Re-entry to US without backscatter or pat-down - <AUTHOR> http://noblasters.com/post/1650102322/my-tsa-encounter <comment><USER2> In the 1500's a man called Étienne de la Boétie wrote, in a then-inflammatory "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude":

 _Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it._

(<http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html>)

<comment><USER3> A nice quote, but we've already given the TSA a lot. Now it's a fight to get it back. Hopefully it's not too late.

<comment><USER4> The TSA is obviously staffed by bureaucrats who are simply following bad rules. This should call for a restructuring of the organization, not a lash out against The TSA or (worse) The Government. Let's figure out what is wrong with the process, and how we can fix it. Enough being scared and pointing blame.

<comment><USER5> How about disbanding it as a waste of tax money, and as an unnecessary institution ill-suited to being part of a society dedicated to the idea of individual liberties?

<comment> brown9-2 If the TSA is disbanded, then how do you suggest handling airport security? Who is in charge of it and who is responsible?

<comment><USER6> There was plenty sufficient airport security 10 years ago. The airlines and airports were perfectly capable of handling it then just as they are now.

<comment><USER7> Far be it from me to defend the TSA (its behavior and policies are outrageous), but your comment is simply wrong. Before September 11th, private companies handled airport security. After September 11th, airlines and airports were heavily criticized for relying on inadequately trained, low-paid employees for something as essential as security. Everyone in the world agreed that a federal agency must step in to do a better job, and the TSA is the result.

<comment><USER8> >After September 11th, airlines and airports were heavily criticized for relying on inadequately trained, low-paid employees for something as essential as security

Pro-tip: The same poorly trained, low-paid employees are now federal TSA goons.

>Everyone in the world agreed that a federal agency must step in to do a better job, and the TSA is the result.

Clearly, everyone in the world was overreacting to 9/11, and made poor, rash decisions. I'm sure many libertarians felt that despite 9/11, they would feel much safer having airport security handled by airlines, and not a bureaucratic organization that has yet to catch any terrorists in the act, or foil any terrorist plots.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Others have hinted at this, but when I read this story, I had a big "HUH?" moment. I just returned into the USA last week at SFO, and I can assure you that I didn't go through any kind of security screening upon re-entering the USA.

The USA, unlike many other countries, requires that you clear out through Customs at your first point of entry. This is an operational issue, because after that, you are mixed with domestic passengers. Clearing through Customs requires that you pick up your checked luggage. As such, you are no longer "sterile" from an airport security perspective (you could have pulled a box cutter out of your checked luggage, for example). This means that, if you plan to continue on as a domestic passenger, then you have to be re-screened for security, just like someone walking in from the street.

What boggles my mind is that the folks who set up this airport require non- passengers to go through TSA security, just to walk out of the terminal. Not only is this a waste of time and money, but it also introduces people with no legitimate reason to travel into the terminal. Put another way, if I WANTED to pass through a TSA checkpoint at most airports without a ticket for onward travel, I would be turned away.

In summary, I guess I can understand why this guy thought that he was being screened to re-enter the country, when in fact he was just the victim of very, very poor airport design.

<comment><USER10> Atlanta airport, for example, is one of several US airports which weren't designed with the current security policies in mind. International arrivals occur at the furthest terminal from the exit, and in order for passengers to get to the exit they must take the shuttle car system or walk, and both are inside the "sterile" area of the airport.

I sent a letter to the TSA last week asking about the legality of this search. Can a passenger just after existing customs and immigration decline further screening, and if so, how? If not, when is it presumed that the passenger gave consent to the search and what level of search was consented to?

I'm curious as to what their answer will be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The trouble with the Internet is that it's so hard for the government to keep secrets anymore. It's exciting to see in real time how American citizens are working together to challenge and change unreasonable government policy. First by broadcasting government abuse and now by documenting successful tactics.

<comment><USER12> One thing that came out in this blog post -- it seems there may be a policy that the TSA employees are specifically _forbidden_ to wear radiation dosimetry badges.

What!? How in the world is this a sane policy? Who is this policy meant to protect?

<comment><USER13> If a lot of TSA employees wore dosimeters, chances are there would be at least one false positive and the media would latch onto it.

<comment><USER14> I work at a nuclear reactor, and for the type of dosimeters we wear on the job (thermoluminescent dosimeters), there's no chance of a false-positive, as far as I'm aware. The only thing that can cause the crystal to lose electrons is ionizing radiation in a certain energy range. As long as there were procedures to ensure that the badges are only worn on the job, false positives shouldn't be an issue.

<comment><USER15> _As long as there were procedures to ensure that the badges are only worn on the job, false positives shouldn't be an issue._

And that's how your false positives happen. How many people would have to wear dosimetres? Would they be mandatory? How many people per year will leave them at home and borrow their workmate's dosimeter so the boss doesn't give out? How many will drive home in their uniforms? Go to the shops in their uniforms? There are loads of ways for errors to happen.

Nuclear reactors are (I'm guessing) very strict on their policys, it's foolish to extrapolate that to airport workers.

<comment><USER14> It's not very hard to solve this problem. At work, we just have a bunch of small cubbies where everyone keeps their dosimeters. When you come in, you take it out and put it on; when you leave, you take it off and put it in. Occasionally people forget to take their dosimetry off, but it's not a big deal–it's extremely unlikely you're going to receive a significant dose outside of the facility (although you are constantly receiving a low-level radiation dose from cosmic rays, and, if you're below ground, from radon gas). I should mention that I work at a test reactor where the typical dosage is so low that the Federal Government doesn't even require us to track employee dose. I get more dose from flying cross-country several times a year[1] than I do working at the reactor. So, I don't know how dosimetry policy differs at power reactors.

Regardless, I think it would be particularly illuminating if there <i>were</i> false positives. Why not have employees who are concerned wear dosimeters constantly, and at the same time stick reference dosimeters near where they usually stand while a scanner is in operation. If their dose is roughly the same as that of the reference dosimetry, there's not much room to complain about the scanners.

The fact is we are being constantly bombarded by low-level radiation from cosmic rays and radon gas simply by virtue of standing on the surface of the earth. The level of radiation these scanners output is much smaller than that. Wikipedia[2] cites an article in the European Journal of Radiology that gives a dose range for backscatter machines of between 0.07 and 6 micro-Sieverts. For reference, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements reports that the annual radiation dose from naturally occurring radiation is on the order of several hundred micro-Sieverts [3].

TSA employees have a right to be concerned, because they are involuntarily being exposed to it as a course of their job, without this being made clear to them when they were hired. If you're a traveler, you should be much more concerned about the radiation dose you receive on the plane than the one you receive from the scanner.

[1] Health Physics Society page on radiation exposure on commercial airflights: [http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights....](http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/commercialflights.html). [2] [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Backscatter_X...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Backscatter_X- ray#cite_note-37) [3] [http://hps.org/documents/environmental_radiation_fact_sheet....](http://hps.org/documents/environmental_radiation_fact_sheet.pdf)

<comment><USER12> _If you're a traveler, you should be much more concerned about the radiation dose you receive on the plane than the one you receive from the scanner._

I dislike "spherical cow" assumptions when they are applied to my health. If you are a government agency, then applying "spherical cow" assumptions by imposition to large numbers of people is _inexcusable_.

<http://compilerbitch.livejournal.com/218216.html>

Backscatter X-rays are completely unlike the radiation you receive on a cross country flight. Natural high energy tends to deposit energy evenly throughout your body. The energies in backscatter are manipulated so that the majority of the energy is deposited near the surface of your body.

We don't have that much data on the effects of low energy X-rays, because we didn't have many applications for them until recently. We _do not understand in complete detail_ the mechanisms by which radiation causes cancer. We have equations for predicting cancer rates for radiation doses, but these are entirely _adhoc and empirical_! We don't have a first-principles understanding of this stuff yet. We don't know enough to say for sure that this application of X-rays is safe. I'd only feel safe if there were experiments on a bunch of lab animals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months from now.

For anyone else trying to prevent a gate-rape freedom-fondle, do not try the "less clothes" approach, this one ended with an arrest:

[http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&...](http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Passenger+Chooses+Strip- Down+Over+Pat- Down+|+NBC+San+Diego&expire=&urlID=441153877&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcsandiego.com%2Fnews%2Flocal- beat%2FPassenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html)

There is also some documentation now that the scanners produce TWENTY times the claimed radiation level:

[http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=...](http://holt.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=651&Itemid=18)

<comment><USER17> > Except he'll probably get a surprise $10k fine (civil lawsuit) a few months > from now.

It's actually $11k apparently and I hope someone with the money, time and energy does get brought into one of these suits. I hope it happens soon so it can gain the media attention that this whole thing is getting right now.

But considering this man was escorted out of the airport and told he is free to go, I can't see how they could possibly get away with it in this case.

<comment><USER18> _It's actually $11k apparently and I hope someone with the money, time and energy does get brought into one of these suits._

I actually joined the ACLU recently precisely because they're the kind of organization with the deep pockets and infrastructure for running suits like this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Oh wow, I had no idea they scan you after re-entering the country. I'm flying to Chicago O'Hare from London Gatwick on Dec 2, and now I'm concerned about this.

Does anyone know precisely what my rights are as a US citizen upon re-entering the country to avoid all of this ridiculousness? I know that Customs has some Constitutional power for searches and so on (and there's that insane 100-mile "border" where people can be stopped and searched), but where does the TSA fit into all of this?

If asked to do a backscatter OR patdown once I'm on US soil and leaving the airport, is it within my rights to refuse both? It sounds like the guy in the post wasn't claiming his rights, only threatening to call it "assault" if they brushed his genitals. Or have I got it wrong?

Edit: I'm extremely curious about this now. Per the wiki article linked in the replies, it seems that x-ray and pat down searches are "unreasonable" without a warrant at a border (i.e. international airport). So I believe I could claim that going through these scanners again after landing on US soil and wanting to exit the airport would infringe on my rights. However, since the scenario is the same for _entering_ a flight on US soil, wouldn't the backscatter/patdowns in those cases _also_ infringe on our rights? Does anyone have any ideas on this? I don't want to give the TSA an inch when re-entering my own damn country.

<comment><USER2> Your mileage may vary, but it sounds to me like he was claiming his constitutional rights... "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" seems to be a key-phrase of people who know their rights when faced with police officers. That, and verbally not consenting to any search - your person is also protected by constitutional rights, afaik. (note: I'm not American, I may be wrong)

<comment><USER3> I _think_ that Customs may detain you at a border--they have more leeway in the Constitution for border searches iirc. That's what I'm confused about now, because with each new insane agency that gets created and each new law that alters and amends old law, it's hard for a non-lawyer to get a clear picture of exactly what _is_ and what _isn't_ a right.

And if I have the free time upon landing and no flight to catch, I don't want to give TSA an inch.

Edit: here's the Wikipedia article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception>

It says that "reasonable" searches, i.e. property searches, can be conducted without warrant by Customs officers at the border. "Unreasonable" searches like x-ray, pat-downs, and strip searches require a warrant. But is TSA allowed to do this as well, or only Customs agents?

<comment><USER19> The TSA is not customs.

<comment><USER12> Unfortunately, this is vulnerable to a bit of bureaucratic sleight of hand. I say we hold it against the politicians who aid and abet such shenanigans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is what elections are for.

Did you know you can be stopped and searched without a warrant within 100 miles of the physical border? [1] Between that and this new screening policy for re-entry at international airports, I think we've crossed a line. Everyone I talk to about this is _outraged_. If we still have a functioning democracy, these policies will change.

It's somewhat expected that now and then the government will overreach (see the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc). But that's why we have elections.

[1]: This band around the border happens to include 2/3 of the US population. [http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/constitution- free...](http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/constitution-free-zone)

<comment><USER21> Is this really what elections are still for? I remember the sense of relief and elation of many around me when Obama was elected. Change was coming and many people seemed to feel that the best time for it was when the old system has all but collapsed. I believe Obama himself actually said something to this effect at the time. Fast forward to a few weeks ago just before the US mid- term election and I saw Obama interviewed by John Stuart. His points seemed to boil down to that they couldn't change as much as they wanted to because the US (and by extension the world) was in crisis and that people expected too much.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in participating in the political process, I do vote (though I'm not American) and at least try to keep myself informed though I'm no political expert by any means. But I guess my point is that taking into account how things have gone over the last few election cycles both in my country and the US, what this guy did at the TSA security checkpoint seems far more effective than voting if more people were to do it and things like it. But I guess that would mean that we'd all have to handle some amount of inconvenience to protect our rights and that seems to be something that modern citizens of modern societies seem mostly incapable of accepting.

<comment><USER20> _what this guy did at the TSA security checkpoint seems far more effective than voting_

I would agree that's effective, but civil disobedience is just different than voting. I was not denigrating the OP's effort in any way; in fact I find it commendable (much more so than Tyner who took a similar position but was too combative and rude).

My point is simply that if we Americans don't like TSA's policies _we can do something about it._ We can opt-out, we can complain, we can get media attention, but most of all, we can vote. Our complaints wouldn't mean much if we couldn't vote.

<comment><USER21> > I was not denigrating the OP's effort in any way

Sorry if it seemed line I was implying this. I didn't mean to.

> but most of all, we can vote.

I guess this sentiment is what I was replying to, though. I'm starting to think that beyond a certain threshold of imposition on one's personal liberties, voting - while surely important - is no longer "most of all" what we should be doing. But I guess you American's have to decide what that threshold is for yourselves. Hopefully it won't be too much further past where you are currently... you're setting a bad precedent for the rest of us. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> That's awesome.

Ever read Cory doctorow's "little brother"? That's what I think of every time I read one of these stories.

I've said it before- there are two easy ways to avoid this 1. Drive, 2. Don't visit the USA. To us residents, especially if you live in hawaii- sucks to be you!

Oh, and the rest of the world is laughing at you. Fix your flipping government.

<comment><USER23> > Oh, and the rest of the world is laughing at you.

Well... that's not the only thing. Of course I laugh at what TSA is doing... but on the other hand a lot of ideas from the US are copied in EU. I just hope this isn't one of them. UK already tried experimenting with those scanners, but I haven't heard about them for quite a while.

<comment><USER22> Oh yes, it's a nervous laugh for sure. Already, the DHS requires our contact information and Passport numbers if you're on a flight that goes over the USA, even if it's never going to land in the USA (think flight from Canada to Mexico).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I find it appalling that US citizens are forced to such measures to enforce their rights and I'm glad that there are people both patient and stubborn enough to play out scenarios like this. However, as a non-US citizen I always wonder to myself when reading such stories if there are any international rights/laws that may be applicable when entering the States as a foreigner?

My understanding is that there are absolutely none, and I would have to submit to any and all egregious and invasive 'requests' (with NO limits) that are demanded of me in order to gain entry (which is why I haven't been there in a while and have no plans to go back). Does anybody have any information to the contrary?

<comment><USER25> I believe you are correct that there are no limits to what U.S. Customs can do so long as you are being processed within the physical borders of the United States.

At a land crossing, once you _attempt_ to gain entry you cannot simply decide "it's not worth it" anymore and return back to the originating country. You have no rights, not even the right to turn around and leave.

In an airport setting (most mid-sized and larger Canadian airports have US Customs processing stations before you depart), you can indeed decide to turn around and not proceed with the crossing.

From a legal standpoint I believe it has to do with the fact that at a land crossing you are already on U.S. soil by the time you reach Customs. In the airport scenario above you are subject to the laws of the originating country since you haven't left their territory.

It goes without saying that refusing to proceed with a crossing at an airport once it has commenced would likely have other very serious implications. The local authorities would almost certainly want to have a word with you and you'd be flagged by U.S. Customs as suspicious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What? I wasn't aware you needed to be irradiated just to enter into the US, even without planning to take any more flights. What is the rationale behind that?

<comment><USER11> This is exactly the question that they should have to answer before a judge. Laws at minimum must have a rational basis, there must exist some scenario in which the law makes sense. Irradiation before a flight may protect against terrorist attack. Irradiation after the time of danger has past makes no sense at all.

<comment><USER27> I'm not sure that laws in general really _need_ a rational basis[1], but invasive exceptions to your Fourth Amendment right require a rational basis (i.e., a reasonable suspicion).

[1] What seems rational to some might seem irrational to others.

<comment><USER11> There are three "levels of scrutiny" used to determine if a law is valid. The lowest level, the level which every law must meet is rational basis. Government may not enforce a law which makes absolutely no sense. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review>.

<comment><USER27> >There are three "levels of scrutiny" used to determine if a law is valid. The lowest level, the level which every law must meet is rational basis. Government may not enforce a law which makes absolutely no sense.

The article that you linked to indicates that "rational basis review" applies to laws which may be related to the 5th or 14th Amendments, which is substantially narrower than what you've appeared to say. I'm not a lawyer, so can you clarify?

<comment><USER11> Both the fifth amendment and the fourteenth mention "due process" as in: no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The fifth fifth applies to the federal government, and the fourteenth to the state governments. When the government passes a law that infringes on a person's right, one way a person can challenge it is to claim that the law violates (substantive) due process. The idea is that government has to have a reason for depriving a person of his right.

How important the government's reason has to be depends on the importance of the right being infringed. If the right is "fundamental" (1st amendment, voting, interstate travel, or privacy,) then the government must have a very good reason for infringing the right and it must not infringe more than necessary. This is "strict scrutiny". If the right involved is not very important, the government need only show that it had some acceptable reason (the law must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.) This is rational basis. Every law that fails rational basis must also fail strict scrutiny. But not every law that fails strict scrutiny must also fail rational basis. The vast majority of the laws pass rational basis.

It's true that the law being challenged has to relate to the fifth or fourteenth amendments, but that's not a very hard test to meet. Almost anytime a person would legitimately want to challenge a law, it would be because the law is depriving him of some right. And in every such case, the law must at least have a rational basis.

This is case here. The traveler has a right to travel, the government was going to deprive the traveler of this right. The government must have a rational basis at least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I just want to know what the TSA supervisor expected would happen if he DID choose to go back to customs. Then what? Where does he go? He has no ticket, no boarding pass. He can't get on a plane. I don't see how refusing could possible end any other way than for him to walk out of there. Surely even as he was saying this, he'd have realised how absurd it was.

As a tourist, I wouldn't risk it...too easy to put you back on a plane (unless you have to consent to a search there too?). But if I were a citizen of the USA, there is no chance I'd put up with that when returning to my own country.

<comment><USER19> > Then what? Where does he go?

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362227/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Does anyone know why the TSA even gives you the choice to opt out of the backscatter machines? You can't opt out of the metal detectors. It seems like the default policy would be for the new machines to be mandatory as well.

<comment><USER30> It's a slow-boiling sort of thing. Here was their plan:

1) Implement the backscatter machines with a non-invasive opt-out. Most people won't opt-out, but those that do won't complain, because the opt-out is painless.

2) Now that you've had backscatter machines for nearly a year, make the opt- out much more invasive. The complainers will be seen as crazy, since the Backscatter has been something we've been tolerating for a year and people won't understand the difference between "normal patdown" and "invasive patdown"

3) Come 2012 or 2013 or so, Backscatter machines are deployed pretty much everywhere, the opt-out goes away entirely. Anyone who hates the Backscatter has either stopped flying due to the patdowns or already been broken in by punitive molestation and PR pressure.

<comment><USER30> >Here was their plan:

It occurs to me now (after the edit deadline has passed) that this might have implied I have some sort of inside knowledge. That's not the case. The above is conjecture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If you do not like the TSA's policies, please take a moment to write your representatives:

<https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml>

[http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_se...](http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm)

<comment><USER32> You're aware that our representatives aren't required to pass through these sensors, aren't you?

<comment><USER33> They are, however, required to get enough votes to get elected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Here's something that came to mind after reading this article... What would happen if someone prior to boarding declined the AIT and also told any and all TSA agents that they are not allowed to touch their bodies. We know that leaving the checkpoint prior to complete screening can result in an $11,000 civil fine according to TSA (BTW, where is/does contract exist binding an individual to these rules/statues???) So, what would happen if they basically do the same thing as this gentleman. Refuse to leave due to the threat of a fine but also refuse to consent to anything else. If the TSA order you to be removed, perhaps for disorderly conduct or some other bogus offense, then how could they fine you? Since they were the ones that ordered you to leave prior to the complete screening? And how could they arrest you for disorderly conduct if you are behaving in a civil and polite manner? Eventually, the TSA will have to let you go unless they wish to have someone stay overnight with you when the airport closes... see what I'm getting to here? Refuse to voluntarily leave since you are under duress to stay (possible fine for leaving). Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say? I don't think I'm doing a great job explaining. All in all its, just getting yourself to a place/state that you can't leave since in order to leave voluntarily without giving up any of your rights you face possible punishment. Additionally the TSA will say that you are not being detained and you can leave... but you can't. Anyone want to protest by getting into this situation? Perhaps protesting until TSA explicitly says you are free to go and you will not be fined. They can't remove you and then fine you, right?

</comment><comment><USER35> Awesome, more people need to stand up for their rights like this.

</comment><comment><USER36> I wonder, would they have been able to arrest him if he was shooting video within the security area? Is it legal to record the audio of a cop if you inform them about it first?

I need to read up on this before I need to travel again. Someone should create a know your rights quick reference guide for air travel.

Side note: I flew from HK to SF yesterday.. No backscatter machines on re- entry of the US border. When I flew from SFO to HK a couple of weeks ago I was lucky enough to have made it into a line that was only a metal detector. They did have some backscatter machines in place.

Second side note: On my flight home from HK to SFO they had roped off the waiting area at my gate. There were about 6 Muslim men (hats, bears, speaking arabic gave me this impression) waiting in line with the rest of the passengers to get all of our carry on items physically searched before our flight. I'm sure the extra screening was not due to their being on the flight /sarcasm. I over heard some of the men speaking about how they can fly anywhere in the world and don't have a problem. But as soon as they fly to the US, they get harassed up and down. I truly felt sorry for them.

</comment><comment><USER37> I can just imagine that reporters are just going to be flying in and out now so they can get some create articles and stories from all of this

<comment><USER12> I hope so. $11,000 is a fine price to pay for a well written story about personal freedom. Hell, why aren't there dozens of Kickstarter journalism projects for this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> For every idiotic law there will be a Rosa Parks.

Now, of course there is a huge difference between state sponsored racism and the TSA policies but I'm very happy this guy decided to test the limits. If you have some spare time next time you land in a US airport ;)

<comment><USER38> >Now, of course there is a huge difference between state sponsored racism and the TSA policies

Is there? Now instead of disregarding the rights of a portion of the population, we're disregarding them _'equal opportunity'_ style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39>
        Ah – he's gotten the Miranda talk.  I hide my smile.

Anyone know what this is?

Edit: Thanks, live in Australia so don't get all the lingo.

<comment><USER16> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning>

When any law enforcement officer in the USA starts asking you questions, become EXTREMELY cautious and serious (even if they do not explicitly state the warning, which they might just say afterwards to cover themselves). People often think they can "talk themselves out of it", and almost always discover that is not the case.

<comment><USER40> Don't talk to cops

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> When you arrive from an international flight at Atlanta airport, you have to go through security to get out of customs because there is no direct exit out to the street. In other words, when you arrive and go through border control and customs, the only way to get out of the airport is to go through the other terminals. I wonder if the same applies at Cincinnati/N. Kentucky airport.

<comment><USER42> This makes a lot of sense.

Had someone with authority said "Sir, unfortunately, the way the airport is laid out, you must enter the secured area of the airport in order to leave, and therefore we have to put you through our screening process." then there would be no trouble. Equally less troublesome would have been if the TSA had simply realized this and told the police "No problem, he's not connecting anywhere - please just escort him out of the building safely." That seems logical, and seems to be what happened in the end - as soon as someone actually made a decision.

<comment><USER43> He can still ask to be escorted through the secured area --- which is what seems to have happened.

<comment><USER42> Yup - and he was offerred this earlier on in the story - though when he pushed the police on the pat-down procedure, they wouldn't commit to anything. They said they "might" have to pat him down before escorting him (which seems reasonable if they are being asked to securely transport him through the facility. While they didn't insist on groping his nads like the TSA does, they couldn't promise that wouldn't happen at all. There was wiggle room there. Had the cops said "We aren't like the TSA -but if we're going to escort you out of the building, we need to pat you down for weapons like we would any other person we're transporting - are you okay with that?" it might have been over.

<comment><USER44> I don't understand this. Clearly a search may be necessary to detect smuggled contraband, but that is the job of Customs. What grounds are there for the TSA to search someone not boarding a flight?

If there is a worry about carrying concealed weapons out of the airport then surely the appropriate agency is the police. Why do the TSA have to do anything with someone who has disembarked and is entering US soil?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I fully agree with most of the civil liberties and health concerns I've been reading online about these "Federal Security Detectors," and it certainly is ridiculous that you have to be scanned AFTER flying and AFTER passing through customs just to get home from the airport, but seeing as TSA agents are really just there to carry out policy given to them from their superiors, it seems a little silly to claim that such an action "prove[s] that it is possible."

With an organization with as many employees as the TSA, it seems to me that whether or not one can bypass security really just depends on the specific TSA agents and supervisors dealing with a specific case. This isn't really a blueprint for bypassing TSA security... more like a personal anecdote of a time when the author bypassed security because the TSA/airport security were tired of dealing with him.

<comment><USER11> The TSA must be able to justify the actions of all its agents at any time in court. The only way to do this is to issue detailed policies and insist that all TSA agents follow the policy. The agents are not free to do as they want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> The authors tone is reminiscent of the narrator from Fight Club.

Excellent write up btw.

</comment><comment><USER34> Additionally, what happens with a terrorist shoves a [plastic] bomb up his butt? Will they then switch over to only x-ray (as opposed to the radio wave) machines and up the juice to look into our bodies and/or require cavity searches?

Or even, how telling are these images from these machines? Could a determined person kill and animal or human, strip the skin and attach it with stitches to their own body to create a cavity to hold contraband? Perhaps making it look like a beer belly?

This is getting absurd?

</comment><comment><USER47> If I am understanding this correctly the TSA/Customs officials could submit you to a backscatter/pat-down BEFORE you clear customs and the Constitutional argument evaporates. I imagine that would require an overhaul of the layout of many airports, but perhaps if enough people make a fuss like the author then someone will push for it. Does anyone know of a reason they couldn't do another security screening after you land and just before you clear customs ?

</comment><comment><USER48> I'm surprised there wasn't a big fuss about the audio recording. Just one person asking if there was video being recorded, and a lot of people not wanting to make declarative statements on record.

Does this mean that officials have accepted the fact that citizens can legally record them performing their duties?

</comment><comment><USER49> Some companies are making a killing by selling those X-Ray machines to the gov't. The politicians who pushed this are getting a nice cut from this. There's startup for you.

</comment><comment><USER50> Is it common to say "Sir" when speaking to a police officer in the US? Where I come from, the police officer is expected to call you "Sir" and act as your servant.

<comment><USER51> I say "sir" to the cashier at Starbucks.

It's a politeness and showing of respect thing.

<comment><USER50> I don't have that type of respect for the cashier at Starbucks, although I don't have "disrespect" for him/her either, if you can put that way.

But come on, I'm friendly to them and that's what counts.

How can a "the customer is always right" mindset work, if the customer says "sir"?

"A cup of cappuccino, sir"

"Yes sir"

"How long will it take, sir?"

"2 minutes, sir"

"Excellent, my good sir. I shall be awaiting my delicious cup of coffee, my liege."

Never heard this :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Really lucky. That situation could have easily turned into a 6 hour detention regardless of legal rights (which are already being ignored)

<comment><USER53> That's the same threat the TSA agents make. Don't assert your rights or it'll be a huge pain in the ass.

Civil disobedience is not for the meek.

<comment><USER52> Oh absolutely and I'm happy to see the momentum building with this issue. That said, he still got lucky. For example, he was able to sit down and use his laptop still. It is a sad reflection on the US and the TSA, but I'm surprised they allowed that even. Had I not read the story and someone asked me to guess what would happen if a person took this attitude, I would have guessed the person was detained and kept in a back, empty room for 6-8 hours.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" - Mahatma Gandhi

</comment><comment><USER55> I wonder how many of these opt-outs are going to end up on the no-fly list.

<comment><USER56> They don't seem to take IDs or boarding passes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Kafkaesque to say the least

</comment><comment><USER58> What is the author's race?

</comment><comment><USER59> If you look at the way this was handled it actually speaks to the professionalism of most of those involved. Regardless of your objection to the policy, which is not the decision of these people, the police and tsa seemed rational and accommodating.

Just think how this might have been handled in other countries.

<comment><USER19> In other countries this idiocy would not have taken place to begin with.

<comment><USER59> If you refuse to cooperate with security in England, Germany, France, Italy, China, Burma, India, or any other place I can imagine, you would not have a policeman calmly understanding of how you were asserting your constitutional rights.

<comment><USER19> Burma, India you are probably right, Italy I can't vouch for, England, France and Germany you'd be fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I'm curious if any lawyers from the EFF have put themselves through this so that they have good grounds to sue the federal government for violation of constitutional rights?

<comment><USER61> I suspect you are thinking of EPIC - <http://epic.org/> which has indeed filed a lawsuit - I don't see how this is EFF purview.

<comment><USER60> Never heard about EPIC, but the EFF is part of the engineering community. Our community solves the problems that the rest of the world creates. The EFF should be involved .. maybe somebody can get arrested for planning flash-mobs at the airports Tuesday and Wednesday to decimate holiday travel plans and put the issue into the national spotlight. That's something a bunch of hackers could put together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> It is incredibly dangerous to write things like this. It encourages rebellious activity during one of the busiest traveling seasons.

I understand these are potentially too invasive, but as long as the TSA agent is not being a pervert, I am ok with it for one major reason: It comforts me knowing that it (in some way) helps to ensure the safety of flights, our friends, and family. It's no guarantee but it helps a bit and I'd like it to be a safe traveling season.

I blogged more about it here: [http://blog.darshanshankar.com/post/1656961705/tsa- backscatt...](http://blog.darshanshankar.com/post/1656961705/tsa-backscatter- machine-pat-down)

</comment><comment><USER63> I agree entirely with the author's cause and I believe that the guilty-until- proven-innocent mindset of present airport security is wrong and should be unconstitutional.

However, upon reading the article I very much got the impression that the author was refusing to be scanned or searched just to make trouble. When asked why he was refusing to be searched, his answers (in his own writing) seemed to be along the lines of, "because I don't feel like it." I'm sorry, but that's just not really a valid defense. Whether you feel it's constitutional or not, the law says you have to go through these checkpoints when selected. If you're going to refuse, you need to have a much better reason than you don't feel like it.

Ultimately, it sounded to me like they escorted him out of the terminal simply because they were tired of dealing with him, not because he found a loophole in their logic or rules. Less well-mannered officials would have put him in jail for a judge to deal with in the morning.

<comment><USER11> >I very much got the impression that the author was refusing to be scanned or searched just to make trouble.

That's like saying, you are just making trouble when you resist a pick-pocket or robber. You are never "just making trouble" when you assert your rights. On the contrary, government is the one just making trouble.

The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect rights. However, government seems to be full of people who are eager to take away rights. Somehow, the institution of government appeals to people who like to force their will on others. If you value liberty, you must resist these people.

<comment><USER64> I, as European, always find fascinating when US people says: "The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect rights"... I feel the purpose of government is to protect and nurture the community and give the citizen common services. Different personal opionions and exceptions apply of course, but I feel this is probably the biggest difference in culture between US and EU.

<comment><USER11> There is no reason why payment for community nurturing and common services needs to extracted by force and administered by a monopoly.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Netbot: An App.net Client from Tweetbot Creators - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/10/03/tweetbot-creator-launches-netbot-a-mature-and-polished-app-net-client-for-iphone-and-ipad/

<comment><USER2> This. I don't think App.net would have worked a year ago, maybe even not six months ago. But now, with Twitter actively attacking their developers, I imagine we'll be seeing a ton of ports from Twitter to App.net.

Twitter definitely considered the risk of cutting off their development community, but I don't think they intended to hand those developers off to a competing platform. Good timing from App.net.

<comment><USER3> App.net will get lots of hackers and people in our community, but in terms of reaching critical mass ... I don't think it will work.

People join twitter now out of societal pressure. "What is this thing? What is this ad on the subway that says I should follow them on twitter? Who's this athlete that is now Kobe Bryant with a strange @username at the end of his name?"

Developers, techy individuals, and people who consume twitter at a high level are more inclined to pay for it.

People who casually use it to help trend the latest hashtag about #whatmenreallywantfromawoman could care less. They're not going to pay a yearly fee for this, especially when the line between this and twitter is very blurry.

p.s. I am an app.net user and own a copy of netbot.

<comment><USER4> That's like saying that John Deere won't be a successful company because most people won't buy tractors.

<comment><USER5> Sort of. The perception is that app.net is going up against Twitter. In your comparison, that's like saying that John Deere can outsell Ford.

However, the more realistic view is that app.net will remain a niche service, but one that suits techies very well. So, yes, John Deere will corner the market in tractors, but never branch out to cars.

<comment><USER6> Your perception and inference are both wrong. App.net isn't just going up against twitter, but rather the entire social networking paradigm where I have multiple signups and not enough use. If we use app.net to login to most major services and post, like I have to do with twitter, facebook and linkedin right now, I get away with a single login.

What'll drive adoption? The developer incentive program. This also answers your John Deere example... There will be a lot of offsprings from App.net. In a rudimentary tone - a fb-clone, an instagram clone, comments systems (bit.ly/qbdebut)etc...

<comment><USER5> I talked about Twitter specifically because the OP talked about Twitter specifically.

I don't doubt that there will be lots of offsprings from app.net, I'm just dubious about whether they'll gain any traction. "You only have to use one username/password!" isn't enough to get people to spend $5 a month.

<comment><USER7> I don't think that app.net is selling an identity service that will take off or be worthwhile, but I strenuously disagree with the assertion that people won't pay for single sign in on the Internet.

It is, in my opinion, the number one pain point on the web today. It affects users of all technical levels and the more you have invested in the web the worse it gets.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like an opportunity to charge people to set up their OpenID and use your revenue to get more companies to implement it.

Disclaimer: I don't know much about building websites and I don't understand why OpenID hasn't got more traction.

<comment><USER9> If OpenID was a tractor, we would need to have a PHD in astrophysics to understand how to drive it successfully.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pay money to view a feed from people who paid money to view each others' feeds, with conversation about the feed? It all seems so meta.

<comment><USER4> Just because it's money? You're also spending your time, effort, attention, and opportunity cost.

Is college meta because you spend money to work for free with people who also spend money, while learning from people who get paid money to teach you?

You're probably more used to services that monetize with ads, and encourage quantity of accounts at the expense of quality because it's good for their numbers. Nothing meta about one or the other.

<comment><USER10> No, just because it's a recursive service. A feed where the feed is full of people talking about the feed. At least, last time I checked.

Edit: And, suspicions are confirmed: <http://adn.loqix.com/appwords.17:00-03.10.2012.png>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Netbot is causing quite a stir at app.net. Here's a word cloud of the past hour's global timeline:

<http://adn.loqix.com/appwords.17:00-03.10.2012.png>

<comment><USER11> Check out the client stats: <http://appnetizens.com/clientstats>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Tapbots link: <http://tapbots.com/software/netbot/>

App Store link: [http://itunes.apple.com/app/netbot-for-iphone- app.net/id5635...](http://itunes.apple.com/app/netbot-for-iphone- app.net/id563595132?mt=8)

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm curious as to why they created a completely separate app. Why not just integrate App.net functionality into Tweetbot? I'd certainly be much more likely to use it that way... and I even paid the $100 developer fee for app.net.

<comment><USER14> I'm pretty sure the newer TOS for Twitter precludes that.

<comment><USER15> The TOS just forbids mixing Twitter updates with updates from other social networks in the same stream, I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Still not sure why I'm supposed to care about app.net enough to pay $5/mo.

<comment><USER17> What about $3/mo? They just introduced a $36/year plan.

<comment><USER6> The best part of that is that if the cost decreases further, you don't lose your money, you get more membership time.

<comment><USER16> To _what_ , exactly?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This looks awesome! I was wondering how long it would take for companies with Twitter clients to port over to App.net. The App.net platform looks like it may give Twitter a run for its money.

</comment><comment><USER19> My favorite client in the new frame... I wonder how much time did take to port the network code to App.net? And if using a different key for crossposting.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm an AppNet user, but pretty limited in frequency. The primary reason is that I want proper posts to facebook and don't want to post in two places. I would like to see apps like this have the option to cross-post to facebook and twitter.

Ifttt fails because it does not allow proper link posts to facebook, and going through twitter to facebook results in truncated messages.

</comment><comment><USER21> Now they have my attention. It is an incredible client.

</comment><comment><USER22> I would sign up for app.net if they supported open standards such as OStatus.

<comment><USER23> They have committed to supporting open standards like Activity Streams, PubSubHubBub, and Webfinger. While not OStatus explicitly, it looks like the majority of OStatus will be supported.

<http://daltoncaldwell.com/a-response-to-brennan-novak>

<comment><USER24> It's important to note the careful hedging in that response. Specifically:

* Activity Streams will be read-only, except through their (non-ostatus) API.

* No subscribing through pubsubhubbub "initially." It implies but does not promise eventually subscribing.

* Similar to streams, webfinger will be published but not consumed.

* From context, the final clause about inbound and outbound syndication is through some non-ostatus mechanism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> How can something that just launched be labeled 'mature'?

<comment><USER26> The idea is that much of the code from Tapbot's mature Twitter client (Tweetbot) was reused.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Bought it, have it sitting right above my Tweetbot app.

That said, it really hides the Global stream, and I'm not really cool with that. There's all kinds of good stuff in there.

</comment><comment><USER28> I find my HackerNode app is a much more fulfilling experience.

</comment><comment><USER29> serious yet seemingly silly question: What do i call tweeting in app.net? apping?

<comment><USER30> posting? Like every other website out there except twitter. I posted on HN, I redditted this cat picture?

<comment><USER29> My point was probably more around branding. Posting is generic; you mean a blog post? Status Update? Tweets are known to be just 140 chars.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Review my idea: "Organize the world's queues" - <AUTHOR> http://hackernewsexperiment.blogspot.com/2010/06/i-have-idea-organize-worlds-queues.html

<comment><USER2> A restaurant I frequent has a nice system where they add you to a list and then text you when a table is available. In the meantime you can wander around the nearby beach.

Is this the sort of thing you are thinking of?

(When I say system, I mean pen and paper...)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, that's correct. Any any other situation is the world which needs a virtual queue.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a status update from my Hacker News Experiment. I have chosen an idea to work on, and would really like some feedback!

</comment><comment><USER3> How do you plan to make money from this? _Do_ you plan to make money from this?

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you suggest? Advertising. That should make the project break even or perhaps better, I would think.

<comment><USER3> I don't have a suggestion. It's not obvious how you would make money at it, so I asked.</comment></comment></comment>


Victorians were obsessed with the moon - <AUTHOR> https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/04/why-were-the-victorians-so-obsessed-with-the-moon/ <comment><USER2> One of the biggest reasons for the interest is that the first telescope was developed that could see birds and people on the moon. That would be like television shows every night. [http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_great_moon_hoax](http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_great_moon_hoax)

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting article but doesn't really support the headline. You could probably collect a bunch of still lifes and ask why Victorians were obsessed with bowls of fruit.

<comment><USER4> Indeed, why were they obsessed with bowls of fruit?

<comment><USER5> I can't easily find any sources to support this, but AFAIK the reason so many old photos/paintings have fruit bowls in the background is a display of wealth. Because fruit was harder to come by, having them showed you were doing well. People would even rent fruit bowls for portraits. The practice is kind of similar to renting expensive cars for music videos nowadays I guess.

<comment><USER6> > People would even rent fruit bowls for portraits.

I find it kind of refreshing to know that this kind of behavior did not start with Instagram influencers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Light pollution in modern cities is truly a shame, and I wonder if we can even do anything about it.

If self-driving cars become universal, will this mean we can do away with headlights and most streetlights? We'd need to actually ban human drivers before that point. Seems quite far fetched.</comment>


Ask HN: What online payment platform do you use in Europe? - <AUTHOR>

With the high concentration of countries in Europe, the mix of online payment laws between the countries make it difficult for one system for satisfy all of them.
In a US where a large population is covered under the one umbrella, it is much simpler to go with somebody like Stripe.
So the question, what solutions are available for a Startup to consider when setting up in Europe? <comment><USER2> Ogone is reliable and non puritan, they operate from Belgium. Buckaroo is a dutch online payment system.

Further, the rules in Europe for selling stuff is not that diverse, for instance you need to collect VAT and pay that to your countries' tax department because all the countries have a treaty for that.

Stay away from PalPal, they are a US company that plays political games, freeze your account if they can find anything on you that they don't like. They also have corrupt, arrogant and hypocitical puritan issues.

</comment><comment><USER3> I work at a popular niche retailer in Europe. We use saferpay.com for all our credit card needs around the globe.

Keep in mind that people from certain countries prefer additional solutions. Talk to your customers and they will tell you which payment options besides credit cards they wish to use.

In contrast to others, we've got a good relationship with Paypal as well, but we don't use them for normal credit cards because they ask too much.

Expect to interface with more than one payment platform down the road, because there is not one platform that does everything.

But starting with credit cards only and Saferpay is a good first choice.

</comment><comment> adam-_- <https://gocardless.com> looks quite nice but unfortunately it's UK only at the moment.

<comment><AUTHOR> This looks good, but, as you said, on UK.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Each country in Europe has their own systems, which are provided by the local banks. Pretty much every bank has their own solution and you have to integrate with that. If that sounds crazy, you'd better go with PayPal as long as Stripe is US only. However, payments through the bank systems are usually preferred over card payments.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've recently switched BugMuncher from PayPal to Saasy (<http://saasy.com/>) so far it's been awesome. You don't need a merchant account, integration was far easier than PayPal, good tech support, and a bit cheaper on fees. Highly recommend them.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you're planning to get big in the Netherlands, don't forget iDeal ( [http://www.ideal.nl/?s=&lang=eng-GB](http://www.ideal.nl/?s=&lang=eng-GB) ).

<comment><USER2> Ideal is a debit payment system brought by the dutch banks, most online payment handlers the service dutch clients offer to handle that system too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> PayPal seems to handle European customers very well, and happens to be cheaper than Stripe.

</comment><comment><USER8> I use PayPal for invoicing clients.</comment>


Anonymous Activist Gets Potholes Fixed by Drawing Giant Phalluses Around Them - <AUTHOR> http://m.fastcompany.com/3045488/slicker-city/anonymous-activist-gets-potholes-fixed-by-drawing-giant-penises-around-them

<comment><AUTHOR> I probably should have submitted the BBC article:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32448103/mystery- artis...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/32448103/mystery-artist- highlights-bury-potholes-with-penis-drawings)</comment>


Ask HN: How often are you frustrated with flaky tests? - <AUTHOR> Are you looking for better tooling to debug/catch/auto retry flaky tests? What kind of tooling do you already have, and what alternatives have you looked for?<p>Is there some tool/service you wish existed? <comment><USER2> I've worked somewhere before where there have been flakey tests and they had a system to detect them and list them, and they could be assigned to people. Pretty nice.

I'd like it to exist as a service yes, if it can plug into any testing output, and accurately know that yes something is a flakey test. The telltale sign is a retry on the same branch fails then passes with no source code changes.

I am not sure however if any company I worked for would PAY for such a system. That's a different question. But as a developer I'd like to use one if it is well honed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just fix them? Where I work we explicitly do not automatically retry failing tests. Otherwise the incentive goes away to fix them. At some point somebody will be frustrated enough to fix the issue.

Note: we have run hundreds of little browser-based tests, visual snapshots and thousands of unit and integration tests on each PR. Flaky tests get annoying real quick and get fixed quickly as a result.

</comment><comment><USER4> Write tests to be deterministic from the very start (mainly: learn to use synchronization primitives to synchronize events rather than trying on timing coincidences) and then you'll realize there's no such thing as a flaky test.

<comment><USER2> Have you written Selenium tests before, pointing to a staging or production build?

<comment><USER4> Yes, I have and it's IMHO a very poorly designed API (or rather, abstraction) for reproducible tests, but yes, the premise still stands. Instead of crossing your fingers and hoping a navigation has occurred/completed, test deterministically for the current state (inspecting browser navigation state, page url, and window events) to decide whether a certain action can be taken or is valid at the time. Basically, you should build your own framework upon which real tests can be run.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> not to be too dramatic, but they are bane of my existence</comment>


Ask YC: How did you come up with your startup idea? - <AUTHOR>

What is the process by which you came up with your startup idea?
Did you
(a) build something you wanted and the realize you had a potential startup idea?
(b) do a careful market analysis and find a "hole"?
(c) suddenly get an idea in the shower/while mowing the lawn ?
(d) anything else?
Did you have the idea first and then look around for cofounders or did you first assemble a team you liked and then brainstorm?

 Thanks in advance

<comment><USER2> A (more or less): I wanted something (encrypted snapshotted online backups); spent a while thinking about how to do it and convinced myself that I could do it; posted to my blog asking if anyone else wanted and would pay for it (about 10% of the people who read that blog entry wrote to say that they would); and then got started writing code.

As for cofounders, I don't have any -- having decided that I knew how to do this, I didn't want to waste time explaining to anyone else how to do this.

<comment><USER3> I've been thinking about writing an app to provide services that would go great with online backups.

Hit me up if you're interested in discussing more: mrevelle (at) gmail

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's still early enough that the "plus internet" strategy gets you pretty far when you're trying to come up with ideas.

By "plus internet," I mean, hang out with people who _don't_ have an unhealthy obsession with the internet. Lend them an empathic ear, then take their pain/talent/idea and add the internet.

Let me give you an example. I met a musician the other day. He's got a kid now, and he said that most of the energy he formerly put into improvisational music now goes into improvisational storytelling; every night, he makes up a bedtime story with his kid. He said he was thinking about recording these stories for sentimental reasons.

Since I DO have an unhealthy obsession with the internet, my first thought was, "hm, ok, recorded stories _plus internet_ equals ...?" That is, what if you had LOTS of families recording these stories and you managed to get all that data into one system. It doesn't _quite_ work with bedtime stories -- I think those tend to be a little too personal to be of general appeal -- but there are plenty of very talented storytellers out there... there are local societies and whatnot. It's a tradition that dates back to the beginning of language. Why not create a Youtube-like environment where people with a passion for storytelling can share their stories with each other and the world? This guy I was chatting with said he'd never have thought of that, but you could see the wheels turning in his head as soon as I mentioned it.

So let's say you've gotten this far. At this point, if your goal is to create something cool that could change the lives of a group of people, you're all set. (I bet this story idea could turn into a cool folk-art community.) But if your goal is to turn it into a startup, there's one more step... you need to apply this filter: "ok, interesting idea, but is this a _business_?"

Point is, a good place to start is to get outside the YC/TechCrunch echo chamber and talk to people who have good ideas and painful frustrations but _don't_ automatically think "ok... plus internet?"

<comment><AUTHOR> I think I should have made the original question clearer.

I was not trying to say "I need a startup idea. Please tell me how to get one" , though I don't mind if you answer it that way - "plus internet" is a very interesting direction. Thank you.

I was asking "How did _you_ get _your_ startup ideas?" which is a little different.

Some context. I was reading some books (Christiansen's "Innovator's Solution" and de Bono's "Serious Creativity" - I am a developer but I do read a business book once in a while! :-) ) which seem to advocate a deliberate, methodical approach to idea generation.

     I wondered how startup  founders (especially the YC folks) generate their ideas.

Hence the (original) question , trying to tap the experience of people reading this. Over the last couple of days I heard some debate on on whether creating an idea first and then gathering co founders is better than the other way round so I added that.

Apologies for any errors in phrasing. English is not my first language.

<comment><USER5> The approach suggested here isn't bad in terms of a more methodical approach to creativity:

[http://www.squeezedbooks.com/book/show/5/lateral- marketing-n...](http://www.squeezedbooks.com/book/show/5/lateral-marketing- new-techniques-for-finding-breakthrough-ideas)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> More difficult for me was finding an idea I loved enough to settle on. I probably have an idea for a startup around 1-2 times a day. Probably 25% of them could be hugely successful for someone interested enough. I bounced around a bit before settling on one that has stayed interesting to me (and my cofounder) everyday as we've worked on it. It's actually increased the amount of ideas I have though, since I have to create things that I wish someone had already created.

The idea we're working on now is a very focused version of a grander idea we have. It's super small and users love it already, so we're just working on growing it.

</comment><comment><USER7> For me it was totally (a).

My idea came after our second child. I made a New Year's resolution to send an email a week to update my extended family on what we were up to. I totally failed. The failure dogged me often. The problem was that when a lot was going on it was hard to find time to talk about it. When less was going on it was hard to remember all the interesting things we had done.

Then I thought about digital photos with timestamps. If I just took pictures when we did something interesting, later I could have the computer sort them out by date, and I could type in what we did each day that had photos.

I figured this would be useful for other busy parents, or for people who travel, or anybody else whose photos tell a story.

<comment><USER8> Is this publicly available? I've been working on a (very) side project that's somewhat similar and for the same reasons.

<comment><USER7> <http://ourdoings.com/>

<comment><USER8> what email can I reach you at? I had a feature idea that I may never get around to implementing but would still love to see done and done well even if it's by someone else.

<comment><USER7> brlewis at the aforementioned domain

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been working on various startup ideas for the past several years, trying to find something that really grabbed and inspired me to work on it full time. Nothing was doing that, even though I had worked on several different things.

So, I took a step back and looked at my life and the ideas I was working with to try to find out why I kept getting bored with them. Finally, I realized it was because I didn't personally care about what I was doing. Many of them were great ideas that had a real market willing to pay for the software, but I kept fizzling out because I didn't care one way or another if the product ever made it to market. Sure, the potential money provided some motivation, but not enough on its own. I needed the end product to have an influence on my life.

Lately, I've been looking at problems that affect me personally, and I'm much more inspired to follow through with them. Granted, I still have several things on my burner at once, so I need to narrow down to a single one and just get it done, but so far, working on something I care about is much more productive and inspiring for me.

</comment><comment><USER10> My friend learned how to do genetic testing and we both realized that it was a great market to be getting into right now.

</comment><comment><USER11> I built something I wanted and thought about shelving it until I realized people still encounter the same problems, so I am still working on it.

I never looked for co-founder, I just started building and gathering feedback.

Just build it and see if people you know like it or would use it.

</comment><comment><USER12> One company that I did was basically a hobby gone way overboard. I was interested in a particular type of technology, and ended up with company to sell/train/install/etc in that industry.

Another time, a friend asked me to build them a POS system. Then they recommended me to another friend, and then again. Soon I realized that most affordable POS software for small businesses sucked, so I put several elements together into an affordable networked POS package of my own.

One of the things I'm developing now is along the lines of an XaaS (X as a Service) play to an industry that is another hobby of mine.

<comment><USER13> Do have a link to / are you still involved with your POS system?

(A friend wants me to build them a POS system and I know there has to be a decent working solution out there.)

<comment><USER14> Try Turbocash (www.turbocash.net). It is open source and done in Delphi 7 but quite stable. I am doing one in python and wxpython but I am not done yet.

<comment><USER13> Hmm, looks interesting but it fails the windows test.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> A good place to start:

1) Find the most active product forums on Amazon.com 2) Figure out what customers are complaining about 3) Solve their problems / make their lives easier 4) Profit

</comment><comment><USER16> A. I really wanted something and built it. I found out other people liked it and wanted it. I've been developing based on feedback and my larger plan.

</comment><comment><USER17> (a) Was my road. I needed an intelligent way to deal with all my work flows for my architecture firm and found nothing available, so I teamed with a SW architect partner and we're finishing it up now.

</comment><comment><USER18> (d) smoked some good weed

</comment><comment><USER19> As web services become easier to build (e.g., as Facebook apps), one would expect a more systematic and scientific approach to emerge for exploring web service ideas.

</comment><comment><USER20> a burning bush told me

<comment><USER21> The secret agents firing at you didn't make it uncomfortable?

<comment><USER20> The other burning bush.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> pretty much all of the above.

This is how I deal with ideas.

Get one, think about it, do a little research, build a tech demo, think about it some more and then move on to the next idea :P

</comment><comment><USER23> 8 ball</comment>


Firebreath - Cross-platform browser plugin framework - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/p/firebreath/

<comment><USER2> I'm probably being dense, but what does this actually do? I get that it's cross-platform and that it's a plugin architecture, but what does the plugin architecture actually enable?

As far as I can tell, it lets you create new browser functionality in C++ and expose it (to arbitrary websites?) via Javascript APIs - am I close?

<comment><USER3> Yep, pretty much.

Plugins allow you to run custom client-side code (that has access to the OS and its services) inside the browser. The most popular browser plugin is Flash. It is implemented both as an NPAPI plugin (which is supported by Firefox/Chrome/Safari) and an ActiveX component which is supported on IE.

Other plugins include the QuickTime viewer for watching quicktime video.

The cross-platform framework allows you to keep one codebase for both types of plugins, which, I presume would encourage developers to write plugins since it's now easier to make it work on all major browsers without having to learn two sets of APIs.

You can normally see plugins that are installed in your browser by visiting about:plugins

<comment><USER2> Great, thanks for the explanation. (I was indeed being dense - should have remembered the distinction between plugin and extension!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd love to see more samples here. This would be great if it took off (I'm especially interested to see it hit both Webkit + IE).

<http://code.google.com/p/firebreath/wiki/FireBreathUsers> seems empty still.

<comment><USER5> <http://groups.google.com/group/firebreath-dev/topics?gvc=2> has a fair amount of activity, which is a good sign.

But yes, I'd love to see more samples, especially not just cross-browser, but cross-platform. Can anybody tell - would a FF plugin made with this work on both OSX & Windows? I can't imagine it would... So this project would let you keep a single codebase for each of win/linux/osx, which is better than having separate codebases for each browser on each platform. Maybe?

<comment><USER6> I'd say about 90% of the code can be cross platform; some things you'll have to implement seperately, such as the drawing library, since that doesn't work the same on each platform. FireBreath abstracts most of the differences, though. For example, it isn't a shim to let npapi plugins work on activex; it's a shim for both npapi and activex plugins, which means it's easier to write something in firebreath than it is to write it using npapi as well.

If you aren't doing any drawing, just network stuff and calculations, you can probably get by without writing any platform specific code.

\- Taxilian (original author of FireBreath)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Also see: <http://browserplus.yahoo.com/>

</comment><comment><USER8> So this is different from the recent Google, Mozilla, Adobe announcement that they were going to introduce a new, faster, safer browser plugin standard?

It's just a compatability shim so your code will work in IE as well as the NPAPI-supporting browsers?

<comment><USER6> When that comes out and works, it will be sweet... and FireBreath will support it.

\- Taxilian (original author of FireBreath)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Google has a related project on NPAPI

<http://code.google.com/p/nixysa/>

<comment><USER6> Also a great project; nixysa and FireBreath have a core difference in approach, though; nixysa is basically a code generation tool to simplify creating npapi plugins.

FireBreath is a framework that abstracts npapi and activex (but could be extended to abstract other types of browsers as well, if there were reason and someone wanted to) to make it easy to write your own code that works in both places.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why would I use this instead of Native Client? edit: I really don't understand this either. How does this fit in with the Chrome style of extension? What is NPAPI? How does it relate to Native Client? ActiveX? Firefox Extensions?

Clearly I know very little about the current browser plugin ecosystem. Anyone care to enlighten me?

<comment><USER9> you need wikipedia

<comment><USER6> Worth reading up on: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPAPI>

actual plugins aren't useful for all situations; in fact, I'd say that it's relatively uncommon to need to write a plugin.

That is one of the main reasons I started FireBreath; relatively few people in the world know how to write a browser plugin for any platform, much less make one work on all major browsers. FireBreath aims to make that easier. That shouldn't preclude the fact that plugins simply aren't suited to many tasks; the need to install it is a big factor in that, particularly since most common install methods only work on one browser. Also, there are existing plugins such as flash and silverlight that already have a large install base and can often be used to solve many of the problems that people use plugins to solve; worth considering.</comment></comment></comment>


I quit my Software job to drive the world. Kickstarting my Africa book - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dangrec/the-road-chose-me-vol-2-three-years-and-54k-miles-in-africa <comment><AUTHOR> I comment here quite often, and people have been genuinely interested in my travels and experiences.

I'm just about finished writing a ~400 page book about my experiences in Africa. The good times, the bad times, the things that went wrong, and more importantly what I learned from Africa and the wonderful people there.

Even though they have so little money they are much happier than many people I know in Australia/Canada, and the reality on the ground was much, much different than the perspective the media had given me before I went.</comment>


Knowledge as a Financial Asset - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/120441834951/knowledge-as-a-financial-asset

<comment><USER2> I often wonder how anyone can ever make it through their day, if they don't have a physics degree.

My friend Rod Schmidt once pointed out to me that it is impossible to beat the stock market "because everyone has complete information".

I replied that while strictly speaking it's true that everyone has access to complete information, they don't actually avail themselves of it. For example, just after Red Hat went public, another company with the word "Red" in its name enjoyed a significant uptick in stock price.

"The investors think Red Hat is the only place to get Linux," said my friend Dave Johnson, an experienced investor, "But they're too dumb to know which 'Red' company actually sells it."

I am completely convinced that I know how to beat the market. I haven't invested yet as I don't have the cash to get started, but I will eventually.

The method I've developed is based on completely public information - that is, what you would need to beat the market is readily available, in the plain sight of everyone.

What I have done is correllated a number of factors that are not commonly considered by stock traders. It's not that they couldn't use these factors, it's that they don't.</comment>


What if Visual Studio had Achievements? - <AUTHOR> http://www.blog.whiletrue.com/vs-achieve.html <comment><USER2> A lot of these are bad Valve-style achievements.

When achievements were first released for the Medic in Team Fortress 2, players who weren't Medics suffered. Some of the achievements require the Medic to either become an offensive player, or intentionally make bad choices. The more players tried for achievements, the worse your team did. For future achievements releases, Valve changed the focus of achievements to reward class strengths, showcase new features, reward good behavior, or highlight awesome events.

A Visual Studio achievement like "Job Security" would be terrible. It just encourages bad practices. I don't want to fix a bug in a 30-line Linq query, or understand if it does exactly what you say it does. In fact, its opposite is a better achievement: "If You Linq, You Will Miss It: Write 100 Linq queries with 3 lines or fewer." It encourages users to use a great feature, doesn't punish them if they find a case where they absolutely need to write something longer, and encourages a good habit.

That being said, some of them were also good. I could see Visual Studio using "Gimme back my ASM" or "The Academic". Some also had a Valve-style personality, like "Shotgun Debugging" or "Rage Quit."

<comment><USER3> Whoooooosh

<comment><USER4> The article was not as good as I expected. There are arguments for achievement-like things in VS, for example unit test coverage. This article was aimless and negative.

<comment><USER5> Actually, the achievements mimicked gaming achievements fairly well. A mix of goofy, funny, ridiculous, and painful. I don't see a problem with that at all. As a humor piece, which is what it is supposed to be, it succeeds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It already does. I use it every day. Twice a month my bank account levels up.

<comment><USER7> By... uhh... how many Experience Points?

<comment><USER8> It's not experience points, but Gold, and you can buy anything with it.

<comment><USER9> Anything, except love.

<comment><USER10> Me love you long time!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Humorous, yes. But it might actually be good as a learning tool, especially for beginners. Having a popup that says you earned the achievement of "Spaghetti code" might make the user delve into why that might be a bad thing. Could be useful.

<comment><USER12> I agree with this - it could also help in driving the adoption of new language features, like the async keyword coming out in C# 5

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Missing:

"The MS Employee" - Seal 50% or more of the classes in your project.

<comment><USER14> In .NET, you want to seal as many of your classes as possible, because it reduces memory usage and allows to CLR to perform some minor optimizations when using virtual dispatch, IIRC. I think in most cases, you're better off using interfaces and (sealed) classes or structs implementing them, if only to make your code easier to break up into manageable chunks.

<comment><USER15> The bigger reason to seal classes is to limit API surface area that needs to be tested for and preserved from one version to the next. The reasoning is closely related to why virtual methods should almost always be avoided.

Inheritance is one of the closest couplings you can have between two pieces of code in an OO language. When you inherit, you're depending very deeply on the behaviour of the base class. If you're a platform vendor, having third parties deeply reliant on very specific behaviour is a nightmare. It greatly increases your testing burden and limits future flexibility, as you'll likely have to maintain buggy invariants into the future, possibly to the point of having to introduce redundant parallel functionality merely to avoid third-party breakage when trying to expand the feature set.

If any source code outside your control is going to be using your code, and you have some kind of obligation or incentive not to break their code, then I strongly recommend that you seal your classes (final in Java, etc.), or saving that, make very few methods virtual, and ensure that they have been tested and documented appropriately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Office group at Microsoft actually did something like this. <http://www.writersua.com/articles/ribbon_hero/index.html>

But, in answer to the question, I would probably jeer at my old friends on the VS IDE team ;)

</comment><comment><USER17> "Well Mr. Anderson, I see you only earned one achievement this year. Achievements don't lie Mr. Anderson. Visual Studio has decided you are a U/10 Mr. Anderson. Your lack of effort should be corrected, shouldn't it Mr. Anderson?"

</comment><comment><USER18> For anyone curious about the Paula achievement: <http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_Brillant_Paula_Bean.aspx>

</comment><comment><USER19> I could never relate to the Achievements craze, but it has a real grip on some people. I PM'd someone on my Friends list to ask if the game they were playing was any good, they replied 'nah, rubbish, just playing it for the Achievement points then taking it back to the shop.' I don't know what it is about them... I never cared personally.

<comment><USER20> Although I've never played a game simply for the achievements, I do understand the appeal. My game of choice is Left4Dead 2. I've earned just about every achievement that you don't have to consciously work towards and it is cool to see that you've done something the developers deem an accomplishment in your gameplay. It shows improvement and allows you the opportunity to see how you stack up against other players. In the end it's a little about status and a little about a feeling of personal growth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Of course, if there were IDE achievements, some derp on your team would waste time racking up achievements with work that doesn't advance the project at all.

</comment><comment><USER22> I didn't get this one:

The Engineer - Killed a zombie with The Wrench

If this is a joke about Visual Studio, I must not be using it enough because I don't get it at all.

</comment><comment><USER23> There was an old image editing program that gave points for using new features and unlocked additional features at certain point levels. I want to say it was Kai's Power Goo (which ran incredibly well on a 233MHz Pentium MMX), but that doesn't seem quite right.

<comment><USER21> I think I'd prefer to have all the features I paid for from day one, and not have to jump through arbitrary hoops to get access to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is amazing. I'm going to write a Jira plugin for achievements in bug tracking.

<comment><USER25> Check out playnice.ly, they're planning on achievements in bug tracking too.

[http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/11/17/playnice-ly-exits- beta-w...](http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/11/17/playnice-ly-exits-beta-wants- to-make-bug-tracking-fun/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> If Visual Studio notices that you're greenspunning a project, it'd tell "you're too smart for us; go switch over to Emacs"?

</comment><comment><USER27> Missing :

Controversial - used a goto statement

Ultimate question - nested 10 if statements

<comment><USER28> Ahh, the people who wrote this code weren't morons, just "edgy" non- conformists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Forget VS, someone should make an emacs extension that does this.

</comment><comment><USER30> _# The Multitasker – Have more than 50 source files open at the same time_

Why should the user distinguish between "in memory" and "on disk". That's a performance optimization for the program to decide on.

(Incidentally, I would really enjoy a "national force-ide-programmers-to-use- vim day". "Wow, you can switch between files without your whole system crashing!?")

<comment><USER31> I think it was more about how many tabs are open at once, which I would suppose means in memory since they're all going to be editable.

<comment><USER32> In Eclipse, the contents of a tab are represented by an IEditorInput instance which only loads the file (or whatever the editor edits) on demand; if your Eclipse starts with a stored session of 50 tabs, it doesn't need to open 50 files.

<comment><USER28> The Mozilla team could learn from this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> That should be a independent service with plugins for all Major IDEs (VS, XCode, Eclipse, Emacs, VIM, maybe even TextMate) and a healthy online- community where people can brag with their achievements (the positive ones, that is). I suppose nowadays Facebook-Integration would be useful too.

That'd probably gain lots of traction.

</comment><comment><USER34> 100 points for grasping how Visual Studio's Configuration Manager works, or more likely... it does not.

</comment><comment><USER35> A fair number of those could pretty easily be managed by an extension. Others... that'd have to be one heck of an extension.

Could be a fun project to understand creating extensions better. Though I don't have 2010, and I gather that's a heck of a lot easier to make extensions for.

</comment><comment><USER36> half of those are for realz in the project I just joined AND we have a home- grown achievement system for stuff like successful builds, broken builds, leaving the office after committing without verifying that the build was good, cursing too much, etc.

</comment><comment><USER37> Maybe it just needs a high score table for functions based upon their cyclomatic complexity.

</comment><comment><USER38> Fun perhaps, but any reward system for programmers not based on shipping will fail.

</comment><comment><USER39> Successfully consuming a non .net webservice is definitely an achievement.

<comment><USER40> using newtonsoft's json.NET would count?

edit: <http://james.newtonking.com/pages/json-net.aspx>

<comment><USER41> I suspect Devilboy meant SOAP web services.

However, json.net is awesome - I'm using it to get my latest personal project to talk to CouchDB - so its json all the way from the client, through the server through to the database.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> While they're at it why dont they use a less bloated IDE.

I suppose I'm just jaded, but doing anything in Visual Studio feels horrible. I guess I'm a *nix+vim fan boy through and through.

<comment><USER43> Learn the shortcuts and remove the toolbars.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> We might as well extend this to hospitals too! Achievments like "metal detector" for leaving tools inside bodies, or "No your other left" for operating on the wrong leg.

Seriously, this is beyond a dumb idea. Programming is a profession, not a game, and you do not reward malpractice (more than 10 parameters? 30 line Linq statements?) We already have achievements in our industry and it's called a C.V.

<comment><USER25> Ray tracer written in more than 30 lines of Linq (using a y combinator), malpractice perhaps but I learned from it.

[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/lukeh/archive/2007/10/01/taking- linq...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/lukeh/archive/2007/10/01/taking-linq-to- objects-to-extremes-a-fully-linqified-raytracer.aspx)</comment></comment>


He Was a Science Star. Then He Promoted a Questionable Cure for Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html <comment><USER2> Why questionable? The only way to put a stop on the HCQ debate is doing proper clinical trials (not retrospective, not observational, proper double-blind randomized drug vs placebo trials). All the preprints I've come across are wasted opportunities because they lack in one or more areas (too late during treatment course; insufficient number of patients; no proper controls...).

The one by U of Minnesota[1], which at least from the sources I read is getting very little publicity, is struggling to get the remaining 150 patients to get enough power to give an answer. This is where we should bet our "money" (figuratively speaking) on.

[1] [https://covidpep.umn.edu/](https://covidpep.umn.edu/)

</comment><comment><USER3> The MSM is (succesfully) trying to make HCQ look "questionable" because it is cheap to acquire and can be freely produced (i.e. without patent licenses). Big Pharma doesn't like this because it can't be patented and sold for ridiculous amounts of money (something they are currently trying to do with the experimental vaccin pushed by the Gates Foundation and Trust.)

In fact, a few doctors have succesfully treated COVID patients in my country using a Vitamin C/D and Zinc regimen (to naturally enhance the (broken) immune system of infected patients) combined with HCQ before being threatened by the government to stand down. The same government which employs a Secretary of Health who studied to be a primary school teacher, and a CDC director who is part of a medical black list due to severe professional negligence (but nobody seems to care so he can keep doing what he is doing).

<comment><USER4> What is your country?</comment></comment>


Rails or Laravel? - <AUTHOR>

Hello hackers!
I am currently a front-end dev with a good background in html5, css3, and of course js/jQuery. I have had previous experience with PHP a in the past making my own login systems for clients and doing simple DB requests, API requests, etc.
I am wanting to expand my programming knowledge-base and have started some of the basic intros into Ruby, and learning Ruby on Rails. Then I came across Laravel. I am wanting to brush up on these for some upcoming startup opportunities I will be having and have about six months of preparation time to learn.
From someone that has some prior experience in PHP already, what would be more beneficial (long term and short) to learn? Please respond with what choice and why you would make that choice.
Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> Ruby on Rails. It's a little bit harder to learn that PHP, but if you question is "more beneficial"....totally Ruby on Rails.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am biased, I will admit, but neither of the choices you presented is optimal. If I were you I would opt for Python/Django. Let me explain why.

PHP is in a terrible state, they are working on cleaning it up but it will take some time. You should not abandon PHP yet, but neither should you rely on it. Also PHP's scope of use is extremely limited. Laravel is quite good, but having worked with it for a while I feel it gets very messy.

RoR is good if you want to puzzle together CRUD applications. But if you want to make something other than CRUD it gets in the way far too often. I am sure more experienced RoR users will jump in and holler "you just haven't gotten used to it yet!" like they usually do. Might sound like I am bashing their community, but truth be told, they are very supportive if you choose to join their club.

Django is in my experience the best documented framework for web development. There are so many batteries included that you will be hard pressed to find something you need to do that it won't do out of the box. Being a Python framework it will run on most operating systems out of the box for development purposes as they come with Python built in. You can use Python for any type of development you want (Ruby can be used for any type as well, but have a lot more gotchas across environments)

</comment><comment><USER4> Hi.

I'm developer who works with PHP for more than 12 years so far, and with Ruby/RoR for more than 2 years.

I would suggest you to stick to PHP to gain some experience, because Ruby/RoR programming requires some experience in order to not screw things up.

But Ruby gives you much more possibilities, however if you don't have experience and don't know what is best practice you can create a lot of junk code and chaos leading to serious problems (like your apps performance).

Cheers, Grzegorz

</comment><comment><USER5> Hello,

I am web dev, and I work with PHP and RoR (for 2 months). My first impression is that Ruby allows better productivity and fun than PHP. In my case, PHP seemed easier to learn.</comment>