Most volunteering is a waste of time for anyone except the volunteer - <AUTHOR> http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/most-volunteering-is-a-waste-of-time-for-anyone-except-the-volunteer/ <comment><USER2> The article mentions this, but it certainly bears repeating - the _best_ kind of volunteers are the ones who have developed their 10,000 hours of expertise in their profession, and then volunteer their time.

Back in 1998, a small group of us volunteers took the Red Cross in Palo Alto and wired it up for Ethernet Networking in a single weekend. I'd had about 6 years of pretty intensive IT training, so was able to manage the Network Stacks on the Network/Desktops (They were using Novell networking in the Red Cross, and trust me when I say it was not a foregone conclusion that your workstation would be able to talk to your NIC, let alone your Network back in 1998. IRQs, himem.sys and such).

The guy leading the cable plant, and punchdowns had been doing so for close to 8 years, and had every type of cable plant certification you can think of. He also got his Cabling company to donate a truckload of brand-new Cat 5E cabling, tools, etc..

Ironically, the least skilled volunteer on our team, (for this kind of work), was a guy by the name of Ed McCreight (though he was still pretty damn handy, and certainly held his own when running cable) - who I only learned later was a fairly Sr. Scientist at Adobe working on their PDF engine, and, oh yeah, had co-invented the B-Tree.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, yes, volunteering in Africa does not make sense from a cost-benefit perspective, unless you actually posses a skill that is in short supply over there (i.e. doctors). However, volunteering at your local homeless shelter, orphanage, retirement home or women's shelter, where your work does not incur any extra costs for the institution you are helping, is a completely different thing.

<comment><USER4> It depends how short-sighted your goals are. If your goal is solely "build a house in rural Angola", then yes, hire local talent. If your goals include "making our youth more worldly, exposing them to other cultures" or "extend soft power by building bridges between citizens", then it's very worthwhile.

The author of the article strikes me as a 'worth of everything and value of nothing' type person, only seeing the literal end goal.

<comment><USER3> Those goals are not strictly related to volunteering though, they can be accomplished with exchange programs or tourism (if done through local tour guides). The main issue with voluntourism is that it does not promote sustainable growth in the communities it is trying to help, and therefore is not a good long term solution for the problems it is trying to solve. Not to mention taking jobs away from local workers who could really need the money.

<comment><USER4> _Not to mention taking jobs away from local workers who could really need the money._

Jobs that aren't currently being done? Is it really a stolen job if it wasn't being done?

Another problem with foreign aid is that if you don't actively manage it yourself, corruption can very easily divert it (and regularly does). At least by sending in the kids, some of it actually gets spent on the intended target. Maybe the kids made a shitty house that has to be rebuilt, but hey, at least now the bricks are in the right place... and now there's a job for that local worker you wanted.

My point is that the article has an extremely simplified view of what's going on. There's a number of interests and angles at play here, not just the 'veiled selfishness' that the author is painting of the volunteers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This isn't a problem with volunteering, it's a problem with _most volunteering_.

It's the same fact as "most jobs are bullshit" As in [http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/](http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit- jobs/)

There's tons of waste an inefficiency in our world today, and most people fool themselves into thinking what they are doing matters. But if we just question things, we _can_ find ways to actually help whether in our careers or as volunteers.

<comment><USER4> My guess is also that the organisations the author mentioned actually mean "we don't want _more_ volunteers" rather than "we don't want volunteers at all". It's an important semantic difference, since the value of a volunteer in the former statement is not nil.

<comment><USER5> Right, I wasn't disagreeing with the article, just giving it a different frame.

<comment><USER4> I am disagreeing with the article, because I think it's very highly slanted. _" Someone with a skill that can be sold for a couple hundred dollars an hour is better off doing that, and then donating their wages to hire at least ten people for ten dollars an hour."_, for example. Because people that actually earn a couple of hundred dollars per hour are just not that common - it's arguing from an extreme outlier. The _median_ full-time wage in the US is something like $42k - half of full time employees earn less than this, which works out to ~$20/hour. And only 1/3 of Americans are full-time employees.

The arguments about charities not wanting to be swamped by the unskilled are fair points, but at the same time, charities still do need unskilled hands. They just don't need crazy amounts of them. The article should have been more about the imbalance in skill requirements, not that charities basically only want experts in the field. And even then, you don't need to be a ten-year expert to be skilled enough for a lot of the things a charity work requires. One week's pulling cable would be enough experience to really help out with ghshephard's example above. Sure, a professional netadmin would be better, but a few days cable-jerking would have made someone baseline useful. Likewise team management skills can be very handy in managing the unskilled hordes, and it doesn't take anything like 10 years to gain those kinds of skills.

Taking the article on its merits, no-one would be able to volunteer until their late 20s, which is clearly an absurd concept.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've volunteered almost every week for the last 6 years running free STEM programs in local schools in Brooklyn. The robotics program I started runs entirely off of volunteers, most of whom I've never met before their first day and certainly aren't robotic specialists. About 40 4th graders from 3 schools get ~40 hours of free robotics classes every year. Not bad for a bunch of unpaid volunteers. To be clear, the robotics program wouldn't exist without us, and everyone--the kids, parents, school--are all very happy we do it.

New York Cares is a non-profit that organizes volunteers for all sorts of community organizations. Knitting at senior centers, arts and crafts at transitional housing centers, cooking programs at rec centers. Again, the programs wouldn't exist without the volunteers, and the intended recipients definitely enjoy them and benefit.

The robotics program was recently written about in a Brooklyn local paper: [http://www.homereporternews.com/news/school_news/sunset- spar...](http://www.homereporternews.com/news/school_news/sunset-spark- robotics-class-sparks-kids- imaginations/article_0d188258-f273-11e3-9eea-0019bb2963f4.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> I wonder what the author thinks can be done to improve volunteerism?

Here in the Philippines I met a troop of British deaf-assistance volunteers, visiting for three months, who don't know sign language and happily admit their own uselessness. Clearly this is suboptimal. But the only solution he presents in the piece - make money and give it to NGOs to hire professionals - sounds, well, not exactly surprising coming from a grant writing consultant. The authors of books like Dead Aid [1] and White Man's Burden [2] would have a few research-backed criticisms of what his suggested approach does to NGOs' effectiveness.

I was hoping to find some in-trade NGO hacks for travel volunteerism, or Doctors Without Borders for Everything, but without any new approach presented, this piece is just complaining about a pretty obvious problem.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-

[1] Dead Aid [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6184317-dead- aid](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6184317-dead-aid) [2] White Man's Burden [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33513.The_White_Man_s_Bu...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33513.The_White_Man_s_Burden)

</comment><comment><USER4> _Be an example to others by becoming an expert, instead of by sacrificing time that should be optimally spent doing something useful for a large number of people._

10,000 hours in days to become an expert = 416 full 24-hour days. 1 week in days in developing nation helping out = 7 full 24-hour days.

Helping out somewhere doesn't make a dint in that 10k hours; it's not like it's an either/or.

</comment><comment><USER8> I just felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of high school juniors suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.</comment>


Why No One Should Use LastPass - <AUTHOR> http://www.tobtu.com/lastpass.php

<comment><USER2> I don't understand why people prefer to store their passwords in the cloud. Even if they are encrypted on the wire, and encrypted on the disk. The moment a discovery is made that makes that encryption algorithm "broken", is the moment your passwords and logins are at risk to someone you don't control.

Passwords should be encrypted locally, and stored locally. If AES-256 is really just a Caesar cipher on drugs, and is broken tomorrow, I won't need to scramble getting my passwords reset. For those relying on LastPass however....

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm curious to see the community's reaction to these observations about LastPass and also hear what alternatives people use (KeePass and variants, 1Password, pass, pwsafe, etc.).

<comment><USER3> That looks nearly a year old, the post isn't timestamped but the dates from the emails are from September 2012.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Users offer to help with your non-OSS project.  What do you do? - <AUTHOR>

One of my projects recently got some press.  Some new users that signed up offered to help out with the project.  It is not open source.  I have no budget to pay anyone, and would like to maintain control over the project.  How can I take advantage of these offers? <comment><USER2> Tell the truth: You are currently not set up to have him/her help, and further, you aren't sure yet what (s)he would be able to do to help out. Should the situation change, you will gratefully contact that person.

<comment><USER3> Definitely tell them the truth. But if you're interested in having them help you out, talk with them and draw out a contract. You can guarantee control of the project, especially if you use some sort of VCS. But make sure you tell them the whole situation (lack of pay especially).</comment></comment>


Soon only the rich will be able to escape the heat. In Iraq, it's already so - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/climate-change-apartheid-poor-iraq-effects-heatwave-a9049206.html <comment><USER2> Heat makes people less productive - [https://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2018/08/29/heat- makes-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2018/08/29/heat-makes-people- less-productive-spelling-trouble-for-the-economy-and-future/)

Heat makes people more aggressive - [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S006526010...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260100800040)

</comment><comment><USER3> Um, Iraq has had numerous issues not directly related to global warming in the last 40 years which might have impacted their electrical infrastructure a bit (wars, occupations, firing the government, corruption, etc.).

<comment><USER4> yes, the article specifically talks about that. those issues exacerbate the problems from increased temperatures due to climate change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe we need to start digging. I wonder if living and working mostly underground (not, like, hundreds of feet but rather just beneath the surface) wouldn't help keep us physically cool naturally and cheaply but also help reduce emissions and energy consumption since there would be less need of air conditioning and heating. Not entirely practical for a lot of the planet—coastal areas come to mind—but even if those that can do it did I'd think it would make a difference.

Though, I guess this also highlights that it would mostly be the rich that could afford to do this. I suspect submerged structures are more expensive to build and maintain than conventional buildings.

<comment><USER6> When we were visiting Taiwan in the summer during peak humidity, we found staying in the subway systems a relief from the heat as they are clean, well- maintained and had emaculant malls all underground. Too bad they didn't have hotel accommodations down there.

<comment><USER7> You should visit the London Bakerloo line in the summer ;-)</comment></comment></comment>


Meteor 0.6.3: WebSockets, MongoDB 2.4, Coffee 1.6.2, synthetic tap events - <AUTHOR> http://meteor.com/blog/2013/05/15/meteor-063-websockets-mongodb-24-coffee-162-synthetic-tap-events

<comment><USER2> The tap addition is great! also nice to see that it's now possible to set e-mail headers. Out of interest, is there a recommended method for configuring headers transmitted to clients? as I would like to set a Content-Security- Policy.

</comment><comment><USER3> I always wondered when they'd replace the website's black-white space background. Personally, I can't concentrate on the text long enough to know if I'd like using Meteor or not, because the background is too crazy. From the sound of these frequent HN updates, it sounds pretty neat, though. A little bit of sarcasm here, but not really.

</comment><comment><USER4> The addition of the tap event is a big improvement for the mobile side of Meteor apps. Good news.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd still love to see some really nice, widely-used Meteor based apps in the field. I'm excited for the potential of this framework. Asana is a wonderful example of what-could-be.

<comment><USER6> GreenQloud is pretty neat - Renewable Energy-powered IaaS <http://greenqloud.com/>

<comment><USER7> it's also down

<comment><USER6> It's up for me.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


When Is Speech Violence? - <AUTHOR> https://daily.jstor.org/wittgenstein-whether-speech-violence/ <comment><USER3> Hmm...how about _never_? It can be an incitement to violence, but unless you are amplifying it to levels that produce physical harm, it's difficult.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"

The idea that anything that causes harm is violence is downright silly, the linguistic gymnastics of TFA notwithstanding. Aging causes harm. The sun causes harm. Slipping on a Banana peel causes harm. "Bananas are literally violence"

<comment><USER4> >never

first of all you're equivocating about the difference between violence and harm but that aside you seem very certain soft (volume) speech can't harm. okay then you should be fine with this experiment (and confident about its result): let me put you into a room and have people come in for 8 hours a day and call you stupid, ugly, worthless, a disappointment, etc. in perfectly mild tones for exactly one month. we'll perform a mood/outlook/mental health assessment before and after. do you think there will be a difference in the two assessments?

<comment><USER3> Well, I can just leave, can't I?

If I can't, lets compare the results of this experiment with being incarcerated for a month without those people.

But that doesn't really matter.

> mood/outlook/mental health assessment

We were talking about _violence_.

> perfectly mild tones for exactly one month.

You are saying I can be harmed without violence happening. That is _exactly_ my point. Harm != violence. There can be violence without harm and harm without violence.

<comment><USER4> >If I can't, lets compare the results of this experiment with being incarcerated for a month without those people.

yes lets. are you suggesting that the results still wouldn't be markedly different?

>We were talking about violence.

you're arguing semantics. what is the substantive difference between violence and intentional harm sans physical force? which propositional relations in the universe of such relations (re personhood, health, agency) are sensitive to whether there is physical force involved? you're being pedantic - <USER2> i could argue that incarceration isn't violence either because the bars of the cage don't apply any force on the person.

<comment><USER3> > you're arguing semantics.

Yes. Semantics, _what things mean_. This is important, because without semantics we just utter meaningless syntax, and those colorless green ideas sleep furiously[1].

For example, by saying that whether actual violence is involved doesn't matter, you've just erased a complete section of criminal justice codes.[2] These distinctions matter. Materially.

And no, incarceration isn't violence. Incarceration is incarceration, it sometimes follows violence, but it can also follow non-violent crime. There can also be violence in incarceration, but there can also not be violence, and if you resist incarceration there can also be violence in order to enforce incarceration.

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime)

<comment><USER4> >Yes. Semantics, what things mean.

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

what this expression means is that you're arguing about the definition of the words rather than the facts that those words represent. again: this isn't a debate about the meaning of `violence` or `harm`. it's a debate about whether speech can physically affect people in negative ways.

>These distinctions matter. Materially.

i challenged you already: show me one sentence whose truth value is altered when `violence` is substituted with `intentional physical harm` (note the absence of physical force).

>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime)

lol...

"A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which an offender or perpetrator uses or ___threatens_ __to use force upon a victim. "

>And no, incarceration isn't violence. Incarceration is incarceration,

alright clearly you don't understand how to actually have discourse; hint it's a bit different from arithmetic. and just in case you still aren't sure then you can enlighten yourself by reading this [http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2708/](http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2708/)

<comment><USER5> This brawl started in another thread and spilled over here, and somehow everyone involved has been unable to contain themselves from being personally aggressive. Being nasty like this is not allowed on HN, regardless of how wrong you think someone is. We ban accounts that do this repeatedly.

This goes for all three of you (but I already scolded the other two in the other thread). Maybe you don't owe better to each other, but you definitely owe better to this community.

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


Why It's Safe to Raise the Minimum Wage - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jasongreenlowe/why-its-safe-to-raise-the-minimum-wage-826381a9f02c#.ydhw6w3g6 <comment><USER2> The data is not conclusive. [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-11/early- ret...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-11/early-returns-from- seattle-s-minimum-wage-experiment)

"The best guess is that workers who remained employed saw a quarterly increase in earnings of about $184. If you live in a low-income household, $736 a year is a substantial sum. On the other hand, if you live in a low-income household, "no wages at all" is catastrophic.

Of course, these effects are likely to increase as the higher wages phase in. The earnings increases will grow, but so will the number of people who see their hours reduced or who can't find work at all, or who have to take on a new and less attractive commute because they can no longer find a job in Seattle. We will have to wait to see whether the costs and benefits rise together, or one eclipses the other."

<comment><AUTHOR> The data's not conclusive, but it's also not neutral -- the data shows that, on average, workers gained about $680 per year, even after factoring in the extra risk of unemployment. That's a much, much better result than Bloomberg and the WSJ and mainstream economists were predicting. If you ask a neoliberal economist what the effects of a minimum wage hike will be, they'll tell you that, on average, the hike will destroy wealth. So far, on average, this hike has been creating wealth.

Does it make sense to wait for more than 18 months of data before rolling out a nationwide wage hike? Sure. But the results so far are good, and they support extending the wage hike to a dozen more cities so that we can collect the best data possible.</comment></comment>


domain-specific social news vs having your own blog for that domain - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I'm assuming that by "having your own blog" you mean a link blog on which you submit links to stories you find interesting in your area of interest (as opposed to writing your own posts) and others can read it just like they read reddit or digg. In that case, I'd say that a social news site is better because it won't stop when you're on vacation or not feeling like posting. However, for a very small domain for which there is not a big enough community, a link blog is the next best thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> I mean both actually, not just link blogs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You don't get as much SEO juice by using social news services. There is a little element in the HTML markup of some social news sites that essentially tells search engines to ignore the link. This means you don't get credit for that link back to your domain. In addition, having your own blog can increase the number of times search engines visit the rest of your site...again, SEO 101.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Why have your own blog if you can just post to a social news service for your domain?</comment>


Ask HN: Programmer's Foot - <AUTHOR> I can walk, hike and not have problems with my feet. Sitting all day programming gets my feet hot and bothered in the summer and chillblains in the winter.
I am overweight and had a back injury many years ago. Nothing serious but let's say 25 years on I still need to sit down to tie my shoes.
So putting asides the fact I am a fat lad with possibly some nerve damage has anyone else mastered their foot care in the world of programming? <comment><USER3> Here are steps, that helped me:

1\. ensure you don't have diabetic - very often one of the consequences of diabetics are problems with feet (so called "diabetic foot").

2\. ensure you don't have neurological problems - caused by many factors (from side-effects of diabetics to low potasium level)

3\. ensure you don't have any cardiac/veins problems (myself being overweighted [fat, lets call it straight] is have high blood pressure which can silently make tremendous damage to your body - even feet)

4\. you HAVE TO take breaks from sitting! Stand up and take few steps every hour. This will cause better blood flow in your legs.

5\. keep focus on your posture - probably most of the programmers and it workers tend to do work in half-laying position (which itself is not so bad to be clear), but if you correct your self once in a while and try to sit with your back straight - this will also improve overall health of your spine and blood circulating system.

6\. Less coffeine, more water.

7\. I personally have a condition were I constantly move my legs when sitting. Some of my friends are telling me I lullaby a devil on my knee. Some call it Restless Leg Syndrome. Whatever it is - my legs are for most part of the day in motion. But, I know that not everyone have this kind of feature build in themselves. Investigate things like under desk bikes or steppers. I even saw one time device which looked like some kind of underdesk swing for feet - <USER2> would place each foot on wobbly platform and through the day you would move them in every direction.

8\. If above point is not for you (for whatever reason) search for rubber spiky pillows. They look like round pillow, with lots of little rubber connes. Often advertised as lower back stress relievers. Put one under the desk and keep your feet on it through the day - it will increase blood flow.

9\. Keep your feet at comfy temperature. Some are heat-likers some are cold- likers. Whom ever you are - adjust how you keep your feet through the day. Either ware a comfy, fluffy socks or very thin one. Maybe slippers aren't a bad idea.

10\. Take good care of hygene of your feet. And by that I don't only mean washing them. Also ensure you are fungus infection free, keep them soft by some cream of hot, salt water rinsing.

Finally - invest in the comfiest shoes You can afford. I cannot stress this enough. Bad shoes can do long lasting discomfort for your feet.

And thats it from me :)

</comment><comment><USER4> It might be lack of circulation. In past I had problems with my feet being always sweaty for some reason.

Later down the line I started doing cold showers and also a a avoiding gluten and dairy for periods of time ( a month of two at a time). This all seems to have fixed the problem it seems.

</comment><comment><USER5> If your diet is that of a typical coder your diet could be improved. Research the Mediterranean Diet AND use it to extend your life span. Be aware that consuming foods containing `resistant starch' can help improve your gut health. I'm NOT a health professional.

</comment><comment><USER6> Have you checked your blood sugar? High blood sugar is murder on your feet.

<comment><USER7> Diabetic. My checkups include doctor gently poking my feet with a thin probe to see if I can feel it, visually inspecting my feet, and reminding me to visually inspecting my feet for damage that I might not have felt.</comment></comment>


U.S. Defense Budget May Help Fund "Hacking for Defense" Classes at Universities - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/at-work/education/us-defense-budget-may-help-fund-university-hacking-for-defense-classes <comment><USER2> Those are my classmates! I took the Hacking for Defense class with them this past Spring at Stanford. I found that fundamentally the class trains students to apply the iterative, quick-moving, need-based approach to product development often found in startups to military problems that have traditionally had lots of bureaucratic overhead. We were exposed to a ton of different people through our interviews and were constantly asked to create and improve our minimum viable product as we learned more about our problem space. Overall, I would highly recommend the class.

</comment><comment><USER3> Israel already does this, both offense and defense. They have university initiatives that teach "cyber" (I hate that term).

It would probably be difficult to get DoD brass to care about this. They're used to their defense products being physical items (warheads, tanks, drones, etc) that are harder to steal. Sure, you can steal the schematics and such, but then you can track purchases of restricted components and guess who's building what.

With software, the schematic/code _is_ the weapon. You don't really have to put it together, but perhaps do some poking around to understand it. This is why it's so devastating when the NSA's arsenal gets scooped up by foreign belligerents.

<comment><USER4> May I interest you in some cyber?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY6KkRsS26M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY6KkRsS26M)

(better if you understand German)

I think we are in the process of re-appropriating the word actually. One of my best purchases this year was a roll of yellow tape with 'cyber' printed in black. It presumably provides great cyber defense if one covers a computer with it. And I think that is fantastic social commentary on the word.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Still to be charged at the full rate to the student, of course. This is just to get them started.

I have to say, out of all the things the DoD pays for with its massive budget, things like paying the NFL to fly F16s over stadiums, or TV ads, or sponsoring college courses are what really grinds my gears.

<comment><USER6> >things like paying the NFL to fly F16s over stadiums

Actually those are training flights that pilots volunteer to move to coincide with the event. The net cost to the tax payer is zero as those flights would of simply happened on another day. If you have an event you can request a fly over yourself.

[http://www.airshows.pa.hq.af.mil/PublicSite/Index.cfm?fwa=ho...](http://www.airshows.pa.hq.af.mil/PublicSite/Index.cfm?fwa=home)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Important info from Steve Blank on Hacking for Defense here: [https://steveblank.com/category/hacking-for- defense/](https://steveblank.com/category/hacking-for-defense/)

Steve's dedication to direct public service is impressive, and sets a high bar for other Silicon Valley leaders to reach.

<comment><USER8> Site crashed on mobile

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What's the relevance of watered down SEAL training to H4D?

<comment><USER2> A big theme in the class was the importance of understanding the real experiences of potential beneficiaries. The specific team in the picture wanted to understand what it was like to be in SEAL training since their project specifically dealt with that problem area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is very old news. We've been doing this in the US for _at least_ 15 years.

</comment><comment><USER11> The first thing I thought of when I read "Hacking for Defense" was Defense against the Dark Arts from Harry Potter :)

<comment><USER12> Glad I wasn't the only one.

<comment><USER13> I second this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is something we desperately need in the western world in order to combat Chinese hacking/spying offensive.

<comment><USER15> This is something we need to combat domestic hacking/spying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> this could be you

[http://dcsymbols.com/movies/emblem.jpg](http://dcsymbols.com/movies/emblem.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER17> Hacking for defense? Is that like how the Department of Defense is now more like the Department of War? Will "preemptive hacking" happen a lot, too?

EDIT: Also, this sounds a lot like propaganda to me:

"Don't worry - just because we hack into other nations, doesn't mean we are the bad guys. We're the good guys hacking for our preemptive defense!"

The US gov has had a hard time trying to lure talent for the NSA and such after the Snowden leaks (and for good reason, people finally learned the truth about what they were actually doing), so now they're trying to turn this on its head and trick young people who are already interested in hacking to work for the government "for a good purpose". And then they can pick the really good ones and try to convince them to actually do some of the more obviously nasty and morally questionable stuff.

I can't say it's a _terrible plan_ , but to me the motives seem quite obviously. For the more impressionable 18 year olds, perhaps they won't be, unfortunately.

<comment><USER2> I'd like to politely disagree. I took the Hacking for Defense class at my school and had a completely different experience from the one you worry about. I think the most important misunderstanding to clear up is that the hacking in the class is not about hacking in the NSA/cybersecurity sense but rather the process of building something. Just like at a hackathon, students aren't all trying to hack the school's wifi etc., this class is about using a different approach to tackling military problems.

I've attached a link to our class website which contains a superset of the problems that my classmates and I tackled throughout the quarter. Hopefully you'll find it informative.

Class website: [http://hacking4defense.stanford.edu/](http://hacking4defense.stanford.edu/)

<comment><USER18> > _this class is about using a different approach to tackling military > problems._

The real problem is the amount of money and human life that are squandered on perceived "military problems" in the US. There are plenty of other hackathons to go to, IMO attending these events and accepting their material support is legitimizing US Department of Defense sponsored terrorism.</comment></comment></comment>


Replace PDFs with PandaDoc's API and HTML5 as a Standard for Documents Delivery - <AUTHOR> http://www.programmableweb.com/news/pandadoc-seeks-to-replace-pdfs-new-api/2015/03/19

<comment><USER2> So the reason I choose to send a PDF over a Word Doc is total visual control of the end product. If people open word docs on different versions, or with certain fonts missing or whatever, the layout can get screwy and messed up.

With a PDF I can guarantee what the end product will look like on every device, every software version. Even if they open it on a Windows XP machine, a PDF will look the same.

How will this API + HTML5 guarantee the same thing?

(For the record I think this sounds awesome and I'm a huge fan of PandaDoc, but I didn't see anything in the blog post announcement around visual consistency across browsers/devices)

<comment><AUTHOR> We lock look & feel of the document as we act as a third party in the process. The design is consistent and responsive to the browser screen.</comment></comment>


Google 'accidentally' left Google Home devices recording your every word - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/08/ai_in_brief/ <comment><USER2> As much as I distrust these devices, the term "record" here implies the cloud- based transmission thing it does after hearing the wakeword.

It "records" all sound 24/7 to listen for the wakeword(s), naturally. It is just then discarded if one is not detected.

I understand they just added different wakewords (like smoke alarm sounds). I do not think it was streaming audio offsite 24/7, which is what this headline implies.

Headline is a bit misleading.

<comment><USER3> How do you form an understanding about what it is and isn't recording and/or streaming? What evidence do you consider?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have one always disconnected on my desk.

After the first couple of days of newness it just didn't provide much value to justify sucking electricty for me

</comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone know if there an easy way to modify certs on these type of devices to be able to MITM traffic locally?

<comment><USER6> Depending on how much time you're willing to put in, you could start down the road of hardware hacking. eg:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK1NWglhpWI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK1NWglhpWI)

Dumping device firmware:

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

There's likely a debug interface(s) on the product PCB, which if you learn to control would likely enable what you want (eventually).

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the links!

On a side note, it's a shame most universities do not teach CS students much about hardware, hardware security etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> And now they have a 6% stake in arguably the biggest name in home security, ADT

</comment><comment><USER8> For some reason I can't explain, an unplugged Google Home turned out to be one of my 1yo son's favourite toys. This luckily prevented me from using it for months. :)

<comment><USER9> > unplugged Google Home

So he talked to it and play that it responds? Similarly to how many kids play that they talk on the phone?

<comment><USER8> Nop, apparently he likes the shape, texture and weight. He never saw it working.</comment></comment></comment>


Thrown Off a United Airlines Flight for Taking Pictures - <AUTHOR> http://upgrd.com/matthew/thrown-off-a-united-airlines-flight-for-taking-pictures.html <comment><USER2> Yes, it's unfortunate that the flight attendant lied in this situation.

However, it would have been impossible for the pilot to verify this - even if the author showed him the camera. Since the author was willing to 'prove' it, it had to be a digital camera - which the author could have very easily used the built-in delete function to remove all photos but one (or be a sneaky terrorist and swap SD cards).

In addition, the author made the statement "I am not a terrorist." There's no way for flight crew to know this to be true until the plane lands at its destination and you provably haven't blown it up, killed people on-board, or hijacked and redirected it to another location. There is absolutely zero value in making a declaration like that.

... In fact, I'd say there's negative value in making that statement. In a security conscious environment like an enclosed aircraft, it immediately escalates a situation from "photo-happy tourist or possible bad guy" to "higher probability bad guy or maybe making a political statement ... or just not very smart". It's also a (very small) step in the direction of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater as you've potentially now caused (possibly over- sensitive) people hearing this statement to begin to have concerns about you and their flight. You've turned what should have been an uneventful flight into a situation where tension can only increase before you've even left the ground.

When you add all of this up, especially when a flight is trying to get out of the gate on time, the pilot is going to err on the side of caution and kick you off the plane.

You'll either blow up in a rage of righteous fury (thus proving to all that you should never have been on that plane) or you'll leave quietly, a one-time mistake, and board another flight (hopefully with much less bother to the next crew considering how much time you just wasted).

You were not kicked off for taking pictures. You were kicked off for acting odd.

<comment><USER3> Absolutely agree. The guy acted arrogant and entitled and attempted to argue with the Captain.

There was a very simple solution to this situation; Suck it up, swallow your pride and apologise, whether you were in the wrong or not.

If he had been humble about it, he very likely would have been able to stay on the flight.

<comment><USER4> This is a really terrible attitude. Apparently, airplanes are this magical place where you're not supposed to be treated like a human being. By "acting entitled", you seem to mean "acting like he's entitled to fly on the plane he bought a ticket for". And of course he argued with the captain; he was being kicked off the plane for taking a picture! It's not arrogant to expect to be treated well.

This thing where everyone shouts down someone who stand up for themselves, _even when they admit that person is right_ is really awful. It's like people value obedience of arbitrary impositions of authority as the highest virtue.

Here's where the guy loses me in the article: he blames the FA exclusively, as if it would be reasonable to kick someone off a plane even if he had continued to take a picture after she told him not to (why is she running around demanding that people not take pictures?). In fact, he's crazy to have been loyal to the airline company in the first place and his surprise at the lack of reciprocation is baffling.

<comment><USER5> >"It's like people value obedience of arbitrary impositions of authority as the highest virtue." //

That is just about the greatest virtue in the context of being in a confined space with someone in a relatively flimsy metal tube jetting over the ocean (or wherever). One is already trusting the captain + crew with your life to a large extent.

>"he blames the FA exclusively, as if it would be reasonable to kick someone off a plane even if he had continued to take a picture" //

My take is that the FA flagged the subject's behaviour as suspicious [or at least potentially problematic] and the photography was used as the excuse to oust the passenger without troubling the rest of the people onboard with mention of "terrorism" or making potentially slanderous remarks about the general character of the subject.

<comment><USER6> Suspicious is one thing. Seemingly terrified by hiding is another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Never ever directly accuse someone of lying. Mostly because it's usually a communication problem where they said it unclear and your heard it wrong. Also because you should always give someone a way out without losing too much face.

I would have said something like: Sorry if I gave the impression of not cooperating, but I can assure you I did not and will not take any more pictures this flight. It would mean a lot to me if I could stay on the plane.

<comment><USER8> Sorry if I gave the impression of not cooperating, but I can assure you I did not and will not take any more pictures this flight. It would mean a lot to me if I could stay on the plane

\-----

feels a bit too servile for me, especially if I felt I didn't do anything wrong in the first place.

<comment><USER9> Why, if this means, you stay on the plane, you win. But nobody looses his/her face.

So wining, without anyone losing, what is so wrong?

Everything else (and I sadly, really often react that way) is the little child in a sand-pit: "But he started it" kind of argument. Not mature, not civilized, just childish - the way or societies more and more seem to become imho.

<comment><USER10> There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he took more pictures" is a lie. There is nothing civilized about abuse of power. There is nothing civilized in accepting it.

But the real WTF is: how would agreeing to be led off the plane have resulted in him staying on it? His fate was sealed when he explained his picture to the FA and she had a 'nam flashback, or _whatever the fuck_ caused this; but what makes you think crawling on his belly after that would have changed anything?

<comment><USER11> > _There is nothing civilized about failing to point out that the claim "he > took more pictures" is a lie._

Was it? Or did she misunderstand his need to justify himself as a way of indicating that he did not intend to stop? You _assume_ she lied -- probably because that's what you are most comfortable believing -- but it's not necessarily true. People make false claims all the time that they really, genuinely believe to be the truth. Based on the scant evidence as we have, your accusation toward the flight attendant could even be an example of the same thing she did -- automatically assuming the worst of someone.

<comment><USER12> Perhaps this is just my opinion, but if you make a statement that you don't know to be true and assert it as a true statement, you have lied.

<comment><USER13> > Perhaps this is just my opinion, but if you make a statement that you don't > know to be true and assert it as a true statement, you have lied.

No, this is not correct. If the speaker doesn't know that a statement is false, the statement is not a lie. Lying requires _knowledge that the remark is false and must include an intent to deceive_.

\</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

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

Quote: "To lie is to deliver a false statement to another person which the speaking person knows is not the whole truth, intentionally."

<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lie>

Quote: "1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2\. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression."

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

See the role of knowledge and intent?

<comment><USER14> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the statement is false. If I say "lutusp killed JFK" then that is a lie, even though I do not know that it is false. It is a lie exactly because I do not know it to be true. Something can be a lie if it is true! Suppose the FA said "he took more pictures" without having seen him taking more pictures, with the intent to deceive the captain to get this guy off the plane. That is a lie _even if he did take more pictures_ , because the FA does not know it to be true.

<comment><USER13> > While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the > statement is false.

Yes, it requires both -- _both_ knowledge that the statement is false, _and_ an intent to deceive.

Source: <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie>

Quote: "Lie : noun : 1 : a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive"

Source: <http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/lie[noun]>

Quote: "Lie : noun : a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive <he wanted to deny the accusation, but he couldn't tell a lie>"

Source: <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie>

Quote: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."

Here's how this works. If you have an idea about how a word is defined that conflicts with another's claim, before objecting, _look up the word_.

EDIT: also, think for a minute about your claim:

> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the > statement is false.

How can a person be said to have an intent to deceive if he isn't aware that his remark is false? How does he form an intent to deceive using a statement he believes to be true?

<comment><USER14> Because, when we say "he took more pictures" we really mean: "to my knowledge, he took more pictures". Just think that you are the FA, and you know that you didn't see the guy take extra pictures, but you want to get him off the flight, and you say "he took more pictures". That would feel like lying, even though it is possible that he took more pictures when you were not looking.

You are also selectively quoting from the dictionaries. E.g. from the merriam- webster dictionary you only quoted meaning 1 a. The other meanings clearly contradict what you claim.

1 :

a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive

b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

2 : something that misleads or deceives

3 : a charge of lying (see 3 lie)

By this definition, selective quoting qualifies as a lie (meaning 2: something that misleads or deceives). This definition also shows that intent is not even necessary. As written, something that is both true and thought by the speaker to be true and said without intent to mislead can still be a lie if it is misleading the listener. I'm not sure if I agree with this definition, but that's what it says.

<comment><USER13> Here's what you said:

> While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the > statement is false.

Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he believes is the truth.

Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason -- it's the one recognized in courts of law. While under oath, if you speak a falsehood, but without realizing your remark is false, you cannot be charged with perjury. So knowing the most common definition, which is also the legal definition, would seem to be important.

<comment><USER14> > > While lying requires intent, it does not require knowledge that the > statement is false.

> Explain how a person can possess an intent to deceive while telling what he > believes is the truth.

Read that sentence again. It does not say what you insinuate it says. Not knowing that a statement is false != knowing that a statement is true.

> Also, I chose the most common definition of lying for a reason

Yea, the reason being that those directly contradict what you said.

It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion...only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.

<comment><USER13> Okay, I will try again. Explain how a person can intend to deceive if he doesn't know his remarks are false. An "intent to deceive" means the speaker knows his remarks are _deceitful_ \-- i.e. other than truthful.

The legal definition of lying, and by far the most common one in the everyday world, is that lying requires an intent to deceive and the utterance of a knowing falsehood.

> It appears that you are not interested in having a honest discussion.

What? By defining "lying" as it is defined in the law and in most references? How so?

> only in misrepresenting and twisting what you wrote and what I wrote

When I have quoted you, I have done it by cutting and pasting your exact words, as you typed them, directly from the display. How is that twisting your words?

> for the sake of defending a claim you made that is obviously false.

It is not "obviously false," it is not false at all. Lying is _knowing, intentional falsehood_. To lie, _one must know that the statement is false_.

Source: <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie>

Quote: "1 : a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."

How is that in any way confusing to you?

Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury>

Quote: "Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury _one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus)_." [emphasis added]

Source: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230329960457732...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577328102223038294.html)

Quote: "When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law to get a conviction anyway: They charge the person with lying.

The law against lying—known in legal circles simply as "1001"—makes it a crime to _knowingly make a material false statement in matters of federal jurisdiction_." [emphasis added]

Still confused?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Not that it's an excuse for what they did but why the hell would you suddenly spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has even implied as such. Yeah that's helpful to calming strangers in any situation, just suddenly say that without any reason.

<comment><USER10> _why the hell would you suddenly spout "I am not a terrorist" when no-one has even implied as such._

Because if you can't do that, what's even left for terrorists to destroy? And how is lying, claiming he took more pictures, an appropriate response? How can you possibly rationalize this to be the fault of the OP? As a comment to that story points out, that's a big part of how society got to such a low point.

<comment><USER16> _Because if you can't do that, what's even left for terrorists to destroy?_

Oh please. Imagine you have a guest at your house who asks to use the bathroom. You reply, "Yes, it's the second door on the left, and I haven't installed any recording devices in it." Would you seriously be surprised at your guest's sudden unease while relieving himself?

No one's saying that this is the OP's fault, but telling a flight attendant "I'm not a terrorist" is like saying, "Use my bathroom, I didn't install any cameras in it." Proffering information of that kind is just plain suspicious in itself.

<comment><USER10> How is that an analogy? Try this one.

There is a guest at my house, and I have a rule that nobody is allowed to take screwdrivers to the bathroom, because, as all my neighbours know, I am paranoid about people watching me as I take a crap (even though I have telescopes on the roof of my house pointing in all directions, and none of them into the sky; but that's a story for another day). So this guy walks towards the bathroom, and I see he has a screwdriver in his hand; I stop him, ask him to leave the screwdriver, which he does.

I make no further attempts to assure him I know he's not going to install a camera, or to be friendly or a human or something like that; I just bark my orders and waddle off. So after he finished his business, and because he's expecting to be over for a few hours and wants to clear the air, he walks up to me and says "About the screwdriver.. I didn't install a camera or anything, I just like to play drums on my knees while I poop. But I managed fine without it, so we're cool, right?"

I smily emptily, say, it's okay, waddle away... and then call the cops. Then I lie to them and say he took a screwdriver to the bathroom even after asked him not to, and _onlookers actually turn my guest reacting to my pre-existing suspicion of them installing a camera in my bathroom into my guest raising that suspicion in the first place._ The last part just boggles my mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My take on this:

      "Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need
       to explain myself."

Why? The only appropriate response to being informed that you are not permitted to take pictures in a non-public space is "I understand" or simply "Okay". No explanation is necessary as it won't change the rule that the flight attendant is likely obligated to enforce. However, the author feels compelled to justify himself rather than just let it be by saying:

      "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you
       didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card
       [offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an
       almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even
       aware of my blog."

This is quite ambiguous. The flight attendant is probably thinking "Oh great, here's some critic who is going to scrutinize and complain about everything I do and then write about it publicly. If he's so notorious that the guys in Chicago are aware of him, he must be bad news. Is he telling me this to try and con me into letting him take more pictures? Some disgruntled self- important writer is the last thing I need...". Imagine how the response might have been different had he said:

      "Sorry about taking that picture. I just want to say that I love
       United and everything you guys do. I'm really excited about being
       in BusinessFirst class on this new aircraft and wanted to capture
       the moment. Thanks for letting me know about the photography
       restriction, though. I respect that and won't take another
       picture."

But again, that whole exchange should never have happened. Then later, this gem of a sentence:

      "Me: That's a lie, captain."

Ouch. Now the only way to get your way is for both the captain and the flight attendant to lose face and admit that, yes, it was a lie. What was he expecting? That the captain brings the flight attendant over and asks her "Did you lie?" where she responds "Yes, Captain, I lied about this passenger taking additional pictures because I was afraid that he might write about a negative experience with me." I could go on with how the conversation with the captain should have gone, using face-saving phrases like "she may have been mistaken" and such, but at that point the battle was long since lost.

None of this excuses the flight attendant's alleged retaliatory action. However, having the situation escalate to that point could easily have been avoided.

<comment><USER18> It's a good lesson for him to learn - when someone is between you and what you want, it's probably not going to help if you call them a liar.

<comment><USER10> If someone put themselves between you and something you want via a lie, calling them out is actually the last option you have. While speaking of "lesson"... the captain couldn't make eye contact and the FA hid away; let's hope they learned their lessons; actual ones worth talking about.

<comment><USER18> You can draw attention to the issue without impugning the character of the person in the way. Even saying "that's not true" is better, since it doesn't unambiguously assign a negative motive.

<comment><USER10> Of course it would have been better to say it differently; that doesn't make what he said instead a justification for what happened, or that it would have changed anything.

<comment><USER19> Also, by that point his fate had probably been decided, and he might as well make his point and confront them. Perhaps they'll feel guilty; or perhaps others present will remember to push back more a little earlier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> No other comments in this thread make this point, so I'll bring it up. While the passenger should not have been booted off, he was _absolutely in the wrong_ but only based on _what he told the crew_.

Here is the photo policy:

<http://cdn-img1.upgrd.com/featured/united-photo-limits.png>

It says photography is strictly prohibited of aircraft equipment, and if not of aircraft equipment, prohibited unless of "personal events".

His explanation:

"I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist. Here is my business card [offering her one]. I write about United Airlines on an almost-daily basis and the folks at United in Chicago are even aware of my blog."

This falls outside of personal use. This is professional use, and therefore absolutely outside of the personal events category. Taking pictures under his business card and related to his blog is strictly prohibited, and his arguing means he was arguing with the rules that were shown to him by the FA before he began arguing.

Aside from being absolutely in violation of the rules, perhaps this had nothing to do with "I am not a terrorist"; perhaps the FA and captain were disinterested in having their entire route evaluated and blogged about.

No idea what United will say in response. And frankly, I am shocked to be siding with United. But in this case, they handed him a printed rule, and he chose to explain himself in a way that put him in violation of it, and took himself out of the regular passenger category.

In their shoes, I'd point out that _by his own explanation_ , he was wilfully breaking the rules.

<comment><USER21> _In their shoes, I'd point out that by his own explanation, he was wilfully breaking the rules._

He took _one_ picture when he was unaware of the rule. Once informed of the rule, he immediately stopped. How is that "willfuly breaking the rules"?

<comment><USER22> He didn't say anything to indicate that he would stop taking photos.

He then went on to say that he always took photos on United flights and never had a problem.

<comment><USER21> Again, how is that willfully breaking the rules? Am I will breaking the rules here becaus I don't explicitly state that I am following HN guidelines in all my posts?

<comment><USER20> Because arguing. If, after being shown the rule, he'd STFU, this article wouldn't be here. He was shown the rule, thought about it, and then objected, implying future rule breaking was in store.

There are now (wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another story) homeland security guidelines about passengers exhibiting behavior that suggests they don't or won't accept the flight attendant's authority. Flowcharting those rules leads to the captain deciding whether he wants the passenger on the flight. It's clear this guy got himself classified into that flowchart.

<comment><USER21> _He was shown the rule, thought about it, and then objected, implying future rule breaking was in store._

Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the rule, thereby meaning (according to DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

<comment><USER20> > _Really? Saying that you don't like a rule imply's thay he would break the > rule,_

Not breaking "the" rule, future rule breaking. There's a difference.

According to current flight regulations, arguing about breaking a rule is cause to suspect other rules may be broken later.

> _thereby meaning (according to DanBC & Terretta) that he broke the rule?_

Not according to Terretta. According to post 911 flight regulations being followed by the FA and pilot. These new security regulations say someone who objects to authority can be denied travel like "pre-crime" suspects on Minority Report.

> _Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?_

Yes, which is why I wrote, "wrongly, in my opinion, but that's another story" about these regulations.

The situation will remain ridiculous until enough people realize this ridiculousness is now policy and needs undoing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _Captain: I don't have any, but United will have no trouble finding me. My name is...[removed]._

Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way? The captain made a wrongheaded decision, and he should at the very least have his name attached to it.

<comment><USER13> > Why do victims protect their aggressors in this way?

Legal liability. The author could be sued for defamation of character if any of the details are wrong, or in the case that a truthful account emphasizes negatives over positives, something called "false light". Some readers may find this hard to believe, but it's true:

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

<comment><USER23> > _Legal liability._

Basic human decency rather.

<comment><USER13> Well, yes, that's also true -- many people don't want to cause unintended hurt by way of poorly considered words. But (in the U.S. at least, and certainly Great Britain) a diplomatic expression that includes an unfair characterization can result in legal action.

"Bob isn't so bad -- after all, it's said that he's stopped beating his wife."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Flying has become such a hassle these days. I often just keep my mouth shut when going through security just for the sake of getting through quicker. I feel like if I asked for a pat down as opposed to just walking through the body scan, I would position myself into a potentially troublesome situation. In a way, I do feel like I am being suppressed these days.

</comment><comment><USER25> _Naturally, the FA's warning bothered me and I felt the need to explain myself. I signaled for her to come back and asked her to hang my coat._

What's with the need to exercise control over another human being like that? Hang up your own coat. The fact that he feels entitled to such service says something about him. People that bark orders at flight attendants probably feel that are part of some untouchable/infallible class of citizen. It makes me suspect his retelling of the facts has been greatly marred by his feelings of superiority in the situation.

<comment><USER26> He was sitting in business class where this type of request is normal. Also, keeping the aisle clear is a top priority of any flight crew (especially pre- takeoff), so they actually prefer you ask them to do things like this as they will be more efficient.

<comment><USER25> I guess he would know what's appropriate, so I stand corrected on that point.

I guess I'm just too servile. I would have put my iPhone away and read a book and never have been kicked off the plane. (And if my coat needed hung, I would have just sat and been uncomfortabaly warm until I could hang it myself: your failure to prepare should not become the burden of another human being. )

<comment><USER27> If there's no where to hang it aside from a designated area that as a passenger you don't have access too, you let the crew member do it and remember to be polite. Same as in a restaurant, you don't take your own plates back into the kitchen and clean them off, because the waiting team does that and probably wouldn't like you muscling in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is completely unacceptable. You don't take people of a plane for taking pictures - they are no thread to everyone and certainly paid for their ticket. I am flying with United Airlines in March, I hope for a better experience - but after reading this, it might be my last flight with them, ever.

<comment><USER29> It used to be land of the free, apparently now it's land of the cowards

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's a bit disturbing and amazing to see so many people here taking the airline's side in this.

No wonder things are the way they are - the general public supports it.

<comment><USER31> Uh, there are like 9 comments right now (12:54am PST) and literally none of them support the airline. What are you talking about?

<comment><USER30> All the "Well he shouldn't have used the T word" when he explained that he was taking the photos as part of his travel review job.

There were no faults in the way he handled it. The airline was completely to blame, severely inconvenienced him, falsely accused him, and cost him money. Outrageous behavior against any passenger. That he is a 950,000 mile traveler on the airline and often writes articles recommending them to others (at a time when United is well known for being among the worst of the carriers) makes it completely idiotic from a business standpoint as well.

<comment><USER16> No one's taking the airline's side here, but he shouldn't have brought up terrorism. That was a mistake in judgment on his part, as I explained elsewhere.

The irony here is that you're demonstrating the same sort of knee-jerk misinterpretation that arises when people say "terrorism" on an airplane.

<comment><USER32> I still don't understand why using the word "terrorist" is a no-no. It is a word. Context matters. Context in this case would suggest there was nothing to worry about.

I swear sometimes it is like the whole world is a slightly mentally handicapped child who, upon hearing a bad word, starts repeating it getting more and more upset.

I guess being adults and thinking things through is too much to ask from your average full grown adult?

<comment><USER16> It's not the word itself. The word could be "terrorist" or "bomb" or "Muslim" or anything, really. It's _denying some wrongdoing without having first been accused of it_. Humans learn very early on to be suspicious of people who offer denials prior to accusations, and we likewise learn in childhood not to offer such denials ourselves.

When no one has accused you of stealing a cookie from the cookie jar, saying out of the blue, "I didn't steal the cookie from the cookie jar" instantly makes you a suspect. This is Encyclopedia Brown level stuff.

(As an aside, your lack of intuitive understanding of this principle, combined with your righteous indignation and judgment of the world at large, makes me feel very much like you describe while writing this reply.)

<comment><USER33> Except it wasn't used in that manner _at all_. As others pointed out, it's a fricken idiom and automatic response in a photographic context. <http://goo.gl/CnV1s>

It's the same as if he replied 'okay, don't worry, the photos will be dead and gone', and the flight attendant misinterprets that to mean he's going to blow up the plane and kill everyone.

If the story is as he's relayed it, he's absolutely 100% not at fault and the flight attendant is a total fricken idiot.

<comment><USER22> > it's a fricken idiom and automatic response in a photographic context. > <http://goo.gl/CnV1s>

It's _part_ of an idiom, and that'a among a small niche community, mostly in London.

Even if the guy was aware of the idiom I doubt the staff were too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sorry, what I do not get is, that this person describes something, he claims clearly troubled him. He was wronged (by his account) by UA. He even had to buy a new ticket on his own account to have a connection-flight.

So what I do not get is, why is he not holding UA responsible for the lost money, lost time and his trouble. Is he such a big fanboy, that he does not want to cost his big love some (by his account) well deserved money?

Or might it just be, that there are some other aspects to his story, not told in the written blog post? His tone of voice, while talking to the FA? Was he calm, might he come about as being aggressive? What was his body language? Might she have felt threatened.

Maybe he is right in his point of view - but maybe - and just maybe, he acted from a position of blogger-power, taking his blogger-influence for granted and letting this show.

I know, that this is just me speculating, but I haven't been there and did not hear anything from the other side of the story. But reading the comments here and in the blog, UA is guilty until proven innocent, or so it seems.

</comment><comment><USER34> Why did they throw him off then put him on another flight? I mean either he was a danger (= should be thrown off original flight, but should not be allowed to endanger other flights either), or he wasn't a danger (= could fly on the original flight).

<comment><USER35> Possibly, the original Flight Attendant said something to the Captain. Pretty much everything that happens on or around an airliner is at the Captains discretion. The decisions can be questioned and challenged by the airline supervisors, the FAA etc. and the Captain can be relieved of duty by the airline, but its Captains prerogative to remove someone off their aircraft.

The other factor involved is CRM, Crew Resource Management. The days were the crew passively follow the Captains decisions are over, and for good reason. Captains are trained to listen to their First Officer and FA, and actively respond to questions.

This means its quite possible that the Captain didn't want his flight delayed, or cause unnecessarily tension on the flight with his FA, and so took the easy (but highly questionable) option to simply remove him from the flight.

Note: This should not be interpreted as taking the airlines side, just explaining my thoughts on the factors involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Two issues: 1\. 'Terrorist' seems to be a keyword that will get you into a lot of trouble if uttered in the vicinity of an airport. 2\. Why not provide evidence of the truth there and then? Show your camera photo roll containing the one photo, and then you have a solid case. Otherwise, we have to consider that perhaps more than one photo was taken, it is a "your word" against "their word" scenario.

<comment><USER37> Would a terrorist really use the word terrorist?

This society is way too fucking paranoid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The weaker people in positions of authority are, the less you're allowed to laugh in their faces, and the more you should.

<comment><USER38> This sort of attitude is childish and pathetic.

And it will get you absolutely nowhere in life. Nowhere.

<comment><USER39> Slightly tongue in cheek:

You know that crappy little country, just off the north coast of mainland Europe, its where I live, its called the UK? Well, that's why we have far too much influence for our size.

We rip on our powerful people something rotten. It helps to keep the powerful on their toes and makes the rest of us feel a little bit better. Its a British tradition. And for us, it works quite well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Something similar happened a couple years ago involving photos being taken of employees.[1][2] What struck me as different this time was that neither the FA nor the GS Rep attempted to take the camera away or have the pictures deleted. If this was a security issue, it makes sense that they wouldn't just let him walk off the plane with the photo(s).

It's possible that his saying "terrorist" was part of it, or maybe UA has a very strict no-photos policy, or maybe there's something else we don't know (and I think this is probably the case,) but this still seems pretty absurd.

1: [http://consumerist.com/2011/07/28/united-says- photographing-...](http://consumerist.com/2011/07/28/united-says- photographing-staff-could-get-you-on-no-fly-list-continental-says-you-deserve- an-apology/)

2: [http://consumerist.com/2011/04/25/allegations-of- photography...](http://consumerist.com/2011/04/25/allegations-of-photography- cause-plane-evacuation-25-hour-delay-on-united-flight/)

<comment><USER16> Even police officers have no right to confiscate equipment or delete pictures[0], and you're proposing that private parties attempt it? Please, be more aware of your civil rights.

[0] [http://www.aclupa.org/issues/freespeech/kyrwhentakingphotosa...](http://www.aclupa.org/issues/freespeech/kyrwhentakingphotosandmaki.htm)

<comment><USER40> No, I'm just saying United has done that before, so it seems odd that it didn't happen this time as well. I certainly don't think that it's right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Tips for air travel: 1\. Don't bring up terrorism or bombs. 2\. If a disagreement with anyone arises and is settled, don't bring it up again. 3\. Be polite and humble, particularly whilst on the actual plane. 4\. Do not accuse anyone of lying. It's confrontational and leads to conflict. Instead assume miscommunication, apologize & clarify. 5\. Don't accuse anyone of threatening you. It's confrontational and leads to conflict. Instead assume miscommunication, apologize & clarify.

<comment><USER42> Surprised so few people are keying in on point #2. That to me is the key point where the blogger went awry, was entirely within his own control to avoid and if he'd done so, no one gets kicked off the flight.

I understand the "well, it wasn't settled ACCORDING TO ME, so I want to clarify" mentality, but if you can't control that urge, don't be surprised to find that you escalate your way into situations like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Hi, upgrd.com is my site. I always wondered what would happen if a story was picked up on HN. Now I know! There's some interesting comments from other passengers, on the same flight, about the behavior of the flight attendant.

Regardless of your view on Matthew's story - has the site been working well for everyone? Is my little FreeBSD VPS (with photos on cloudfront) setup performing well? I can see the stats from my side, just wondering how it loaded for you. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER44> Why didn't he simply show the captain the photos that were on his iPhone? That would have verified that he only took one photo, and it violated no one's privacy.

Actually showing the photos would have been a stronger argument than saying "That is a lie." Also, he could have volunteered to delete the one photo that he took.

Someone in the comments suggested that this is a "he said, she said" situation. Not really, because there was a camera involved. The camera is the authority on the subject of whether he took photos that he should not have taken.

I recently was at the Port Authority, in New York City. I was amazed at how busy it was at rush hour, so I pulled out my iPhone and took some pictures. I did not realize this was forbidden. A policeman approached me immediately and asked me what I was doing. I showed him the photos I had just taken and I explained I wanted to send them to some friends who had never visited New York. He suggested that I delete the photos but he walked away without making me do anything, so I was able to keep the photos.

</comment><comment><USER45> Not in the same league, but I've been escorted out of a train station of taking a photo of a piece of signage too. The electronic sign in question had condensed a station name to something mildly profane, which I considered amusing enough to take a photo of.

The justification given that I could have been planning a terrorist attack, so it was regarded as suspicious behaviour.

<comment><USER46> Isn't taking photos in public place like a train station completely legal?

<comment><USER45> I've no idea. This was in Australia, but I don't think we have any specific laws against it either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Well, as I see it, the guy wanted to wave the fact that he is a "semi-famous writer on the subject of air travel" for whatever reason. Apparently, the captain didn't like this attitude, which does not excuse him for kicking the guy out, but I can see why he might have done it.

</comment><comment><USER48> Sounds like he stepped in to a plane in Little Britain's 'Come fly with Me' and met 'Penny' the steward: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XlDUTpCIOE>

</comment><comment><USER49> I wish the flight attendants had of asked the guys next to me in Business to stop taking photos. A few of us had been upgraded and these guys next to me were so excited they took about 80 or so photos. Every. Single. One. With. The. Fucking. Flash.

Okay, I was a little annoyed. But the attendants weren't bothered... and the guys did settle after a while.

It wasn't anything to do with photo taking. You _don't_ say on a plane, "I'm not a terrorist". That's kind of dumb.

That said, he was perfectly entitled to take photos for personal use. So the photo taking wasn't really an issue.

There's more to this than the OPs mentioning perhaps.

</comment><comment><USER31> It seems likely that, in the not-too-distant future, we will all be eagerly recording everything around us to prevent these kinds of injustices from happening. Imagine if you'd had a mic running, then played it back to the captain. Problem solved - and the FA would have gotten into trouble for creating a liability risk for the airline.

<comment><USER50> It's more likely that you would not be allowed on the plane with anything that appears to be recording.

<comment><USER51> Good luck to them with that. The only people it stops even today are people who don't _mind_ being observed taking pictures. There are plenty of cameras that are easy to hide for anyone who cares to.

I can buy simple digital video recorders embedded in pens, watches, bluetooth earphones, baseball caps, ties, crucifixes and more from just a casual search of Amazon, for example, and that's hardly the state of the art in covert recording.

The more obnoxious anti-photographing policies people experience, the more attractive it will be to make recording devices less obtrusive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Forget this story: I was more bothered by the blog post on this site that unapologetically mocks people with service dogs.

[http://upgrd.com/blogs/cloudcommuting/this-is-my- emotional-s...](http://upgrd.com/blogs/cloudcommuting/this-is-my-emotional- support-dog.html)

<comment><USER53> Yes, that does sound pretty ignorant:

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> You can't take pictures on an aeroplane?

The terrorists have won.

</comment><comment><USER55> I take pictures all the time. While the Flight attendant in this situation seemed a little over zealous, it is not a huge deal and it's not why you got thrown off.

There are a few words you can not say on a plane. Never say "bomb", and NEVER say "terrorist" in any context. When you said, "I'm not a terrorist", you were doomed. Sorry. It had nothing to do with you taking pictures, just your naivety about language, perceived threats, and the illusion of security.

Also don't mess with business class. That is their cash crop.

</comment><comment><USER56> > _maybe I should never used the word terrorist in my explanation_

That's obviously the problem. When I read he said he wasn't a terrorist I thought "uh-oh, this isn't going to end well".

The US have this very strange custom of having "forbidden words" -- words that can't be said on TV and/or words that can't be said in an ordinary conversation. Those words are alluded-to with their initial: F-word, S-word, N-word, etc.

The T-word needs to be added to that list.

<comment><USER57> Pretty soon we will be able to make a song out of that list.

Now I know my ABCs,

Next time won't you sing with me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Shouldn't have used the T-word.

<comment><USER59> Or live in Paranoidistan, aka USA.

<comment><USER53> There are 30,000 flights a day in the US with an average of 100 passengers each. This happening to one blogger is not exactly a pattern of paranoia. It was simply two people making a bad customer service decision.

<comment><USER59> I would agree with you, it could have been that.

It's just that for me as an European seemingly all crazy stories like "X tazed by cop for doing nothing at all" or "Y put into jail for having her small children play naked in the garden" come from the US.

<comment><USER53> According to [1], there are 500,000,000 English speakers on the Internet. There are 300,000,000 English speakers in the US. It stands to reason that most everything you read about in English on the Internet took place in the US. It's just a really really big country.

[1] <http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm>

<comment><USER59> I also get my information in German from an Offline newspaper or the German websites.

Or to back my claims up, let's take some per-capita numbers: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_rates_worldw...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_rates_worldwide.gif)

Sorry if this comes across as arrogant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Jezz - Google Glass is going to open a can of worms.

</comment><comment><USER61> This guy feels so entitled. The airline has clearly a very strict no photography policy and after being told not to take pictures, he then arrogantly explains that because he's a journalist he allows himself to do whatever he wants (take photographs on an airplane). My bet is the FA got pissed off at him and threw him out of the plane to teach him a lesson.

<comment><USER62> Have you even read the blog post? He took one picture and stopped after the FA complained. And the picture he made was in accordance to the regulations.

<comment><USER63> > And the picture he made was in accordance to the regulations.

How so? It's explicitly said that you cannot photograph aircraft equipment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Meh. Passenger demonstrates willingness to a) revisit the incident later and b) use the word 'terrorist' on the plane.

They don't have to actually think he'll blow up the plane; it only takes one closet nut case to overhear this and cause a ruckus mid flight. In a small confined space at 30k feet that's a very real safety issue. Consider that an irrational fear of flying isn't that uncommon, and this is a route where there isn't much of an alternative.

Finally, they're under no obligation to tell a passenger the real reason for booting him off the plane; if it was the above, doing so could only make it worse for themselves.

<comment><USER65> Still unacceptable on behalf of United. Using the word "terrorist" was unnecessary and downright unwise, but the fact remains that, regardless of post 9/11 context, it's just a damn word. May it heighten the senses of a potential fear-of-flying person? Perhaps. But by that logic, you would also say that anybody wearing a turban would have to remove it, for fear of triggering one of these people.

And, yes, United are under obligation to tell this passenger the real reason for booting them off. They are a business. He is their a loyal customer with almost 1,000,000 ffms. He conducted himself, according to his entry, calmly and in a very transparent manner. The behavior of the stuff was disgusting, humiliating and unprofessional.

If this seems okay to you; fine. But this is not the world I want to live in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> It's interesting to see, what impact Google Glass and others will have on the practice of such no-photo-policies.</comment>


Millions of Netflix users are using someone else's password - <AUTHOR> https://www.recode.net/2019/4/8/18300256/netflix-password-sharing-14-percent-survey-content-experience-moffettnathanson <comment><USER2> The netflix service gives people the flexibility of having a local file copy for usage [but no file]. The model seems to be so close to the pirateverse model as far as user modality goes, id say the only thing separating them is legality. I get it that a file creator wants revenue, and copy number controls, but the reason a lot of people download pirated content is about convienience, not "screw the man." so netflix is convienient as a model, so is FB, and alphagoogle mostly, and that i think is why they all succeed, they are offering convienience in a sea of delays popups captchas logins and 2FAs .

I hope that netflix doesnt take the mentality that each extra view is a lost sale [old arguments re-spawn here ] most of those people would not buy netfix on thier own, regularily watch it in tandem with the account owner.

im wondering about the 14% claim. how many people as in paying users also have an alias to access netflix from outside of home, or to access a particular sort of content. How many analogue hole the netflix stream and save it so they can defer connection bandwidth usage to the benefit of the rest of the family. Im thinking at this point if you want to change your model and chase out the 14% "freeloaders" and disenfranchise the 86% of usage that pays, it doesnt make the sound or smell of a good practice.</comment>


Helm: A functionally reactive game engine in Haskell - <AUTHOR> http://helm-engine.org/ <comment><USER2> It would be nice to see some examples, otherwise this is "yet another game engine that will be deprecated in 1 year". I consider this very important as games are so different that it is hard to find common parts to put into a library that are not trivial and could be reimplemented. In particular have at least 3 slightly involved examples, otherwise it is unclear what one would gain over simply using SDL/OpenGL.

This goes also the other way. If I hack for fun, I often think about how to abstract stuff that is not specific to my current problem and put it into a library (I think we all have been there). Fact is, I often rush, so my abstraction only works for the current situation and so does not belong into a library. Until I did not reimplement the stuff at least 3 times I try to avoid making a library.

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted this because I was looking for info on how to go about writing a game using Haskell, or FP for that matter.

I think this at least exposes how you can do it, and what kind of tools it uses to accomplish it.

After I also stumbled upon this: [http://elm- lang.org/guide/reactivity](http://elm-lang.org/guide/reactivity)

And then on this: [https://github.com/evancz/elm-architecture- tutorial/](https://github.com/evancz/elm-architecture-tutorial/)

<comment><USER2> Obviously it depends on the game. However if you do not plan to make a straight-forward game or do not have to be fast, I highly recommend the combination SDL2 + OpenGL. It just works.

      - you find tons of documentation
      - you will run anywhere (that is obviously not trivial)

In particular if you are going 2D you can skip OpenGL if speed is not a problem (yet).

You then just write a small C-kernel which provides the main functionality and explore Haskell's FFI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Wow, that is a beautiful homepage. I particularly like the font and colorscheme for the code example, well done.

</comment><comment><USER4> Helm is a great effort but as far as I know the project has been mostly abandoned :(

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems like the github repo is not that abandoned:

        kasbah authored 13 days ago

<comment><USER4> Maybe the original authors have passed it on. If they're still working on it then it would be great to see an OpenGL backend.</comment></comment></comment>