But if you're in a professional technical meeting just don't do it. Don't talk about "the cloud". And please don't say "AJAX".

</comment><comment><USER11> You shall not PAAS!

</comment><comment><USER12> "sass" "pass" and "ee-ass"?

I hate "Cloud" as much as the next nerd, especially when it's used to mean, "Internet", but these just aren't going to work.

<comment><USER13> Why is "internet" a better word for the cloud?

<comment><USER14> The 'internet' is an interconnected network of computers. A cloud is a bit of weather phenomena.

I don't like trying to re-purpose the word cloud, because isn't all that descriptive. Do you have high-availability provided by distributed, load- balanced servers? Maybe. Local mirrors? Maybe. A machine in your basement you rent VM images on to suckers? Maybe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I am going to be paid $325 for spending 2 hours talking about cloud computing as part of a focus group. I figure this study has to be sponsored by some big, clueless company - IBM maybe? If anyone in the Boston area is interested in participating contact me and I will get an additional $50!

Performance Plus / Boston Field & Focus, Inc. is a market research facility with offices in Greater Boston. We are looking for individuals that are interested in participating in a discussion group about software development. Come discuss these emerging technologies, including cloud development and services, in this field with other professionals from start-up companies. These groups will take place on the evening of November 14th in Boston and will last for approximately 2 hours. You will receive $300 and $25 for parking for participation in the study.

We're conducting this study for research purposes only. You won't receive any sales or marketing follow-up.</comment>


Bleve: Full-text search and indexing for Go - <AUTHOR> http://blevesearch.com/ <comment><USER2> Core contributor here, happy to try and answer any questions.

One of the big things we're working on at the moment is improving the release process. In addition to semantic versioning of the APIs we have to think through how it applies to the binary artifacts created. We want Go modules to be supported and be a part of the solution, but we are also mindful not to break things for existing users.

<comment><USER3> That is awesome one of the biggest pains I have with elasticsearch is how they so rapidly update major version number as like an excuse for breaking compatibility. IMO most important feature of a database is stability, this is something we get by maintaining compatibility with previous releases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> To get a feel for the size of Bleve, checkout this graph that shows commit rates doing into Bleve versus Elasticsearch and Vespa: [http://blog.minimum.se/assets/elasticsearch-open-source- comm...](http://blog.minimum.se/assets/elasticsearch-open-source-commit- rates.png)

If you don't need heavy lifting, then "sonic" implemented in rust is a really nice lean alternative too: [https://github.com/valeriansaliou/sonic](https://github.com/valeriansaliou/sonic)

FWIW, that graph is from a blog post I published earlier today: [http://blog.minimum.se/2019/04/08/elastic-search- introductio...](http://blog.minimum.se/2019/04/08/elastic-search- introduction.html)

<comment><USER5> Great blog post! First one I've seen with good comparisons to the other options. I would recommend adding Xapiand too: [https://github.com/Kronuz/Xapiand](https://github.com/Kronuz/Xapiand)

<comment><USER4> Thanks (you can upvote it here if you want: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19605334](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19605334) )

I've added a mention of Xapian/Xapiand as well now and generated new graphs that include data for those two projects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Really nice to see the Go ecosystem developing. The other day I was searching for a link/URL extraction library and the best one I could find was in Go: [https://github.com/mvdan/xurls](https://github.com/mvdan/xurls) ("best" because it actually uses a list of TLDs, for example: [https://github.com/mvdan/xurls/blob/master/tlds.go](https://github.com/mvdan/xurls/blob/master/tlds.go)). Was an unusual experience not finding something as good for Java.

<comment><USER7> I've had the same experience with video encoding and image libraries. All the momentum is in Go.

<comment><USER6> Any libraries in particular?

<comment><USER7> Any of the libvips bindings. Ffmpeg bindings. Hls and dash libraries. Any other wrappers around binaries in general. I found nice ports for syntax hi- lighting that I couldn't find in java.

<comment><USER6> Thanks I was wondering if people had Go written video libs or if these were bindings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Blast is a server on top of it: [https://github.com/mosuka/blast](https://github.com/mosuka/blast)

<comment><USER9> I got excited thinking that somehow someone was doing bioinformatics in Go. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLAST](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLAST)

<comment><USER10> We don't do bioinformatics workflows in Go (yet?) but we sure as hell run the (CWL) workflows with Go on Arvados: [https://arvados.org](https://arvados.org).

<comment><USER9> Arvados looks really cool! I haven't seen that before. It might actually be exactly the workflow tool I didn't know I needed!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Indeed, bleve can be considered on the same level as lucene. It is used to power full-text search in Couchbase, which adds the distributed indexing and querying portion on top (similar to what elasticsearch does to lucene)

</comment><comment><USER12> Bleve is awesome! In a page worth of code, I was able to make a really simple search for our app's documentation that takes almost no resources. Elastic would have been massive overkill.

</comment><comment><USER13> Looks very interesting. How does it compare against sonic [https://github.com/valeriansaliou/sonic](https://github.com/valeriansaliou/sonic)

<comment><USER14> Curious on that comparison as well

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I actually used this recently in a small personal project, it's pretty good. It's not like Elastic or Solr, more like Lucene - which may very well be good enough for your use case. The index structures are stored in BoltDB (which stores in a flat file.)

There are some issues, though. For example I think it's currently not possible to use the built-in query language to search Boolean values. So you might run into some minor issues even in smaller projects.

<comment><USER16> Our biggest pain point using bleve is umlaut handling (our documents are in German).

Other than that, I was pleasantly surprised by how well it fit into our static doc server that we shipped a binary around of.

<comment><USER2> We recently added an ASCII folding filter, which may help: [https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve/pull/1070](https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve/pull/1070)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is the name a reference to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_liquid_expanding_vapor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_liquid_expanding_vapor_explosion) ?

<comment><USER18> I'd think so given their icon. Interesting name choice, nonetheless.

<comment><USER17> Oh, yep. I clicked right through to the code and didn't notice that.

<comment><USER19> It's also noted in the documentation.

<comment><USER17> Who reads docs?

<comment><USER19> It was an accident, I promise!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Go fanboy here, we write almost everything in Go over here at Stream. I'm curious though, what made you build your own instead of using Elastic?

<comment><USER2> Bleve originated as part of a solution to a problem customers faced when using Couchbase. Almost all customers have at least some sort of search use case, but often times that use case isn't particularly complicated. Many of them were running an ES cluster, moving the data from Couchbase to ES with an adapter, and using that to solve their search use case.

However, many of those same users complained about having to operate another cluster, especially ones that weren't already using the JVM (since it was a skill set they didn't have).

So, the appeal was to offer a service that runs as a part of the Couchbase cluster. It wouldn't have to match every feature of ES, just shoot for 80/20 and customers would likely find it beneficial.

It was fortunate that Go was still growing in popularity within Couchbase at that time, and we were able to position Bleve as a true open-source component, on top of which some money-making value add could be layered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Forgive my ignorance on the topic of full-text search but is this supposed to compete with Elastic or is this more of an alternative to Lucene? If the latter, then wouldn't you be limited to indexing text datasets small enough to stay in memory?

<comment><USER22> Elastic is a distributed index which can't be said of Bleve afaik. Therefore, it's more like Lucene.

<comment><USER23> Correct. Couchbase uses Bleve to provide the distributed search index/query. See: [https://docs.couchbase.com/server/6.0/fts/full-text- intro.ht...](https://docs.couchbase.com/server/6.0/fts/full-text-intro.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> To the maintainers: what are the top 3-5 (or so) requested features, and do you plan to implement them?

Any thoughts on how Bleve compares with Xapian or Trinity (C++ libraries for full-text indexing)?

[https://xapian.org/](https://xapian.org/)

[https://github.com/phaistos-networks/Trinity](https://github.com/phaistos- networks/Trinity)

<comment><USER2> First, here are the top two requests that we do NOT plan to implement.

1\. Make Bleve a distributed index, or make Bleve into something that is a more direct ES competitor.

We have no plans to do this because we think that is better built at a different layer. We have hooks we introduce in certain places where we need to plug-in code that would otherwise violate the boundaries. And that is an arrangement that has worked well so far. There are multiple projects built on top of bleve that allow you to index/search across nodes.

2\. Make an adapter for the XYZ key/value store.

This request goes back to the original bleve index which is serialized into a key/value abstraction layer. When users run into size/speed issues with bleve, many assume that just plugging in a faster key/value store will help. (Hey we thought that too when we built it this way)

But, we've now replaced that index scheme with a new implementation called scorch. Scorch is considerably smaller and faster, and manages it's own index on disk, without using any key/value store.

As for things that we DO plan to implement:

1\. Size of the index still comes up a lot. Couchbase is a very performnace sensitive user of Bleve, so I expect they'll lead the way on this front.

2\. Better (pluggable) scoring. Today our search result scoring is broken for several types of queries, and the stuff that does score right is too tightly coupled to the searching logic.

3\. Overhaul index mapping. Today bleve uses a mapping object to describe how source objects/documents are indexed. One of the best ways we can simplify the mapping is to make things more explicit. I think we tried to embrace the concept of reasonable defaults, but we ended up with inheritance hierarchies that are difficult to reason about.

There are lots of miscellaneous things like adding a data type that supports IPv6, or more advanced queries (lots of variations on span queries).

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've also been working on a simple, fast, typo-tolerant search engine. Shameless plug: [https://github.com/typesense/typesense](https://github.com/typesense/typesense)

<comment><USER24> But, but... it's not in Go! :'(

Just teasing you.

You should contrast it with Xapian and Phaistos Trinity on your README.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Oh, different bleve :)

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

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm5VB7JaJWA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm5VB7JaJWA)

[http://www.geeked.info/tag/2bleve/](http://www.geeked.info/tag/2bleve/)

(pronounced "to believe")

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm looking at adding better search to our app soon, and I honestly don't really have knowledge of any systems out there. Answer to this basic question might help both me and others:

How would you deploy Bleve in a 12-factor app environment?

(Does Bleve directly support any persistence? Does it support distributed workloads? Could a "trained" model get passed to read-only nodes?)

<comment><USER2> Bleve is just a library that provides this functionality, you first have to build an application that uses Bleve, and deploy that.

Bleve does (optionally) support persistence, so reading/writing files is one place it does directly interact with the environment. The environment must support mmap.

There are several projects which support distributed index/search workloads with Bleve. The exact approaches vary, but they all use Bleve to perform node local operations, and coordinating this is done at a higher level by the application.

I suspect I don't understand the terminology you're using in the last question, as Bleve has no training, models or nodes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Are the maintainers aware that Bleve is unsafe to use on MacOS with Go 1.11 and earlier?

[https://github.com/golang/go/issues/26650](https://github.com/golang/go/issues/26650)

<comment><USER2> We were made aware of this in September: [https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve/issues/783#issuecomment...](https://github.com/blevesearch/bleve/issues/783#issuecomment-420592339)

<comment><USER24> That was me :-) It puzzled me that there was no public comment about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I am left confused, amused, and amazed by their choice of logo. I love it and it makes me reconsider my, apparently conventional, logo choices...

<comment><USER26> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM0jtD_OWLU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM0jtD_OWLU)

holy smokes: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-tUQTw_Vtk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-tUQTw_Vtk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> it's used in gitea too</comment>


A Speed Gun for Photosynthesis - <AUTHOR> https://www.nist.gov/featured-stories/speed-gun-photosynthesis <comment><USER3> For those interested in this topic, you also might be interested in sensors that can measure evapotranspiration (ET). ET is directly related to photosynthesis and crop yield.

Here is a quick refresher from the textbook on plant water relations:

> Stomata are microscopic valves present in all leaves, formed by the pairing > of specialized cells called guard cells on the leaf surface. Stomata are the > main ports through which water vapor is lost. Of equal importance is the > fact that stomata also are the main ports through which carbon dioxide gas > moves from the air into the leaf and is photosynthesized into plant material > and accounts for most of the plant dry matter produced. - <USER2>

Our company, Tule Technologies (YC S14) is the commercial vendor of sensors that can measure evapotranspiration. We solve many of the problems mentioned in this article.

<comment><USER4> Interesting. Do you measure ET as the a residual energy balance of radiative/sensible heat flux?

[http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/143/1/134#sec-11](http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/143/1/134#sec-11)

<comment><USER3> Yes, we measure ET through an energy balance approach. It is called surface renewal.

Thanks for the link. I'll add it to my queue to read.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As a nature loving human and a person who is absolutely fascinated by plants, chlorophyll, photosynthesis, and the stunning and elusive world right before us, I'm really happy our technology is trending towards plants and understanding them.

<comment><USER6> plot twist: in 200 years, the most advanced humans will just be nomads in nature. The difference is that with proper understanding in and out (as opposed to "out" folk knowledge) they don't feel the need to rush for tech and "modern comfort"

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This will revolutionize greenhouses and aquaculture. Now you can optimize everything based on plant growth rate. Just need a few million data points and we can sic the AI on it.

<comment><USER8> I don't think you're wrong, but I suspect the reason you're being downvoted is because of the cliche AI-enthusiastic rhetoric.

<comment><USER7> But it's a great application for AI, or would they prefer ML or DL? Its a dataset with near real time response.

As for downvotes, I try to add to the discussion, if people don't like it, oh well, it's only numbers. (unless there is a secret ritual for people who go over 100,000??)

[ed] Speeling correction

<comment><USER9> Well, we do use ML quite a bit in scene classification, but as I said earlier, there is really nothing revolutionary about what was being presented in that article. Its all old science and methods that have been in employ for decades. LiDAR and hyperspec is the way to go, but as is ALWAYS the case, its all hand- waving without good reference data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> We know that seeing nature reduces stress, cleans the air, etc., so this truly is a matter of quality of life as much as it is about our environment. If more people cared about the earth we would all be in better health.

</comment><comment><USER11> that looks pretty cool

</comment><comment><USER9> Does it bother any one else that she is pointing the instrument at a glass window, which is opaque to NIR? I mean I get it, they come in for a photo-op and they want to see the instrument, but at least open the window.

<comment><USER12> It turns out that this wavelength of infrared is short enough that it sees through windows just fine.</comment></comment>


Uruguay legalises production and sale of cannabis - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/uruguay-cannabis-marijuana-production-sale-law <comment><USER2> It feels like we're just about at the tipping point with cannabis. Once enough states in the US legalize it, the Feds will have to back down.

The next step will be for people to wake up to the fact that harder drugs need to be legal too. Not so that more people can take them, but so we can have less crime and eliminate a key justification for the growing police state.

<comment><USER3> No offense, but your thoughts are ridiculous. Do you really want to see the country enter a shit hole? Ask those folks in Michigan on the other side of the 8 Mile if they feel drugs need to be legalized. If they feel that drugs didn't destroy their town and community.

Look at your history and check your ideas. While I will defend the fact that you have ideas, you are grossly wrong.

<comment><USER4> As unpopular as this comment is, it needs to be said. Privileged, white, upper class libertarians simply don't care how drugs affect poor communities. The free market will sort everything out.

<comment><USER5> And other folks don't appear to care how criminal records for minor non- violent drug offenses (like simple possession) affect poor communities.

<comment><USER4> Selective enforcement of drug laws is only one of many ways that poor and minority communities are abused by the "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" to quote bell hooks. Legalizing drugs won't magically change anything except for rich white kids whose parents would otherwise have to pay a fine when they get arrested.

<comment><USER5> Wait, so "selective enforcement of drugs laws" is abusive to poor communities, but reforming those laws won't change anything?

Why do I suddenly have the feeling that I'm being trolled?

<comment><USER4> You're missing the forrest for the trees. Reforming drug laws won't solve racism, classism, or sexism. Anyway, everyone here is in favor of reforming drug laws - this thread of discussion is within the context of talking about the relatively radical position of legalizing all drugs without any supportive educational or healthcare programs.

<comment><USER5> Ah, silly me. I hadn't realized that I reject "any supportive educational or healthcare programs". I thought I supported stuff like that, but you've educated me.

Now I'm pretty sure that you're either playing me, or you really are one of those "folks" I mentioned above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Until today, the only places in the world where marijuana was legal are two states in the US (Colorado and Washington)[0], and the entire country of North Korea[1].

Other jurisdictions have decriminalized marijuana, but most of us haven't seen the legal sale of recreational marijuana in our lifetimes (in the US, it was all-but-illegal since 1937, and truly illegal since 1970 - there were only 6 months in 1969 during which there were technically no laws prohibiting its sale).

These are exciting times we live in.

[0] Technically these haven't gone into effect yet, but I'm still counting them.

[1] Surprising, but (as far as we can tell) true. Less surprising when you consider that exports of drugs that need to be engineered (like methamphetamine) are one of North Korea's biggest sources of foreign currency.

<comment><USER7> Huh? Come to India. You won't have too much trouble finding government-run or government-authorized cannabis (bhang [1]) shops.

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

<comment><USER8> This ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_countr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_cannabis_by_country)) page says:

"Used during observance of certain Hindu rituals. Government-owned shops in holy cities like Varanasi sell cannabis in the form of bhang. _Despite the high prevalent usage, the law makes it illegal to possess any form of the psychoactive. However, this law is rarely enforced and treated as a low priority across India._ Further, large tracts of cannabis grow unchecked in the wild in many parts of northern and southern India in many states such as West Bengal, Tripura, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamilnadu.[56] Many states such as West Bengal, Tripura, and the North East have their own laws allowing cannabis, locally known as ganja."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Al Jazeera English posted a really good interview with Uruguay's president, Jose Mujica. If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend it.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu12Dhoma0k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu12Dhoma0k)

<comment><USER10> Thank you ! This interview is really very good. I wish that more people, in positions of influence and power, become as humble and clear in their reasoning, as this man is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It is a shame that all legalization efforts goes to cannabis - the drug that causes the least problems by being illegal.

What we really need is to legalize "hard drugs"[1] - heroin, methamphetamine. These drugs cause the most harm by being illegal and it is a shame, because, for example, pure heroin is gentle and harmless drug.

Too bad I am not see this happening in the next 100 years. But I am sure that it will happen eventually. Future generations will see the "war on drugs" the same we see slavery today.

[1] "hard drugs" is meaningless term

<comment><USER12> Not sure I agree about heroin being gentle and harmless, but I do think that making any drug illegal immediately creates a black market, which in turn leads to violence and powerful, wealthy crime organizations.

I'm not sure where the line should be. I'd like to say make all drugs legal, but as soon as the first high school kid is killed in a drug-related car accident we will see an army of furious parent organizations screaming about making stricter laws.

<comment><USER13> it isn't a matter of opinion. heroin is in no way a harmless drug. it's highly addictive and easily lethal if taken in to high a dose or combined with other drugs, like e.g. alcohol, or benzodiazepines.

EDIT: the same goes for most other opiates/opioids.

<comment><USER11> > highly addictive

hacker news is highly addictive, should we ban it too?

> and easily lethal if taken in to high a dose or combined with other drugs

Just use common sense. Water is lethal taken in to high a dose [1]. Almost every substance is lethal if taken to much for body to handle. And mixing heroin with benzos is just plain stupid. Of course if heroin would be legal, it could be printed with warnings, etc. And people take heroin (or other opioids) with benzos for two main reasons:

a) Unknowingly take a mix then dealers mix diluted opioids with benzos for better effect and to hide that their shit is weak

b) Users mix themselves then opioid is weak or doesn't produce enough high (methadone, etc)

If users should have cheap source of medical grade heroin no one would use them with benzos. So legal heroin have only benefits. Of course some people are plain stupid (for example taking too much paracetamol and end being without kidneys)

So just don't do heroin alone, have a Naloxone for worst case scenario and heroin will be safe as milk.

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

<comment><USER14> Your body generally prevents you from drinking too much water, and from eating too much food, etc. Besides, water and food is a necessity while heroin is not (far from it, almost no one will ever need it).

And that's what the person above meant: it's not the highly addictive or the easily lethal nature of heroin that is a problem, but the combination of both. Most things that combine these two attributes are illegal.

However, I go agree that there is a problem with the fact that it is so addictive that making it illegal makes things worse because of low quality products. Doesn't undermine the point of the post above though. In an ideal world, no one would try to get heroin.

<comment><USER11> >In an ideal world, no one would try to get heroin

It's a sad statement.

In what ideal world? Brave new world type "ideal world"? World with "shiny, happy" people which you see in TV commercials? And in an ideal world, no one would try rock climbing and BASE jumping? Because these activities are far more dangerous than doing heroin.

You see, some people like hacking on perl, some playing PC games, some enjoy rock climbing and some love doing heroin. Now the tragedy comes then government makes some things so more dangerous for the user and society by making them illegal.

<comment><USER15> I think we three might be able to agree the quote could be downgraded to:

"In an ideal world, heroin would be one of many fringe activities, like rock climbing, BASE jumping, etc."

In the mean time, many who pursue heroin aren't doing it as a hobby/for the exploration, but as a replacement for responsible living, a thrill as they grind their productive lives into the ground. That is the real tragedy, not that anyone, anywhere does it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Uruguai's president, José Mujica is a truly unique old man.

He is a very interesting Character. I advise everybody to learn a bit about him and his way of leading the country.

Put that aside I think that way of working one works on small Countries or Cities with small populations.

<comment><USER17> I advise everybody not to stop at the current state-sponsored propaganda of Mujica as a wise old man; for completeness, also read about his colorful, shooting-cops-in-the-back-of-the-head, soviet-union-financed terrorist activities background, or the way education, everyday violence and society in general have gone to sh*t since he's in charge. He has almost single-handledly destroyed the country.

This is the reason why I left three years ago; it got to a point I couldn't take it anymore. A lot of young, qualified people are running away for the same reasons. Even if the government changed overnight and started doing everything right, the damage they've done in the last 5-10 years will take generations to reverse :(

<comment><USER18> I hope you've settled somewhere with a more conservative gvt that has everyone's best interests at heart (sarcasm). Perhaps your new home is in the land of the free?

<comment><USER19> Hang on now, at no point did the parent comment state that he was looking for a more conservative government, nor did he state that there was anything politically wrong with Mujica. Instead he rebutted the homely, nice, old man image that was being presented of Mujica by pointing out the decidedly unpleasant things that Mujica has supposedly done (I can't comment on that; I know nothing of Mujica or his history).

If the parent had said something along the lines of "Mujica is a commie, pinko bastard who loves the USSR!" and had stated _that_ as the flaws with Mujica as a leader, then your rebuttal (as I rather charitably term it) would perhaps be more valid. But to launch into a not-so-subtle criticism of right-wing governments in response to the parents comment seems, frankly, like rather a non-sequitur.

To preempt the inevitable comment that the parent had mentioned Mujica's "soviet-union-financed terrorist activities", and thus clearly had a problem with left-wing politics: the "soviet-union-financed" adjective seems rather less relevant than the "terrorist" adjective in both that sentence and the general theme of violent rule in the parent's post.

<comment><USER20> Mujica's history has a lot of shades.

During the 60's, there was an uprising in violence in Uruguay. As a response, the right-wing governing party became more totalitarian and allied with the military.

Each side accuses the other of starting the violence, but the thing is a left wing guerrilla movement was started - the "Tupamaros", with Mujica as a founding member, based on the Cuban revolution ideals, and started taking military action, bombings, etc (some predate the founding of the "Tupamaros"), in which Mujica took part. The government responded with more violence, ending in the military coup of 1973 and subsequent dictatorship.

Mujica was imprisioned twice, he once staged a cinematic escape from prision, but he spent a decade in prision overall.

After the reestablishment of democracy, he joined the left wing party Frente Amplio (Broad Front), which ended up winning in 2005. He's now more subdued, but he doesn't deny his guerrilla past.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord I'm surprised there's still people who are so concerned with punishing people for putting things in their body. Many of these things actually being present in over-the-counter medicines.

Also I despise it when people treat alcohol and tobacco as distinct from "drugs". _Illicit_ drugs, yes.

<comment><USER21> Alcohol and tobacco _and coffee and Coke and energy drinks_.

Yes, fellow geeks, we're all addicts.

<comment><USER13> i'm actually pretty surprised that most people totally ignore their caffeine addictions, or don't realize that they actually have a problem at all (probably due to the fact that they just don't stop taking it).

as little as one cup of strong coffee a day can lead to physical dependence, which for some people can cause quite extreme withdrawal symptoms.

<comment><USER22> I certainly didn't. I've been drinking Tea all my life (British) and when I went without it for 3 days when I went abroad it was surprisingly hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Why is the drug czar of this country - Well, lets go back. Why do we have a drug czar in this country, a)? b) Why is he a cop? Why isn't he a guy in recovery, who's had alcohol and/or drug addiction and overcome it? And why doesn't he help people with the same problem with compassion rather than condemnation? Why do we put people who are on drugs in jail? They're sick. They're not criminals. Sick people don't get healed in jail. See, it makes no sense."

\-- Bill Hicks

</comment><comment><USER23> I like the quote from Uruguai's president, José Mujica: We just regulated an existing market.

<comment><USER24> This for me is the whole point. Not only regulate, but tax too.

I still cant get my head around the idea that government leaves regulation and profits to the black market. Its just makes no sense what so ever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I suspect that nearly everyone here will be of the opinion that this is a good idea. If you are up for an alternative ( and yes I know, oh so unfashionable ) point of view, then I recommend watching this.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36L0p2w_jtA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36L0p2w_jtA)

Its a fascinating and well put argument by Peter Hitchens that legalisation isn't beneficial to society. Yes imagine that.

<comment><USER26> I watched the video for a few minutes, and I found that everything he said was very stupid. But I do want to hear some good (unfashionable!) arguments for that point of view.

Can you summarize some of his better arguments here?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Uraguay is actually the second _current_ nation to legalize this. North Korea being the first. Cannabis is not regulated as a drug at all in North Korea.

<comment><USER8> For anyone else wondering the same thing as I was, it seems this legality extends beyond just tourists, and marijuana is available too, so it's legality isn't just a technicality. Interesting stuff: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/marijuana-in- north-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/08/marijuana-in-north- korea_n_4067341.html)

<comment><USER28> It's not as straightforward as that. A followup from the original author of the blog post:

[http://www.thebohemianblog.com/2013/11/smoking-weed-in- north...](http://www.thebohemianblog.com/2013/11/smoking-weed-in-north-korea- critical.html)

<comment><USER8> Interesting, thanks for the link.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I can't wait for the results of this to come out so I can use it in debates with people who are against legalization. I'm almost certain Uruguay will be better off for this. The resources involved in trying to suppress cannabis is ridiculous; especially for a substance that doesn't even do as much harm to society as some other things that are perfectly legal.

<comment><USER2> You have Portugal as a reference already: [http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating- drug-d...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug- decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html)

Edit: yes decriminalization is not legalization. But whole point of illegality has ostensibly been to "protect people from themselves." This shows that it's not necessary.

<comment><USER30> That's decrim, not legalization. Big difference.

<comment><USER31> Pedantically maybe. Practically I don't see any big difference.

<comment><USER27> Decrim feeds organized crime syndicates, legalization shuts them down.

<comment><USER32> I don't think decrim feeds crime syndicates. California has had decrim for cannabis for a long while now. Dealers can't really make money selling cannabis because it's already so cheap at dispensaries. Most of these dealers move to states where cannabis is still illegal. In a way, dealers are not monetizing "drugs" \-- they are monetizing security.

Cannabis is extremely cheap to manufacture since anyone with a bag of soil can easily grow several thousand dollars worth of plant material. The real cost is in securing the product and transporting it to the customer. In states that have decrim, the police don't even bother arresting people with cannabis because catching people running stop signs actually yield more money for the police department. There's no money to be made transporting the goods because the risk is so low.

<comment><USER8> California's decriminalization has been accompanied by partial legalization. In absence of any sort of legalization, the only place to buy drugs is through the usual channels.

"Usual channels", _while not limited to_ , includes gangs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm all for legalization, but my concern would be that now gangs will grow pot in Uruguay to export to neighboring countries. This may spark turf wars and the like...

Given the limits on how much you can buy at have, hopefully they can still tackle large operations

EDIT: Let me expand, because I think people are missing the point. There are drug gangs in the region that grow pot. After this law comes in to effect it suddenly becomes easier to do business in Uruguay. Wouldn't that be an incentive to move shop to Uruguay? It seems like if all the local countries don't sign up, then you're signing yourself up for trouble.

<comment><USER8> Vicente Fox, former president of Mexico, believes that legalization of marijuana in Mexico is the solution to the extreme cartel violence in Mexico.

Of course while he was in office he was prohibitionist; my understanding is that he believes that faltering prohibition in America (primarily signaled by legalization in Colorado and Washington, and near de facto legalization in California) presents an opportunity to legalize in Mexico and choke out the cartels.

<comment><USER34> Vicente Fox is a shareholder and the public image of one of the first 'entrepenurial' companies that plan to distribute marijuana at a major scale...

So yeah, that argument is kind of: 'but George Clooney said that I should buy Nespresso!'

<comment><USER8> This would be the case if you completely ignore what he actually says. The merit of his arguments can be evaluated, we don't need to just judge his character.

And of course he flat out admits that he would like to grow and sell it. That is no secret.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm always surprised to see people arguing against legalization of any recreational substance.

If this is your stance, I'm curious, how old are you? (serious question)

<comment><USER13> in my experience age has nothing to do with it. it mostly boils down to misinformation, or knowing or having known people who's lives have been ruined by drug abuse (these people also often can't discriminate between 'use' and 'abuse'), and not stopping to think how this situation was brought about in the first place, or how destigmatization of the whole topic could maybe have prevented the whole thing from getting out of hand.

Edit:

taken from the commment directly below mine at the time of writing:

 _I 've got addicts and alcoholics in my family. My cousin died from overdose. I've got close friends who killed themselves with drink. Lots of you do too. Exciting times? IMHO, the last thing we should celebrate is new ways to get a buzz on._

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> What's _so_ interesting here is that here's a government implementing this against the will of the majority of its people. That's pretty rare period/full stop. Fascinating here. True visionary bold leadership or blatant disregard for democracy.

<comment><USER37> 70% of Canadians support, at minimum, decriminalizing marijuana yet our government recently increased sentencing for cultivation.

<comment><USER38> Why is that? I don't understand Canadian politics but the main explanation I've read online for this is that it was due to US pressure. But since the US government is allowing Colorado and Washington to go forward with their legalization that explanation no longer makes sense.

Do Canadian citizens just not have an effective way to influence their politics or what's the deal?

<comment><USER37> People choose who to vote for based on a variety of issues and I guess the legal status of marijuana isn't a priority over things like healthcare, taxes, fiscal policy, and 'job creation'. There's also the problem of having first- past-the-post elections with one conservative party and two to three liberal parties diluting the left vote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is somewhat relevant. One of the candidates for Governor is Maryland, Heather Mizeur, is running on legalizing cannabis. You can see her discuss it here:

[http://www.heathermizeur.com/news/wusa9-plan-to-legalize- mar...](http://www.heathermizeur.com/news/wusa9-plan-to-legalize-marijuana-in- maryland)

</comment><comment><USER40> It's a little depressing how relatively radical the attitude of the legislators in the article is. It's not that they think this is 100% absolutely going to work. It's just that they realize what they're doing now isn't working and they need to change it and see if they can get better results.

</comment><comment><USER41> Up in B.C., I'd appreciate legalization with a "gondola" provision. i.e. Cannabis would be legal, but if somebody insists on lighting up on a ski gondola I'm going to be stuck in for the next ten minutes, I'm allowed to toss him out if there's a nice soft snow-bank to aim for.

</comment><comment><USER42> My bet is just a lab test for Monsanto's GM cannabis. We're already a big exporter of GM soy

<comment><USER43> Government weed has the Monsanto grandfather gene in it already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> BTW you can also marry whomever you want in Uraguay too, so they are way ahead of the USA in many other more important ways.

Would be really strange if national legalization of recreational drugs is legalized first before being able to marry whomever you love.

</comment><comment><USER45> A side effect: the sale of the tasty "chivito al plato" will soar (look it up).

</comment><comment><USER46> This changes everything. But we're yet to find out whether the US govt will follow this precedent.

</comment><comment><USER47> Reminds me of this interesting 2009 essay from Steve Yegge about the complexity of legalizing marijuana: [http://steve- yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...](http://steve- yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html)

</comment><comment><USER48> Ha, i'm from uruguay and i'm reading about it here. Go local news.

</comment><comment><USER49> US invasion imminent.

</comment><comment><USER50> Stop downvoting posts you don't agree with.

<comment><USER51> I agree that downvotes are for poor comments, not differing opinions, but look at how HN doesn't work. If I say "patent lawsuit protect innovation" with supporting thoughts or "open source results in poor software", I'm likely to be downvoted as well. In most cases, it's the result of someone disagreeing with me.

<comment><USER21> In my experience that's not true. I've seen top-posts that in most other fora would be moderated out of existence, thrive on HN when they're well-supported with sources and rational thinking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I've got addicts and alcoholics in my family. My cousin died from overdose. I've got close friends who killed themselves with drink. Lots of you do too.

Exciting times? IMHO, the last thing we should celebrate is new ways to get a buzz on.

There should be more discussion about how to minimize the incredible damage caused by drugs and alcohol.

<comment><USER53> Well, alcohol is a much more dangerous drug. As far as I know, there are no known fatalities from cannabis. It's also not physically addictive (unlike alcohol or nicotine).

<comment><USER21> _> It's also not physically addictive (unlike alcohol or nicotine)._

That's debatable and irrelevant anyway (coffee is addictive, should we ban it?).

<comment><USER54> Can you support the coffee is addictive comment? I drink coffee daily but have no issues short of a headache if I stop and I don't drink it on the weekends.

<comment><USER21> You can start with wikipedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine_addiction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine_addiction)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Legal drugs != less crime...

On one hand, yeah sure, some people won't end up in jail for buying/selling/consuming drugs but those are just like little drops in the sea.

The sea is actually the major criminal organizations that are perpetually conflicting with each other in order to maximize their particular profits. A situation where the demand becomes bigger (because it's not illegal anymore) will only put more fuel onto their war.

And yeah, you would say 'it was the same way with alcohol'; NO it wasn't. That was a problem of a very different society at a very different time; to put that on perspective: when have you heard of ENTIRE countries employing practically everyone (even children) to grow, launder and even murder for the business?

<comment><USER35> _some people won 't end up in jail for buying/selling/consuming drugs but those are just like little drops in the sea._

No. At any given time, around half of the men and women incarcerated in the US are there for non-violent drug offenses. To date, 31 million people have been arrested on drug related charges.

 _A situation where the demand becomes bigger (because it 's not illegal anymore) will only put more fuel onto their war._

This is just obnoxiously wrong. How can you not understand that drug cartels won't even be a part of the picture after legalization? It will be LEGAL! It will be exactly the same as any other commodity. Beyond that, available evidence suggests that rates of drug abuse decrease when punishments become less draconian (see Portugal).

<comment><USER34> Ok wow, I didn't knew that the proportion of inmates related would be that high! I didn't make my homework hehe.

But drug cartels will still be part of the picture; with police out of the way they would have one less thing to worry about and they will still be fighting between each other for the market. Those people will not give up at all.

<comment><USER55> The police won't be "out of the way" if the cartels continue with murder, selling to minors, underage workers, kidnapping, tax evasion etc. Those are all still crimes even if hard drugs were made legal. The cartels would have to choose between going legit, and delivering goods like coors, malboro etc, or continuing their other illegal activities and get taken down by the police

<comment><USER34> > ... or continuing their other illegal activities and get taken down by the > police.

Yeah sure, just as they are being taken down right now. Haha, they even made you consider to change the laws on their favor (yeah, if you think you came up with that idea, think again). Also, implying that bad guys care about police/law/wrong/right...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> see weed is bad. it turns you into north korea.

</comment><comment><USER57> [http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K1...](http://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2K1HRGQK1_Q')

See the heroin addicted family photo first, then make your freedom speeches.

<comment><USER35> Heroin is illegal, and the family still got addicted... any neurons firing up there yet?</comment></comment>


Defining Hobbyyist, Professional, Craftsman, and Artist - <AUTHOR> http://writings.orangegnome.com/writes/hobbyist-professional-craftsman-artist/

<comment><AUTHOR> Being a professional artist is probably the most difficult combination. Do you agree?</comment>


Why Most Women Will Never Become CEO - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2011/10/31/why-most-women-will-never-become-ceo/

<comment><USER2> The same reason that most men will never become CEO, perhaps?

<comment><USER3> _As of this past May, only twelve of the Fortune 500 companies were run by women._

So no.

<comment><USER4> No, hugh3 is saying that the reason why most women won't be CEO and why most men won't be CEO is the same -- there are a lot of men and women and not a lot of CEOs. Simply by the pigeonhole principle most men and women won't become CEOs.

What the author _meant_ to say (and screwed up) is "Why Most CEOs Won't Be Women."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Let's face it: unless there's beer involved, men don't have many instincts at all."

And this is where I closed the page and moved on.

</comment><comment><USER6> Rant follows.

The first page of this article made me feel physically ill. The second page just made me feel sorry for these people. Where does this guy work?

 _Apparently, one of the girls' boyfriends at the theatre had made a remark about another girl's makeup in the group. He thought she looked - hot. Oh boy._

Why else wear makeup?

 _The [boys'] ride home was filled with laughter, profanity, burps, flatulence and a few head slaps._

I've been on trips with high school girls where all of this happened, plus some really inappropriate "truth-or-dare" questions. Anyway, what part of that is sexist?

 _Words, thoughts and important points are missed because of a new perfume or a low cut blouse._

Trust me, if I could turn that off, I would. If I could ask the woman to wear more considerate clothing at work, I would. That really bothers me.

 _Men don't have this kind of instinctual tug. Let's face it: unless there's beer involved, men don't have many instincts at all._

Complete bullshit. Remember this from a few days ago? <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3149170> "And by God, he was right. I wouldn't just throw myself under a bus for my baby, I'd happily throw my wife under that bus too - without the slightest hesitation." No instincts, my ass.

 _We figure our wives will ultimately handle these things. And in many cases, they just do._

That's not instincts, you idiot. It took years of training and a large support network for your wife to learn how to "take care of things" like that.

 _Men can sprinkle profanity in their conversation and it endears them as one of the folks._

The guys I know who swear at work tend to be more circumspect around women. But I never noticed any particular backlash against women swearing.

 _Men can date women thirty years younger and get high fives from their peers. As much as many women would like to do that they just won't._

Those men are asses. Sure we might laugh about it, but they're still asses. And it contradicts your own next paragraph:

 _we joke about the woman teacher that had a one-nighter with the high school football player. And then we're enraged by the male teacher who did the same thing with one of his female students._

Both teachers are in the wrong and should be trusted not to take advantage of students.

 _[Women] could never comment on the looks of a fellow co-worker._

?????

<comment><USER7> _Words, thoughts and important points are missed because of a new perfume or a low cut blouse.

Trust me, if I could turn that off, I would. If I could ask the woman to wear more considerate clothing at work, I would. That really bothers me._

I will add that no _man_ would show up at the office in a muscle shirt, with his shoulders, upper arms, upper back, etc on display. And I've known men who complained about having to wear a shirt and tie -- felt like they were choking. In that regard, women have way more leeway in how they can dress and it is a completely sexist thing. My general rule of thumb: If no man would put it on display at the office, then I shouldn't either.* Unbuttoned/low-cut shirts displaying a man's chest are also considered sexy. This is not limited to women's bodies. But men generally show up at work covered up to the neck -- and would be sent home to change if they did not. The tank tops and the like that I am entitled to wear are off limits for the men at work.

* I do wear conservative v-necks. Much to my annoyance, many of the shirts I would like to wear I worry would get me sent home for being too t-shirt-like. It's quite hard to find work appropriate clothes that fit the dress code constraints, budgetary constraints, constraints imposed by my health issues...etc...all at the same time.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure if it's a law or just a policy, but the dress code might not be enforced in a gender-specifc way. For example: a guy was annoyed that the dress code disallowed him to wear shorts, so he protested by wearing a short skirt, which was allowed by the dress code. Definitely a double standard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Normally I don't think this link belongs here (after all its Hacker News and not Sociology Today), but since we're talking about genders here's a good article on the negative consequences of feminism: [http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry- bubble.h...](http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html)

<comment><USER9> You're a misogynist. From your link, you oppose female contraception, no fault divorce, and female economic freedom. To pick but one point from your pseudo history: "There was never any organized male opposition to women entering the workforce". Did you miss the history of the women's lib movement? Marriage bars? Was the equal pay act of 1963 passed unanimously? Did women have equal access to education? etc etc etc

Anyway, you won't change your mind and there's really no point in debating stupid people, but that doesn't mean I have to be polite to jackasses.

<comment><USER8> I wonder why you react so emotionally. Come on, someone wrote something that I find somewhat relevant, I link to it, and you call me a misogynist, which, by the way, I assure you I am not.

<comment><USER9> Dear jackass,

You're a misogynist _and_ a liar. You not only linked to that blog out of the billions of blogs in the world, but you _also_ linked to it with approval that you later edited out of your post (something along the lines of this link is controversial but it shouldn't be). Grow the fuck up and at least own your feudal beliefs.</comment></comment></comment></comment>