Merkel Grants Turkish Request to Prosecute German Satirist - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-15/merkel-allows-probe-of-german-comedian-over-erdogan-satire <comment><USER4> Nobody seems to see how Merkel got this thing very right. 1.) Law says: you may prosecute it. So she "allows prosecution", as she also can't ignore diplomatic implication of doing otherwise. 2.) She also declares that the government will get rid of this law. 3.) She will surely not pressure the justice system in this case... 4.) The case will get dismissed as there is no basis for punishment any more (in Germany, you are entitled to be punished under the lesser harsh law when the law changes, and when the law disappears, there will be no punishment).

I think this was an intelligent move. She complied with Erdogans request and in return says a big "F __* Y __" by eliminating the law and saving the comedian.

<comment><USER5> _So she "allows prosecution", as she also can't ignore diplomatic implication of doing otherwise._

Sure she can. People snub each other in politics all the time (even when they're joined at the hip). It's called "setting boundaries", and letting people know they can only count on so many indulgences from you. In fact, it is precisely through their willingness to take a stand (even at the cost of temporarily upsetting their allies or coalition partners) that stronger politicians distinguish themselves.

But even if she didn't want to offend his sensibilities -- there are bigger issues at play, such as the fact that Erdoğan is not only acting like a bully in this case (as he normally does at home), but is expecting the German government to do his dirty work for him. And hence, tacitly, to take "his" side in the Great War of Values on openness, and freedom of expression.

That's why Merkel got it wrong. What she needs to do is both act to abolish the law _and_ exercise her discretion in declining to prosecute this case.

<comment><USER6> Regarding the decision she had to make, Merkel had two choices. If she declined to prosecute then she would be making a quasi-judicial decision in a county where judicial decisions are rightly made by the courts, not politicians. In passing the decision to the courts she is, in my opinion, making a clear statement of German values: _this is how we do things - <USER2> the rule of law_.

Which starkly contrasts with Erdoğan's contempt for the rule of law and anything that gets in his way.

The German constitution guarantees freedom of expression and the case will undoubtedly be dismissed when it reaches the courts.

(And I agree that laws such as this should be abolished.)

<comment><USER7> The law[0] in question specifically says that the federal government has to authorize the prosecution.

[0] [http://www.gesetze-im- internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...](http://www.gesetze-im- internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1031)

<comment><USER8> Just because the law allows to interfere with the prosecution does not make it morally right to interfere with the prosecution.

(By the way, prosecutors are anyway bound to instruction in Germany (usually by the state governments). That doesn't mean the governments should actually use that power.)

<comment><USER9> The law does not "allow interference", the law requires someone initiating the prosecution. Just because the law allows this does not make it morally right to initiate it.

<comment><USER8> An authorization to prosecute is not the same as an initiation. The law requires an initiation by the foreign head of state and an authorization of the German federal government. But that's semantics anyway. You should rather ask yourself, why should this law be treated any differently than all the others? It's written into it but that's the best reason one could find.

<comment><USER9> Because it allows for personal judgment by the german federal government WITHOUT sidestepping the law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Turkey makes the claim that insulting the head of state is a 'crime against humanity'. Turkey is a corrupt country and is committing 'crimes against humanity' on a daily basis. My username is real name, I live in the US, please come sue me. If you need to be insulted vs just stating facts, the party leadership are doo-doo heads. For anyone not aware, here is LY HRW report on Turkey. [https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country- chapters/turke...](https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country- chapters/turkey)

<comment><USER11> > Turkey makes the claim that insulting the head of state is a 'crime against > humanity'. Turkey is a corrupt country and is committing 'crimes against > humanity' on a daily basis. [...]

All true. But it doesn't stop the oligarchy [1][2] in your country to still keep it in the NATO, have (at least one) military base there (Incirlik Air Base), not say/do anything about the way it treats minorities, journalists ...its own citizens.

(remember the US slogan: "We bring freedom, democracy and human rights to the world")

[1] [http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter- u-s...](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/videos/jimmy-carter-u-s-is-an- oligarchy-with-unlimited-political-bribery-20150731)

[2] [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs- echochambers-27074746](http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746)

<comment><USER12> Don't forget turkey had the cojones to provoke the Russians by shooting their plane and then commit a war crime by shooting sry the pilots.

They'be become a rogue nation more than any other.

<comment><USER11> Yeah... Cojones :-) Or coincidence:

2015-11-23: US air force general and the second-highest ranking military officer visits Turkey "to discuss the Russian airstrikes on Turkmen-populated areas in Syria.

[http://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2015/11/23/us-air- force-...](http://www.dailysabah.com/diplomacy/2015/11/23/us-air-force-gen- selva-visits-ankara-to-discuss-terror-syria)

2015-11-24: Two turkish jets shoot down one russian over the Turkmen region in Syria and Turkmen kill the pilot. Putin said that the russian military has communicated flying routes to the US military.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_sh...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _" In a country under the rule of law, it is not up to the government to decide," Merkel said._

"Mutti" is trying to deflect the blame again: In this very special case (§103 StGB), the law mandates that the government authorize the prosecution. Otherwise there is no case.

<comment><USER14> Here's the relevant law about deliberate defamation of foreign heads of state. (Up to five years in jail OR a fine.)

[https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/103.html](https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/103.html)

Anyone know where the section is on the government required authorization of prosecution?

<comment><USER15> How can Germany, an ostensibly free nation, have such a law?

If you can't insult political leaders, you don't have free speech. End of story. Political speech is the _most_ important form of speech to protect.

<comment><USER16> You can actually insult political leaders all day long. Unlike less known persons, which can sue for defamation. There was even a case in Germany where someone argued for the assassination of a Politician, a clear crime, in other words, and acquitted at trial because the target was a public figure.

And even if you couldn't, insults on that level are absolutely unnecessary to discuss any issue.

<comment><USER15> > You can actually insult political leaders all day long.

Then why is there a prosecution moving forward for insulting a political leader and a specific law which applies _only_ to insulting foreign political leaders?

<comment><USER16> Because 1) there is a special law against defamation of a foreign nation's representatives and 2) there is no specific exception written into any applicable law, but courts have consistently ruled this way because of freedom of speech etc

It is expected that there will be no punishment in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> No sinister men with long coats and barking dogs at three o'clock in the morning, but the screws _are_ being tightened on free expression over much of Western Europe these days, not least as concerns potential offense towards a certain easily offended religion.

[edit: typo]

<comment><USER16> Actually, laws against defamation and insults are very old. And this particular incident falls clearly under the category of pure insults. Even with a strong taste of racial slur ("goat ...").

The only reasons we are debating this at all is that nobody likes Erdogan and that the insult was offered by a comedian.

<comment><USER18> > The only reasons we are debating this at all is that nobody likes Erdogan > and that the insult was offered by a comedian.

We're debating it because most of HN is in the United States, where people regularly go around saying far worse things about our President than calling him a "goat."

<comment><USER19> If this was in the US this would be considered Satire. So it's a form of protected speech. Am I correct? Could someone still sue for libel?

<comment><USER15> Yes. A judge would almost certainly throw this case out if it were in the US.

It's satire, about a political public figure. It's hard to find speech much more protected than that.

Europe does not have free speech. In myriad ways there are restrictions on speech, from prosecution of satire to the reprehensible "Right to be Forgotten" law.

<comment><USER20> >It's satire, about a political public figure. It's hard to find speech much more protected than that.

Well, to be pedantic, courts would probably apply more protections to direct _political_ criticism than to mockery of a political figure him/herself. That is, you would receive more protection for: a) "This is a stupid policy that will harm public welfare" than b) "politician X looks like a monkey". But it's close.

<comment><USER15> To be really pedantic, there are two layers of protection. Political criticism is itself protected, but so is criticism of public figures (regardless of whether that criticism is political or they are even political figures). Politicians are simultaneously public figures _and_ subject to political criticism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I am not usually a Merkel fan, but I think this is a brilliant move, as it sends two loud and clear messages:

1\. We are a country of laws, not of autocratic presidents. Therefore it is the task of the judiciary, and _only_ the judiciary to decide this matter. I have full confidence in the judiciary to do so and to come to the right conclusion.

2\. And I have a pretty clear idea of what the right conclusion is: what the Turkish president demands is ridiculous. In fact, the fact that we have a law that allows him to demand this is ridiculous. We are therefore getting rid of the law.

 _Not_ allowing the prosecution to go ahead would have sent the message that autocratic decisions by the executive in judicial matters is the correct way to proceed, regardless of which way the decision goes. It also wouldn't have sent as clear a message as to the ridiculousness of the request as getting rid of the law.

Again, not usually a fan, but this is damn good.

<comment><USER22> > Not allowing the prosecution to go ahead would have sent the message that > autocratic decisions by the executive in judicial matters is the correct way > to proceed

As many others have pointed out, the relevant law [0] explicitly requires an autocratic decision by the executive before prosecution can start.

So in this situation, you are a country of laws being mediated by an autocratic president. It is the task of an autocratic president, and _possibly_ the judiciary, to decide this matter.

[0] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/obscure- german-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/obscure-german-law- angela-merkel-recep-tayyip-erdogan)

<comment><USER21> >As many others have pointed out, the relevant law [0] explicitly requires an autocratic decision by the executive before prosecution can start.

Exactly. This is why the law is an anachronism and needs to be repealed. And why using it to get the "right" outcome would be inconsistent with the principle of rule of law that says it needs to be gotten rid of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _> In a state of law, it's not the domain of the government, but rather the prosecutors and the courts, to weigh individual rights,_

IMHO that's all that needs to be said. This is _exactly_ how it should be. This is a problem for which laws were written and this is something the judges should eventually have the power to decide upon.

If we don't like their decision, it's up to us to change the laws.

<comment><USER24> I disagree: in a free state composed of free citizens, it is _every_ citizen's duty to refuse to do something which he believes wrong: a law can only be enforced because the police arrested someone, the gaolers incarcerated him, the jury convicted him, the judge sentenced him, the warden took responsibility for him (and the executioner killed him, in the case of capital crimes). _Every one of these_ has the opportunity and the duty to refuse to enforce an unjust law: the police officer can turn a blind eye; the gaolers can refuse to accept the prisoner; the jury can refuse to convict; the judge can refuse to sentence; the warden can release; the executioner can refuse to work.

<comment><USER25> You are basically arguing for vigilante justice. There's a myriad of reasons why this is a bad thing for society. For example, white supremacy groups not being arrested or charged with crimes because all the cops and DAs and judges are also white supremacists. If it's truly within their world-view that a lynching is _not wrong_ , then according to your theory it's their _responsibility_ to not arrest or charge for it. This viewpoint is directly opposed to the rule of law.

<comment><USER26> zeveb is arguing for nonviolent civil disobedience, which is a very far cry from vigilante justice. Some of our greatest civil rights heroes are advocates for civil disobedience, including Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, Mohandas Gandhi, and Emmeline Pankhurst.

<comment><USER25> Yes, vigilante justice is probably a step too far, but only because it's definition requires a lack of rule of law to start with. zeveb is basically arguing that the morality of the individual citizens at each step of the chain overrides the rule of law. The basic premise is the same between them: A vigilante applies their own morality extra-judiciously, without regard for the rule of law. It's the positive counterpart (applying law) of the negative (nullifying law) that zeveb is arguing for.

Civil disobedience is also not correct. Civil disobedience is the refusal to _obey_ laws, not the refusal to _uphold_ them. People participating in civil disobedience do it with the understanding that they can (and should) be prosecuted for such. They do so to act as martyrs.

<comment><USER26> I have to apologize for the extreme and apocryphal example, but I honestly can't think of a better one right now: there are quite a few people that have been convicted as war criminals for "applying law" as they were ordered to do.

The law can be very wrong sometimes, and it's the responsibility of an ethical human being to disobey such laws, whether by non-application or nullification, until such time as those laws are corrected.

<comment><USER25> I actually think that's a great example; no need for apologies. (And, after all, I did set the example with my original comment and white supremacists.)

My response would be that, in such cases, there exist two sets of conflicting laws. The national law, which was _not_ being broken, and the supra-national law regarding human rights and war crimes, which _was_. So that is actually an example of rule of law being upheld, just not national law.

The bottom line is, you need to be really, _really_ careful when you start arguing for "ethics" and "morality" as a basis for execution of law. For instance, to make a concrete example: It could be argued that based on the ethics and morality of the Nazis, that the mass murders committed under the Holocaust were in fact them morally disobeying those supra-national human rights laws. Who are you to say that the Nazi morality is wrong? You can't point to the agreed-upon supra-national human rights laws, because you are in fact arguing that law should be violated based on morality!

In fact, one of the ways to view law is as an _encoding_ of the morality of the society it covers. Sometimes laws, being fixed entities, and society, being ever changing, drift apart over time. Same as software drifts from the requirements of business if not kept up to date. It usually takes an example like this German one to point out the absurdity, and if the law really is no longer part of the society's morality, becomes fairly easy for lawmakers to fix. (As a reminder, this law being invoked is _very_ old -- from when Germany was a monarchy and insulting dictator kings was morally a very serious crime!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think this is the right move, regarding separation of powers. I trust the German jurisdiction to do the right thing here.

Plus, she said that the law protecting foreign officials from defamation is obsolete and they will void it.

<comment><USER28> Have a look at this comment, especially: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504522](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504522)

Essentially, this has nothing to do with "regarding separation of powers", since the law in question requires "und die Bundesregierung die Ermächtigung zur Strafverfolgung erteilt", i.e. "that the federal government gives the courts authority to prosecute". Without order to prosecute _from_ the executive, the judiciary would have no legal grounds.

It would have been in line with both the word and spirit of the law if she would have denied this authority.

<comment><USER27> > It would have been in line with both the word and spirit of the law if she > would have denied this authority.

You're technically absolutely correct, but essentially it is about separation of powers. That is also the public perception.

Strategically and diplomatically it would be the wrong move to deny it - <USER3> can only backfire in a much worse way than it does now. This will all blow over.

Altough, I'm not so sure about the other suit which Erdogan placed using his german attorney.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> During Erdogan's recent visit to Washington DC his security personnel attempted to bring their thuggery to American protesters and journalists and that did not work out so well: [http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/turkish- presidents-a...](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/03/turkish-presidents- arrival-brings-chaos-downtown-washington)

edit: fixed typo

</comment><comment><USER30> I would have had great respect if Merkel had taken a stand on this issue. Regardless of letting the supposedly trustworthy courts of Germany decide on this, this would have been an excellent opportunity to show the world what European values are all about. It comes over as political cowardliness, but this seems to be the norm now more than ever.

<comment><USER31> Merkel is very pragmatic - hence her long tenure in office. This would have been an excellent opportunity to show the world what European values are all about except for the fact the Europe is currently beholden to Turkey to address the migration crisis.

<comment><USER32> I'm not sure what European values even are. Europe used to be the land of the enlightenment. That seems to have regressed substantially lately.

<comment><USER33> If I remember it correctly, Europe never was a "land".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's a pity that most people don't understand the finer point s of the decision, like that it is only a "permission" to conduct investigations, and that the responsibility for anything else will be in the hands of a court. Or multiple courts, probably.

<comment><USER34> I think people understand it OK.

Böhmermann very clearly violated that law, on television, deliberately. The law makes no exception for intent. So if he hasn't violated the law then what would? And unfortunately it says, quite clearly, it is punished by a jail sentence. Unless German courts are an absolute joke he is going to rot in jail for a while.

The only person who could have stopped that outcome is Merkel. And what has she done? She has said in public, unambiguously that she doesn't want to do this BUT IS DOING IT ANYWAY TO PLEASE ERDOGAN.

That's a huge problem for everyone in Europe. Germany is very powerful in the EU. If the German leader is willing to publicly bend over and obey whilst simultaneously protesting then Erdogan is realising that he has Germany (and thus the EU) by the balls. What will he demand next?

<comment><USER35> > Unless German courts are an absolute joke he is going to rot in jail for a > while.

The law says punishable with up to 5 years in jail or a monetary fine. "wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe, im Falle der verleumderischen Beleidigung mit Freiheitsstrafe von drei Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren bestraft."

There's no way this will end up with a jail sentence.

<comment><USER34> I stand corrected.

I hope you are right. Nonetheless, I see no way he can escape punishment unless the courts choose to ignore the law entirely by setting the fine to one euro or something like that, which seems like an unfortunate thing for courts to do in general, even if in this case it'd be highly convenient.

SO there is still no way around the fact that Merkel should not have done this.

<comment><USER35> > I see no way he can escape punishment unless the courts choose to ignore the > law entirely

It's actually quite well possible that there's no punishment in the end. The case hinges on the question whether the poem and its presentation were satire thus still protected or pure defamation. The scholars are divided about this, but there seems to be a slight majority on the side of protected speech. Then there wouldn't be an offense and thus no case and no punishment.

There's a lot of factors playing into this, Böhmermann was treading on the line as he certainly was aware of, but in his favor the long standing rulings accept that the tone of the critique can be adapted to the target or the critique. Since Erdogan is known not to mince words, that plays into Böhmermanns favor. Using the same words on the Dalai Lama would be a much more clear cut case.

Things are going to be interesting in the next couple of month/years :) If there's a court case I fully expect that to go up to the constitutional court.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I think this is the way it should be done. Separation of power means the judicial branch needs to make this decision. Looks like the legislative branch will now revoke the law that lead to this, but either way, it should not be up to the executive to make this decision.

<comment><USER37> That's the 2D view of the situation. The 3D view is that she had a chance to make a strong statement about freedom of political expression and she chose not to.

<comment><USER38> Short sighted, I think.

She is allowing the court system of Germany to correct its laws in a legal way. She is trusting the German process to get rid of the law, which arguably is an elegant and even more powerful statement on freedom than high handed executive posturing.

<comment><USER39> She has the fear that she loses her new political friend, so she has chosen to let someone other decide.

I think it's right that the judges and not the regime should decide, but it's convenient for her, so she does it, not because it's the right thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'm sure this entry will be downvoted very soon, but however, let's try it. :)

Well, now almost everyone in Germany talks about the Comedian and the Turkish President ignoring the much bigger scandal popularized by the term "Panama Papers".

I'm not from the "conspiracy lunatics" fraction but let's dissect this whole stuff a little bit less emotionally:

a) In Germany we have very independent courts.

b) and a very stable democracy (which most of us are truly proud of)

c) and in fact we do have such a silly paragraph that 'protects foreign diplomats' from being 'insulted verbally'.

d) The current government also announced that'll soon throw out this obscure paragraph, which btw. was mostly used by the former Iranian Shah Reza Pahlevi to attack its critics in Germany (that's why we call it 'the Shah Paragraph').

Anyway, I'm very confident that our democracy is stable enough to handle anything, even the childish behaviour of a foreign head of state. By following our laws, no matter how ridiculous the paragraphs may sound, we _protect_ our democracy and dignity.

I'm not a fan of Merkel but one thing is clear: Our Chancellor is governing our country while some others prefer to sue comedians. ;)

I'm not a very political person nor a member of any of our parties but I always go to vote.

That's how we protect our democracy. By letting people vote, the government govern, and courts do jurisprudence.

And we'll never ever sue our comedians. In fact, Erdogan helped us clean up our constitution by throwing out a useless paragraph.

<comment><USER41> > "The current government also announced that'll soon throw out this obscure > paragraph [...]"

I'm not sure if I would call 2018 (like Merkel announced) soon. At least it's after her current period of governance (which will end September 2017).

<comment><USER8> The announced plan is to vote it into law this term but having it take effect in 2018. This is not unusual, though I don't know why they would leave such a long gap.

<comment><USER42> My understanding is, that they don't want to interfere in any way with the courts handle this case, but make sure that this law is not invoked again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Erdogan is a terrible leader, he's been arresting journalists critical of him.

Even Russia has taken shots at him, implying that Turkey is the means by which IS is able to turn oil into cash and continue operations (my money is on the next US president deposing him).

I just can't understand why Merkel would care what he thinks?

<comment><USER44> Isn't Germany trying to make a monetary deal with Turkey to provide asylum for "Syrian" immigrants? Considering that nobody else wants to take them I'm sure there is quite a bit of ass-kissing required to get this working.

<comment><USER45> German here. This is exactly the reason for Merkels decision.

A side note to the comedian Böhmermann: he did also the "Varoufakis Gate". He is quite a genious satirist with real political influence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I rather like the outrageous and ballsy response from one of Holland's biggest comedians, especially considering that we have a similar law here (if I understand correctly):

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jW2cIMfos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jW2cIMfos) (Dutch)

For those who don't speak Dutch: Teeuwen is expressing his outrage over the fact that when Erdogan used to be a 'boy whore' in Istanbul, he was paid by Teeuwen for sex. And even though Teeuwen 'stimulated' Erdogan, the latter didn't return the favor (and do what he was paid for). He also says that many other people have the same complaint, including our prime minister.

When the interviewer tries to clarify and explain to the viewer that this is a satirical bit to make a point, Teeuwen insists over and over again that this is the literal truth and that it's not satire.

Crass, but effective. In an interview a few days earlier Teeuwen actually argued that this is what people should do en masse, especially in places with such a law, and despite the risk.

If you consider that he is not an idiot and knows that there's a real risk in doing these kinds of things, _and_ that a good friend of his (Theo van Gogh) was actually murdered over insulting islam, it's an incredibly courageous thing to do.

</comment><comment><USER47> Here's a translation of what the comedian actually said:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4ebe9p/what_böhmerm...](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4ebe9p/what_böhmermann_said_english_translation/)

He appears to be telling Erdogan what would be illegal, and making up all sorts of horrible things it is very obvious that Erdogan doesn't do, interspersed with things he may well be guilty of, like beating up minorities.

Now should the German court object to Erdogan coopting the German legal system, I wonder if a defence might be that in fact Bohermann was saying a whole bunch of ridiculous things that are obviously untrue but that satirises how sensitive the Turkish president is.

Now if the Turkish president says that it wasn't all untrue then he'll need to admit to some malfeasance, which he clearly won't ever want to do. So the Bohmermann can say that it was all absurdity and clearly as none of it was true he proves his point that his criticism of Erdogan is valid and that he is an over sensitive despot who is trying to prevent freedom of expression and criticism.

Either way, no matter what the Turkish President does, the comedian wins. The penalty is jail time, but just how long is the minimum and can the comedian be pardoned? And if the comedian goes to jail and the law repealed, then it's open season in Germany and every man and his dog will be throwing even _worse_ insults at Erdogan!

I can see a sort of German Streisand Effect occurring where the insults ratchet up incredibly and an entire nation sticks there collective middle finger up at the Turkish President, who as soon as the law is repeated will be powerless to do anything about it!

Erdogan just can't win, even if he succeeds in jailing the comedian.

</comment><comment><USER48> She should have told Turkey to shove it instead of appeasing them. When this man gets exonerated by the judicial system it's unlikely that Turkey will be satisfied and the result will be the same for relations between Turkey and Germany. Dance with the one you came with, Merkel.

<comment><USER49> I don't think so. She can always say that she did all that was in her power, but the judges, those independent little devils, are beyond what she can control. Everyone knows that nothing will happen to the comedian, otherwise hell will break loose in German public opinion. In terms of foreign relations, she made the best move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'm not sure she could do anything else. However bad the limits on free speech are, applying the law selectively is probably worse.

<comment><USER9> She could push for repealing a stupid law. Insulting world leaders (especially our own) is a celebrated past time for the western world. This is, after all, the homeland of Martin Luther (warning, visual fart joke): [http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17e3edby8mik5jpg/original.jp...](http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17e3edby8mik5jpg/original.jpg)

EDIT: does german law allow for pardons?

<comment><USER50> I think that's happening too?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> In Germany, we have a saying, "Getroffene Hunde bellen" (A dog, when hit, will bark). If the poem had been directed at, say, Obama, he probably would have been like, "whatever, I don't give a four-letter-word", and the whole thing would have been properly ignored by pretty much everyone.

The fact that Erdogan goes apoplectic instead and is all like "off with his head" is really telling more about Erdogan's ego problem than about the German legal system or the media.

I think I learnt in elementary school to not let somebody else provoke me like that. I have been told time and again that I am kind of naive, but I had somehow assumed that a head of state would have managed that. It seems that people never learn that the best way to deal with this would have been the line Jeff Bridges gave in the Big Lebowski, when a character named Jesus essentiallly goes on a rant: "Yeah, well, that's just, like, your _opinion_ , man".

</comment><comment><USER52> For those interested in some of the finer legal aspects of the situation, here's an interesting article in German (excellent discussion there as well): [http://verfassungsblog.de/erlaubte-schmaehkritik-die- verfass...](http://verfassungsblog.de/erlaubte-schmaehkritik-die- verfassungsrechtliche-dimension-der-causa-jan-boehmermann/)

Böhmermann may have gone a little bit overboard on his exemplary "Schmähgedicht" \-- unneccessarily long and nasty just to make a point, other indicators are the music, the flag in the background and subtitles only for the poem (making the example much stronger than the context / introduction) -- but given the context, he should be fine.

<comment><USER53> Exactly, this and few other blogs, lawyers of satirical magazines and even Erdogan lawyer have said that they do not expect much from this prosecution. It is just, Erdogan has to go this now, else he loses his face. At some point he will lose in the last instance and then tell his people: "See, these germans hate us". If Boehmermann had to pay something, that would mean he had increased his market value by some millions minus those maybe €5000 fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Contrary to popular belief there is no real freedom of speech in Europe, as least not in the sense as Americans know it. You can still get up to 2 years of prison time for insulting the King or a friendly Head of State in the Netherlands (and Germany apparently), you can be prosecuted in French for ridiculing the Holocaust (just look at the case for Dieudonné) and the list goes on and on.

Erdogan is of course an insecure and manipulative guy who likes to get back at anyone who mocks him, but he's also quite smart to be aware of and to use the legal options that are available to him in Germany as well as in Turkey. If you don't like it, and supposedly uphold liberal values, change the laws. It's as simple as that.

<comment><USER55> >> You can be prosecuted in French for ridiculing the Holocaust.

I think that is a good thing, especially with rise of anti-semitism in different parts of the world.

Ridiculing the Holocaust or any other Genocide is not a free speech, it is a hate speech.

<comment><USER56> Hate speech is one kind of free speech, and be very suspicious of anyone who tries to tell you otherwise: They mean to suppress dissent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> the-dude Keep in mind here Erdogan's intented audience is his own people, not the outside world.

</comment><comment><USER57> She's rolling the dice a bit, but it was her best shot.

If she very strongly was in support of his prosecution, she'd be seen as very anti-free speech. If she blocked it entirely, Erdogan would be pissed off and probably stop blocking refugees for her.

Her goal here is that the courts decide to throw out the law entirely when it goes to trial (is that a thing in Germany? Can courts do that there?) or they give a tiny slap on the wrist. Then she can say to Erdogan "Well, we tried to stop him".

Worst case scenario here is that the comedian actually goes to jail. That would probably end Merkel's career.

<comment><USER58> No, it's just shows that Merkel is desperate not to cross Erdogan, for whatever reason and is ready to make Germany look weak to salvage whatever deal she made with Turkey. It says a lot about our euro politicians. Unfortunately there is no strong freedom of speech tradition is Europe, unlike US where you can say almost everything without risking getting prosecuted by the state. And it makes all the difference in my opinion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> This decision and the year long coverage of the now coming law suit will make sure that 'Erdowahn goatfucker gangbang' will be in the google index for decades.

Maybe Erdogan will be even the number one result for 'goatfucker' or 'gangbang party' after this all settled down.

I don't know how this could be called a victory for Erdowahn.

Apart of this I really look forward to the process. This will be the best satire ever, worldwide, at primetime.

I believe Böhmermann wanted just that and it would have been sad if Merkel would have destroyed his evil genius plan.

</comment><comment><USER60> Other discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504065](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11504065)

</comment><comment><USER50> As an aside, I'm really hoping the Streisand effect finally does something useful.

</comment><comment><USER61> _Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said on Monday that the German comedian had committed a "crime against humanity" by insulting the Turkish head of state. "No one has the right to insult" Erdogan, Kurtulmus told reporters._

And if I call a sexual pose that includes extreme bending over and complete submission "The Merkel" will I be prosecuted under German law too? That is a risk I am willing to take.

<comment><USER62> > And if I call a sexual pose that includes extreme bending over and complete > submission "The Merkel" will I be prosecuted under German law too? That is a > risk I am willing to take.

Nah. Certain types of political satire in Germany are pretty much a contact sport. You'll see much cruder and more direct imagery on carnival floats, for example [1, 2, 3].

Warning: several images may be NSFW and/or cannot be unseen.

[1] [http://www.dw.com/en/the-political-side-of- carnival/a-165896...](http://www.dw.com/en/the-political-side-of- carnival/a-16589663)

[2] [http://www.ibtimes.com/rose-monday-german-carnival-mocks- pol...](http://www.ibtimes.com/rose-monday-german-carnival-mocks-politicians- satirical-parade-floats-photos-709650)

[3] [http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-epa04107803-a-political- the...](http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-epa04107803-a-political-theme-float- with-an-oversize-figure-depicting-67304248.html)

<comment><USER58> > Nah. Certain types of political satire in Germany are pretty much a contact > sport.

It doesn't mean you can't get sued by the German state for these. Actually i'm pretty sure you can. You couldn't in US (be sued by the federal state for that). That's the difference between actual freedom of speech (USA) and some vague tolerance that could change anytime (Europe). As a french, I can go to prison if I insult the president publicly, a state prosecutor can sue me for that, that's not freedom of speech. Now is it likely ? no, but the risk is enough so that most people don't even attempt to do that, that's the vague tolerance I'm talking about.

<comment><USER62> If the state really wants to screw you over, there are plenty of ways to do that regardless. "Disorderly conduct" has been used as an ad hoc speech suppression mechanism even in the US plenty of times; it may not hold up in court, but by that time you've got an arrest record, a mug shot, and have spent a night in jail. And often enough, it results in convictions [1].

Don't get me wrong, the German laws against insults are all kinds of silly, but abusive government officials all over the world have long since figured out that asking forgiveness rather than permission gives them a lot of leeway regardless of how permissive the laws are.

[1] [http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/her-cop-cussing-ruled- fi...](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/her-cop-cussing-ruled-fighting- words-not-free-speech)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> >German Chancellor Angela Merkel has cleared the way for the prosecution of German comedian Jan Böhmermann (Wash.Post) //

>Chancellor Angela Merkel granted Turkey's request to prosecute a German satirist who derided President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Bloomberg) //

The crucial statement of what Merkel has done to "clear the way" and what action she took to "grant" Turkey's request to start a prosecution appears to be missing from both stories? Can someone fill in this detail because without it it just looks like "Merkel has not attempted to prevent democratic legal processes from continuing in their normal course".

What's this really about?

Edit: someone on reddit informed that there's a statute protecting foreign heads of state and that it requires the German parliament to 'allow' the prosecution in some sense.

</comment><comment><USER64> If laws weren't a chaotic accumulation of snapshots of ethics and morals at some point but logical and reasonable instead, we'd have this:

Pros:

\- easy to understand and argue

\- no room for personal opinion, especially regarding ethics

Cons:

\- less income for crime+punishment system that has a whole industry around it and in some countries even prisons operated as public companies

\- emotional views on penal system would go ignored

Precedent law is also highly questionable and dangerous. It's hard to understand why laws do not apply to many, especially those mucking around and making laws.

It could be very simple, but as long as there's no Vulkan (Star Trek) like approach to these things, I'm afraid we'll always have laws that favor some and punish others, regardless if the actions harmed anybody.

</comment><comment><USER65> "Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said on Monday that the German comedian had committed a "crime against humanity" by insulting the Turkish head of state."

A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. ARE YOU JOKING.

This is what we have come to, folks.

</comment><comment><USER66> Never learn a thing from history, Frau Merkel!

</comment><comment><USER67> The speech in question was intentionally provocative/insulting, intentionally illegal (it was even stated as such prior to it), and was barely satire, if at all: [http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/13/a-dirty- not...](http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/04/13/a-dirty-not- particularly-funny-poem-just-turned-into-an-international-crisis/)

Worst of all, it wasn't even funny, unlike the video that enraged Erdogan last month.

</comment><comment><USER68> I don't get why people go wild about this. Imagine I sue you for hate speech against me... does the Chancellor get to decide to throw the case out? No. You let it go to court. The judge looks at the case and judges, according to, ya know, the law? Who are you to deny me that case?

If the law is sound, and it is, the case will get thrown out. But it'll be done by a judge, not by a politician a priori.

It's a very simple separations of power story for me.

Further, the comedian will be protected under free speech laws. Case closed?

</comment><comment><USER69> Thats a disgrace for Merkel and Germany! Lets criminalise comedy...

</comment><comment><USER70> Yes, the poen is crass at best. The fight for freedom of speech isn't fought at Michelangelo's "David", it's at Larry Flynt's "Hustler".

</comment><comment><USER71> I saw Amanpour interview that Turkish president over his prosecution of journalists that were exposing him.

He's an insecure little twit isn't he?

</comment><comment><USER72> Here's a video montage from _Der Spiegel_ of the the program: [http://spon.de/vg9uR](http://spon.de/vg9uR). In a typical Jon Stewart fashion Böhmermann says things and "check" with his "producer" which ones are illegal to say.

</comment><comment><USER73> Appears, though not an expert, that a pardon would be possible, but a pardon would require a conviction:

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

</comment><comment> blubb-fish The "poem" was insulting - and Germany __has __that law. And with respect to that it will be a German court which decides upon whether a punishment is needed. I think that is fine.

</comment><comment><USER61> Once you start paying the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.

It was up to her discretion to allow the prosecution to continue if the translations § 104a StGB given here are correct. She should have pissed Erdogan.

</comment><comment><USER74> If you would publish such a "poem" about anybody in Germany, you could be sued for defamation. Just because you claim it is satire doesn't mean it is protected speech.

<comment><USER53> That is not the point. It was not claimed it is satire, it was claimed by Boehermann (about 3 times in the one minute of the poem) that this is an example of what is not allowed in Germany. He even said that this might get zensored. You cannot take this poem out of context and then judge on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> "(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship."

...but then...

"(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor."

So it sounds like their constitution is pretty standard on this point: You have an absolute, indelible right to freedom of speech (unless we decide it's bad speech).

<comment><USER13> The first articles of the german constitution are an exercise in weasel- wording: "Human dignity", "moral law", "may only be restricted by a law"...

<comment><USER8> The German constitution needs to be interpreted as a document of its time. It places "human dignity" (which is purposefully left open to a potentially changing interpretation) above all other rights which are derived from it.

The constitutional court interprets all basic rights as broad, and all restrictions which are allowed need be as small as possible while still keeping the intent of the constitution. Interpreting the constitution is not an easy task and takes a lot of practice.

<comment><USER13> _> It places "human dignity" (which is purposefully left open to a potentially changing interpretation) above all other rights which are derived from it._

Which is why marital rape was legal until 1997 /s

 _> The constitutional court interprets all basic rights as broad, and all restrictions which are allowed need be as small as possible while still keeping the intent of the constitution._

Not really. Otherwise marijuana would be legal, the paragraph making incest illegal would have been abolished in 2008, the paragraph criminalizing gay sex would never have existed etc.

P.S: What's with the seemingly random "You're submitting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks" message?

<comment><USER8> I don't want to comment on the specific examples. Most of the cited laws don't fit my personal view of justice.

Obviously there have been and still are some interpretations which are outlandish. But this is what you get as soon as you start dealing with humans. Overall, I firmly believe that the constitution even with its flaws is a powerful document protecting the people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> She's a coward, plain and simple. You don't compromise core principles just to push an agreement through.

</comment><comment><USER77> No man should be dragged before court in shackles to answer for his mockery of a politician. How pitiful for a great nation like Germany to be bullied into this by Erdogan. This is truly a new low, even for Europe's already troubling record on free speech. Germany desperately needs Turkey to save them from this migrant crisis, but has no real leverage.

</comment><comment><USER78> Why does Germany have a law against insulting other countries' heads of state?

<comment><USER79> because we are sheep. nobody cares as long as there's no child porn.

i'm so bloody sick of my fellow gelantinous countrymen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Anyway, Putin's Russia is always a safe fallback for that guy.

</comment><comment><USER81> This is one of those times, despite all of the criticisms people on the other side of the Atlantic have about us (some of which are perfectly legitimate) that I am unabashedly proud to be an American, and of our laws and customs.

</comment><comment><USER82> _hums 'Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan'_

<comment> iso-8859-1 Aren't you technically just humming Nina then? How does one hum a cover?

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> I find this very worrying.

</comment><comment><USER84> This is why Germany is still not fully western like the USA, UK, and France. Too much authoritarian hangover from the lack of a modern revolution.

<comment><USER53> Why? Just because we do not believe in this "free speech" thingy and trust our judicative? If it has been serious defamation, he (Boehmermann) will get a sentence (which he quite probable won't), if not he will not. Merkel just states that she should not judge this and upholds the law. And honestly, this is the best she can do because else the opposition in turkey will be have an even bigger problem than now, because Erdogan will whine about it forever to get nationalist support. Boehmermann has nothing to lose here, it is just a question how much him market value rises. His only problem are dumb turkish nationalists with their death threads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> This lady has done such huge harm to Germany and to EU - where's the democracy? Why is she still in power? Germany, wake up! You're destroying not just your own country, but EU as a whole as well!

She invited the migrants and so caused the whole migrant crisis. This alone costs EU billions, forced countries to start building walls, and made it kneel down before Erdogan! Now, she's doing extra favors to him! Such a disgrace!

<comment><USER85> [https://www.facebook.com/ALDEgroup/videos/10153893201220020/](https://www.facebook.com/ALDEgroup/videos/10153893201220020/)</comment></comment>


Show HN: a tiny Instagram projector - <AUTHOR> http://getprojecteo.com

<comment><USER2> > No Pixels, No Pixelation

I find this statement a bit disingenuous. While the images might not pixelate, they will clearly degrade as you enlarge the image. They specifically state they get great results up to two feet wide in pitch black rooms and don't mention much further than that.

<comment><USER3> They are, after all, made from photos with pixels right? Printing a digital photo on film doesn't somehow add back data.

<comment><USER4> But you don't get hard edges between pixels like you would with a digital projector. The image just gets gradually fuzzier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The product isn't for me. Hopefully there's someone who it is for. But the web page is fantastic - this is the first convincing, tasteful integration of video into page content that I've ever seen. Well done!

</comment><comment><USER6> Why is it just for Instagram? I'm not using Instagram, but I would like to have the device

<comment><USER7> Convenience? You have a single data source with a single API which probably works for 90% of the target market? For MVP wouldn't you agree it's the best decision?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I played with a production prototype yesterday, it's really cool. Would make a great gift or trinket. Well made and from a team ( <http://mintdigital.com/> ) with a history of shipping cool products — <http://stickygram.com/> <https://www.foldable.me/>

</comment><comment><USER9> I love your homepage.

I love the little surprise that you're not looking at an icon... you're looking at the actual projector!

Very cool.

</comment><comment><USER10> Must have a huge margin! It will sell if they promote it right, which it looks like they are doing. I can see buying this for a friend as a gift. I can also see it becoming a nice bathroom light at night, as I hate waking myself up with bright lights.

<comment><USER11> That's actually an awesome idea (bathroom light) if the bulb has good longevity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The cost of the product seems ok ($20 on Kickstarter, probably a little more later), but the lack of information on film pricing is a bit concerning. Especially after you include shipping from the US to the UK (in my case).

<comment><USER13> We're currently still trying to figure out how much extra wheels will cost as we are fulfilling single orders first. We should know by mid December at the latest. The shipping on extra wheels will be much cheaper, as you can fit wheels in envelopes rather than bulky packages. It may take a little longer however. Thanks for the question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not for me, but it seems like it would do well on one of those take-my-money sites like ThinkGeek. I'd market it to one of those big ones, they're always investing in products and have the means to make it.

</comment><comment><USER15> I don't know. This is just old technology with a fancy label. Just use a video beamer or your computer screen. Next week on Kickstarter: A coffee table book about coffee tables.

<comment><USER14> "And the coffee table book has legs that fold out! So the book becomes a coffee table in it's own!"

I agree. The mixing old technology with the new thing was played out after the hundredth "turns your iPhone into an analog phone!".

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I dont see the point, maybe i missed something. Why is this better than viewing the photos on a regular monitor, TV, or even beamer? and why only instagram?

<comment><USER17> it appeals for the same reason instagram appeals - why not leave your photos as they were shot, without losing detail by adding filters?

i like it, it's cute, cheap enough to be a fun gift, and the kind of ridiculous steps your photos have to go through appeals. kind of like <http://instacrt.com/>

<comment><USER16> Well, even though I dont use instagram, however I can see why some people would. :p

Cute, fun gift? I guess yeah, but again, why only instagram? Oh well. I realize of course that I'm not at all their target audience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Hipster gonna Hype'.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm pretty sure I have seen something similar to this in a McDonalds Happy Meal - as the included toy. As I recall it was promoting major motion picture characters or something like that.

</comment><comment><USER20> I would love to see a hack or wait for the next cycle where it rotates the wheel on a timer so I don't have to manually do it.

Unless I missed that part from the video/website?

</comment><comment><USER21> Side note: is anyone else having issues playing HTML5 videos in Chrome (Version 25.0.1323.1 dev)

</comment><comment><USER22> They've over-retro'd retro. I'm a little put back.

It'd be great for a dollhouse, though.

</comment><comment><USER23> Get Wes Anderson on board, stat.</comment>


Ask HN: Any backup software similar to version control? - <AUTHOR> Are there any incremental backup solutions that can both
1. Allow you to view the state an entire directory was in at a particular time (ala GitHub when you click on a particular commit)
2. Allow you to view the changelog of a particular file <comment><USER2> Apple's Time Machine keeps daily (or more frequent within a given day) snap shots of all of your folders.[1]

Also, in any native OSX app each "save" works like a git commit, you can browse all "versions." [2]

Combined, these native OSX features do exactly what you want.

[1] [http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201250](http://support.apple.com/en- us/HT201250)

[2] [http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202255](http://support.apple.com/en- us/HT202255)

<comment><USER3> Similar in Linux is Back In Time

[http://backintime.le-web.org/](http://backintime.le-web.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just use Git (sans GitHub) for whatever you're doing. It works quite well on just about any content (although viewing changes/merges is a little more difficult without setting up special mergetools and difftools for special files like images)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hm, I thought Git doesn't handle versioning of binary blobs so well though?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ori FS does replication and atomic snapshotting:

[http://ori.scs.stanford.edu/](http://ori.scs.stanford.edu/)

Some of its underlying architecture is very similar to git. Check out Section 5.4 of the paper: [http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2530000/2522721/p151-mashtiz...](http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2530000/2522721/p151-mashtizadeh.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm not 100% sure because I haven't used it for few years, but BackupPc normally lets you browse the files of a specific backup set but it has also a "history" function for a directory that _maybe_ is what you're looking for:

[http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/BackupPCBackupBrowse.html](http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/BackupPCBackupBrowse.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> 1.) VEEAM for VMware or Hyper-V does this job. You can access restore points at a specific point of time. 2.) Never saw a file-diff tool implemented in a backup software. You may only have backup logs for your incremental backups about the size, duration, etc. If that's what you meant by view changelogs of a backup file.

<comment><AUTHOR> Heh, I don't need file-diff specifically. I just want to see for example this file was last changed on Tuesday, and be able to pull up the Tuesday version.

<comment><USER7> This is exactly what you can do with VEEAM. You can even set your backup strategy to continious integration. As soon as one backup up for the virtual machine is done another incremental will be created; with minimal impact on I/O performance. To save backup-disk-space you may want to enable deduplication in VEEAM.

When you browse you backups you can choose from the available backups and you can open and browse the complete file system at this specific date and time. You can restore one or more specific files or directories directly back to the origin destination or copy & paste them to a different location on any target. You also can start the entire VM directly from backup at this state in an isolated environment to access the system as a working machine. There are tons and tons of more features inside this backup solution.

We run this solution in our office and for most of our customers with virtualized environments. There is even a free version of veeam that lacks datacenter features but you can backup your VMs.

Our usual backup intervals between 8a.m. and 9p.m. is 2 hours. We ensure to have about 5 to 8 restore points during work ours.

So you will have to choose the Tuesdays version of the file at a specific time.

You may want to give it a try if you're running ESXi or Hyper-V.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Bup satisfies both.

[https://github.com/bup/bup](https://github.com/bup/bup)

But the frontend is kinda bare-bones. In many cases, it's git.

I have heard that attic is similar but more fleshed-out. But I have not tried it myself.

[https://github.com/jborg/attic](https://github.com/jborg/attic)</comment>


Jeff Bezos (finally) pumps up the Post with Prime - <AUTHOR> http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/09/8576864/jeff-bezos-finally-pumps-post-prime <comment><USER2> Why would people pay $48 dollars a year for access to news online, that they can get for free elsewhere and likely less agenda driven or biased?

I have prime and would not take the free 6 month trial offer.

Whats next, people are going to pay for the p0rn.</comment>


Self-driving homes could be the future of affordable housing - <AUTHOR> https://archpaper.com/2018/09/self-driving-homes/ <comment><USER2> Housing is not affordable primarily because of rentseeking behavior from a constrained supply.

"Self-driving homes" have been available to every American for decades. They are called RVs. A more affordable and practical version are trailers.

There are trailers that expand out when parked to effectively double the floor space.

While living in a trailer is perfectly doable, there is a significant degradation in the quality of life.

Living in a studio apartment is, for the average person, a completely different experience than living in even a nice $70k trailer that has 3 beds and two bathrooms with sewage and 15A hookups.

Let's assume that the quality of life was comparable - it still costs thousands of dollars to rent a parking spot with hookups so you can live in a vehicle.

The concept the article is about is absolutely insane and far detached from reality.

It's a wierd take on a RV that combines all the responsibilities of owning a trailer with the responsibilities of owning an automobile with the risk of being unable to use the "home" when the automobile needs to go in for repairs coupled with the nightmare of having thousands of intricate parts that cannot be purchased without going through the dealership.

This is impractical and a disaster.

This not only fails to address affordable housing completely but makes a complete mockery of it.

Housing is not affordable primarily because of rentseeking behavior from a constrained supply.

Even if Honda, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo et al were to mass produce these RVs and sell millions of them (which they will not), these vehicles will need to be parked somewhere and the rental fee for these parking spots will then become unaffordable for most.

Did it solve the unaffordable housing problem in the end?

No.

<comment><USER3> I was big into the Tiny House movement for a time and you're right.

The problem is Land. Western countries need Land Reform v2.0 because despite only moderate or even negative population growth - the median person cannot afford to buy Land and the Property Rights to construct a home.

Only 40% of a house price is materials and labour.

It is simple and shocking: our governments have made it illegal to build in every way except literal law.

One, just one, minor factor is the quantity of land owned by the government - it is extraordinary. It would be possible to create a construction boom overnight by selling off many of the properties owned by councils, transportation authorities.

I live in a small town of no importance surrounded by a dozen small villages. I estimate minimum of 0.20 of the properties are vacant or underutilized by an assortment of public bodies. At one point every hotel in the town was owned by the government. Just yesterday I went to work on a small public building in a tiny village of about 50 people. I'd passed it hundreds of times and never realized our hospital system owned it - has not been used in two decades. I have no idea why they own it and I don't think they do either because there are buildings of similar size in every one of those villages which have not been used. Meanwhile there is a housing crisis where poor people can't get public housing. It's right there!

Houses for a typical family in this area would typically cost 200k-300k. Retrofitting one of these 'lost' buildings would cost 50k.

Somebody needs to preform a independent survey of all properties owned by the government, then organize the poorer inhabitants and young people to make purchase requests. If a good explanation of why the property is owned cannot be provided it ought to be sold to the public or used as public housing stock.

This is not capitalism vs communism people - it's just something that makes sense.

<comment><USER4> I made an attempt to acquire a piece of property similar to this. I found that in Utah, eminent domain can be used by anyone to condemn property that is not being used for a public purpose, if you are going to use it for a public purpose.

An abandoned 65k square foot jail in my town had been unused for years, and I sought to turn it into a huge public Makerspace. I fought for years to get it, but the judge finally just refused. He didn't read the actual law.

There was a huge conflict of interest, and the mayor at the time(John Curtis, who is now a congressman) had other plans. He sold the property to an insider only netting the city $100k.

I lost the case, and my faith in politics and the rule of law.

I'm so sick of people getting away with fraud and corruption. I've seriously lost all motivation to build things.

<comment><USER3> Don't give up :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I talked with some friends about this idea.

A solar-powered RV that never stops and can follow the seasons or chase daylight...

</comment><comment><USER6> Then after that airbnb & uber for your self driving bed.

</comment><comment><USER7> _" In Los Angeles alone, it is estimated that 15,000 people are already living in their cars"_

That is an appalling statistic.

<comment><USER8> Kind of. While some are 'van lifers' many are poor who still prefer slumming in socal to affordable housing in say, tennessee. Never underestimate the innate stubborness of humans.

<comment><USER2> I know of doctors, lawyers, dentists and software engineers who earned six figure incomes who had to live in their cars or vans.

For months at a time.

In LA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It'll be a big deal when cars(or Google Maps) can tell you if it's ok to park where you're parking or warn you that you're going to get a parking ticket.

<comment><USER2> Nothing new. A few startups worked on it. EG: See Metromile.

There is nothing for the data provider to gain out of this except headaches. They cant monetize it and they can be liable if their data becomes outdated.

<comment><USER9> Nice, I was unaware that Metromile offered that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> barrow-rider Self-driving trailer parks.

I'm trying to imagine the Trailer Park Boys if there were robots moving them around the NE.</comment>


Hedy Lamarr, femme fatale and inventor of spread spectrum communications  - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr

<comment><USER2> It's an interesting and compelling story, and she deserves credit for her invention, but it's a serious exaggeration to say that she invented spread spectrum, or that current technology is based on her idea.

There were actual scientists working on these technologies back in her day whose work informed spread spectrum's development directly. Because she had no real connection to the scientific community, Lamarr's patent didn't do much beyond languish in a file cabinet, I'm afraid.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> See the nomination of Hedy Lamarr and George Antheil for the EFF award in 1997 (<http://www.ncafe.com/chris/pat2/index.html>), she later received the award. Their invention was in 1942, way before the electronics that can implement this was invented, so it was mechanical.

</comment><comment><USER3> According to the article, the patent was filed in 1942 and lapsed 17 years later in 1959. However:

 _In 1998, "Ottawa wireless technology developer Wi-LAN, Inc. 'acquired a 49 percent claim to the patent from Lamarr for an undisclosed amount of stock'"_

Why purchase rights to an expired patent?

</comment><comment><USER4> Hed _ley_!

<comment><USER5> [A joke that to get would have required seeing the following film: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blazing_Saddles> ]

<comment><USER6> thanks Capt. Buzzkill

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I remember learning about her in my introductory telecom course. Amazing story.

</comment><comment><USER8> And a distant cousin to Dave Winer!</comment>


How to Create a Video for your Startup in 4 Easy Steps - <AUTHOR> http://www.yairharel.com/2009/11/01/how-to-create-a-video-for-your-startup-in-4-easy-steps/ Making a high quality video is harder and more expensive than it seems. There's a quick and easy way to ensure your video is excellent: Use stop motion. <comment><USER2> I posted a comment on the blog, but I wanted to share this and generate a conversation on Hacker News also. I found another low-budget way to do this :

I have a good friend who is a budding film student. One night over drinks, I was discussing my recent endeavour - trying to create a great and simple text advertisement that summarises what Webnet IT does. My friend, who is a naturally creative guy, started coming up with a whole bunch of ideas, which turned into video ideas, and then over the course of the evening we worked out a plan to make a video together.

In return, I gave him plenty of exposure, provided all of the locations, bought all of his coffee (a not insignificant expense), and talked him up to everyone I came across who was looking for a corporate or private video to be made.

Here is the end result which we're really happy with : [http://www.webnet- it.co.jp/index.php/en/content_page/nice_to...](http://www.webnet- it.co.jp/index.php/en/content_page/nice_to_meet_you/coffee_break)

Our target was to create a simple story that a typical company that needs our services would regularly face, and turn that into a fun and hopefully engaging story.

If you're looking for something similar, I recommend seeing if you or your friends know any film students, and try to work out a reasonable and mutually beneficial deal with them.

I'm very interested to see how other people on HN in similar situations have created videos to communicate their businesses.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great tips, but I don't really think a video is a _must_. Yes, it's nice to have, but IMO it's a better use of time to make a useful product than to worry about making a video that no more than a small percentage of your potential customers will ever see.

</comment><comment><USER4> Interesting.. Don't know why the OP would recommend they have a foreign accent though.

I think the accent should be relevant to the country you're in... Unless your product is Beck's beer or Outback steak house..

<comment><USER5> I think the accent is supposed to make it sound more interesting and memorable. And foreign-ness can help cover uncertain quality: if I have a less clear idea of what perfect deliver would sound like, imperfections may not be as noticeable.

There are several accents I love to listen to, but I don't think I agree with the OP. Anything that makes the audio harder to understand is likely to be a net loss. If I can't get clues from the speaker's mouth because she's an invisible narrator or because the sound and video get slightly out of sync, and if your video is competing with the fan in my over-hot office or the Thundercats video my three year old is watching (he called them "rain cats" for a while), that gorgeous accent may be one difficulty too many.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Location of tech/design/startups in Vancouver? - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys,
I've been reading about how Canada is cultivating great talent and start-ups.
In terms of locale, can someone enlighten me about Vancouver and if there is an epicenter where the tech/design/start-ups congregates?
Thanks in advance, looking to visit Vancouver. <comment><USER2> Check out the network hub at <http://www.thenetworkhub.ca/>

Otherwise, its pretty spread out from Richmond to Burnaby to downtown.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Kat. I've checked out The NEtwork Hub's website and looking forward to visiting.</comment></comment>


Node OS - <AUTHOR> http://node-os.com/ <comment><USER2> So a quick look through the github repo, it appears that Node OS is : 1.) New Init Process 2.) New Shell 3.) NPM as a package manager

Not really an "OS" in the traditional terms, but not just a distro. It uses glibc like most other distros. I would consider it half way between a traditional debian derivative and android in the sense that the environment could be completely different from traditional linux.

That said, there is a reason Debian and Fedora (and most other linux distros) look like they do, and thats to be comparable with software.

If this was to stay under active development it could be interesting, however I would seriously be questioning if they are able to package, patch and support the literally hundreds of packages needed to make an effective Linux OS.

Looking back on the great cambrian explosion of linux distributions of the early 2000s, its really not surprising today to find most distros are based on either debian/ubuntu, SLES, Fedora/RedHat, Gentoo or Slackware. The effort to maintain such a number of packages saps such resources that its almost worth delaying using a different package manager until you have dealt with everything else.

Even now I would think the sanest way to do this project would be to build a abstraction layer and use .rpm or .deb packages until you could completely replace it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Could you elaborate on the some of the benefits of having a dedicated OS for Node projects? I'm confused by the website

 _Linux Kernel_ _NodeOS is a full OS built on top of the Linux kernel_

As are many other operating systems...

 _NodeJS Runtime_ _Node is the primary runtime — no bash here_

 _NPM Packages_ _NodeOS uses NPM as its primary package manager_

You can change both of these on other OSes, no? Also, are these really large pain points?

 _Hosted on Github_ _Open and easy to contribute to — pull request friendly_

Not really a feature

<comment><USER4> All of these are features if you're looking for a fun hacking project. Think of the opinionated Haiku OS.

<comment><USER2> Haiku actually seems to be trying to be something very different.

The BeFS filesystem's use of metadata / extended attributes for one, very multi-threaded core libraries and GUI for others. The kernel is also different giving the OS a very different feel.

The goals for Haiku have always seemed around desktop performance unlike most *nix derivatives which either balance other workloads or focus on servers.

NodeOS could offer something different, but what they have mentioned so far doesn't seem that interesting (then again I am not a Node or javascript developer).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You're drunk JavaScript, go home.

<comment><USER6> My first thought was "Whis is a joke, right?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seriously - what?

Isn't this taking things a bit too far??

</comment><comment><USER8> I think this would be cloud ready as it seems supremely easy to scale a node webapp within the OS. I prefer express-apps currently, thought I'm looking for something a bit more minimal, e.g. follows the UNIX philosophy - do one thing, and do it well. Would love to use Go for this.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm digging the trend of pushing things out of the way and using packaging to solve the big OS hairball .. Just today I booted a small Linux image straight to lua-jit. A delightful platform!

</comment><comment><USER10> It does beg the question - why? Would this be a good base image for deployment of Node apps onto a Docker host, for example?

<comment><USER11> That sounds like a blast. I'd love to provide guidance (but unfortunately busy with other work) to make that happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What problem does this project seek to solve? What pain points does it address?</comment>


Realtime Worlds: an inside story - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2010/aug/27/realtime-worlds-collapse

<comment><AUTHOR> Comment section is good read also.</comment>


Intel Management Engine Critical Firmware Update - <AUTHOR> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000025619/software.html <comment><USER2> So is this actually a critical vulnerability, or is this just Intel plugging one of the recently-found exploits that lets us disable the IME?

<comment><USER3> BING BING BING

Guaranteed it's the latter. Intel isn't about to give up the huge contracts it has with NSA.

<comment><USER4> Any proof?

<comment><USER5> After the Snowden disclosures -- never mind the whole Room 641A business ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A) ) -- I think the only safe assumption is bad faith on the part of both government and industry.

In fact, that's the whole problem with extrajudicial domestic spying. In defiance of the principles of both justice _and_ logic, the innocent are presumed guilty, and the burden of proof is shifted to the skeptics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's changed in this advisory since it was first issued November 20? Just more vendor links?

</comment><comment><USER7> The Intel Management Engine IS the vulnerability.

Read this like: We are patching our backdoor so no one but us and our undisclosed friends can own you whenever we want.

<comment><USER8> This could prove harmful. If people analyze the patch they might get more information

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder the long term effect on unpatched MEs out there.

What would a skilled attacker use it for? Hack nearby laptops of folks within the cryptocurrency world?

<comment><USER10> Could one write a worm that worked purely on the Intel me, spread machine to machine via me Ethernet monitoring, that could then look at the local hd for crypto keys and report them back to a remote server?

Is the above theoretically possible?

<comment><USER11> I envision a worm that disables the ME completely once it's found and "infected" another few. Perhaps show a message that says "Your computer is now owned... by you." That would certainly raise some interesting discussion about ethics...

<comment><USER12> While this is possible, people with dark motives are clearly incentivized more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Intel:

 _A status of may be Vulnerable is usually seen when either of the following drivers aren 't installed:_

 _Intel® Management Engine Interface (Intel® MEI) driver_

 _Intel® Trusted Execution Engine Interface (Intel® TXEI) driver_

If adding closed-source Intel drivers is a "fix" for a vulnerablity, that sounds like a way to get a Trojan onto your system.

Who audits Intel?

<comment><USER14> Without the drivers the tool can't check, so it has to report "may be vulnerable".

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Apple is not on vendor list. Q: Why not?

<comment><USER16> > Intel® ME 11.0.0-11.7.0

Apple is shipping 10.0 with High Sierra.

<comment><USER17> Not if they're using Skylake or later CPUs

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I remove the drivers during deployment. How much does that reduce the vulnerability footprint? Assuming that Lenovo has indeed enabled the firmware write protect feature that Intel describes?

<comment><USER19> Not installing the drivers prevents your OS from interacting with ME but I don't think it changes the fact that ME has exceptional access to your computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What value does the ME actually offer the user? Why is it even there?

<comment><USER21> As far as I've read, it's more targeted at corporate deployments when the owner/administrator and user aren't the same person or authority. It allows things like remotely reimaging the machine if the OS install gets screwed up, deleting encryption keys if the machine is stolen or otherwise compromised, verifying that the mandatory "endpoint protection suite" is actually running, etc..

<comment><USER22> But also secure boot and full disk encryption and SGX.

<comment><USER23> You don't need intel ME for full disk encryption? Or is that a Windows only requirement I'm unaware of?

<comment><USER22> I think some laptops don't have a hardware TPM and use software running on ME instead.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


10x engineers are on hold in the new ThoughtWorks technology Radar - <AUTHOR> https://www.thoughtworks.com/radar/techniques?blipid=201911057 <comment><USER2> How did 10X get equated with "antisocial and damaging behaviors?"

Junior developers can show the same behaviors. A more productive person can act as a good mentor and team player. Jerks exist at all levels of skill and experience.

<comment><USER3> I think young 10X engineers often have negative behaviors, team dynamics, etc. so the group as a whole gets a bad reputation. I personally find that older 10X engineers tend to be the more valuable ones since they've figured out there's more to being successful than lone wolfing a bunch of code.</comment></comment>


Samsung Ballie – AI ball that follows you - <AUTHOR> https://youtu.be/c7N5UDZX7TQ <comment><USER2> Cute, though a tiny yellow ball wouldn't last 10 seconds within a kilometer of my dog, heh.

</comment><comment><USER3> this would be way more of a trophy to hack than any home cam or speaker assistant could ever hope to be.

the fact that it does things autonomously would be very convenient to cover up remote abuse</comment>