Rand Paul: Show Us the Drone Memos - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/show-us-the-drone-memos.html <comment><USER2> The context that these discussions often lack is that there are situations where it is considered acceptable for law enforcement to kill a suspect. An armed hostage taker being taken out by a sniper, for example. What is the rule that says that could be OK, but killing Anwar Awl Alaki is not?

Superficially, the rule seems like it would be based on whether capturing / arresting the person is not feasible, but doing nothing has a high probability of resulting in that person being involved in a violent crime (killing of hostages, participating in a terrorist act). Unfortunately, deciding if that is true for a given situation is of course a judgment call. But to simplify it down to "the government shouldn't kill people without a trial" overlooks some things that need to be considered. Could he have been feasibly arrested? What would have been the consequences of doing nothing?

<comment><USER3> There's an very important distinction between killing someone to prevent imminent bodily harm and putting someone on a kill list and sending the drone out to get them. It's the distinctly non-imminent premeditation that makes the difference.

<comment><USER4> How does one get on a kill list?

I could be wrong but I'd tend to believe it is because they are a clear threat and not because one has poor choice in friends or makes suspicious trips to unusual destinations.

<comment><USER3> > I could be wrong but I'd tend to believe it is because they are a clear > threat and not because one has poor choice in friends or makes suspicious > trips to unusual destinations.

I'd love to be able to trust the governments ability to decide who and what is a 'clear threat', it'd make a lot of things a lot easier. But unfortunately history - including fairly recent US history - is chuck full of evidence to the contrary.

<comment><USER5> Not to mention the difference between "clear threat to the country" and "clear threat to the government".

To the extent that there is a difference, I'm much more concerned about the former, but worry that the government may (naturally) be more concerned about the latter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is incidental to the main argument, but I think it's important enough to observe here:

 _Since that letter, I have learned more. The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to all senators on May 6, noting that in the view of the Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, "there are at least eleven OLC opinions on the targeted killing or drone program."_

I joined the ACLU a couple years ago in part because I'd read a lot about the various illegal and immoral activities parts of the government has done and didn't see an obvious way for me, a somewhat normal, random guy, to do much about it. There's a lot of (justified) Internet outrage over the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, widespread spying, and so forth. But without converting outrage to action, the outrage means very little.

Does my $50 do much on its own? Perhaps not. But it means something.

<comment><USER7> I once gave them a similar amount, probably 10 years ago. They have since spent at least that amount on postage and call center labor asking me for more money. This greatly discourages me from wanting to give more to them, even though I like what they do with their non-outreach funding (however small that may be)

<comment><USER8> My understanding that much of the legal work is donated so outreach seems like a reasonable expenditure, particularly if it increases revenues or brings in more donated legal work.

<comment><USER9> As the other poster I believe was trying to point out 'if it increases revenue' is the wrong way to justify spending money to make more money.

Since revenue is not profit, and most charities are non-profits anyway, more revenue does not necessarily equate to more money for betterment of the causes the charity serves.

As a complete hypothetical scenario examining two extremes which hopefully do not exist.

Charity B.A.D. could spend 100% of its revenue on seeking more donations and maintaining existing ones, leaving no resources for actually doing anything related to their cause, or distributing non monetary resources donated even. But they double revenue every year.

Charity P.O.R. Could spend 100% of its revenue, which are fixed at $10 a year, on advancing their cause.

My entire point is instead of saying 'increases revenues' you should say 'increases the money it budgets toward advancing its cause.'

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What is remarkable is how the discussion is framed in the US. Why is it that killing a US citizen without trial terrible while deliberating whether killing a non citizen without trial is terrible not even part of the discussion?

Obama's assasination program throws away 800 years of progress of civilizing the world.

<comment><USER11> At least it is a start. Once the killing of US citizen without a trial is accepted as undesirable, then we will move on to attempting to have our compatriots reflect on the morality of killing foreigners. I do not see a problem with starting with a low hanging fruit to let our friends have a taste of some sort of morality before trying to convince them to climb the tree for more...

That said, even if we some day manage to summon political will to regulate the use of violence by our government more strongly, violence of the threat thereof is an essential part of relations between human polities - framing it as uncivilized will not change that.

<comment><USER12> > At least it is a start. Once the killing of US citizen without a trial is > accepted as undesirable, then we will move on to attempting to have our > compatriots reflect on the morality of killing foreigners

I was under the impression that killing US citizens without a trial had been considered pretty much unthinkable until a few years ago, when your president allowed it. I may be mistaken, as I'm not from the US and so not immersed in the culture on a daily basis.

If that's true, I would say that the current development is in the opposite direction of more restraint.

<comment><USER13> > I was under the impression that killing US citizens without a trial had been > considered pretty much unthinkable until a few years ago

U.S. citizens were killed in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it is believed that some of the ones that went to fight for the Nazis were also killed by American soldiers on the battlefield.

<comment><USER12> U.S. citizens were collateral damage as part of that war. That is not the same thing as targeting an induvidual for execution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I appreciate the views of folks who ask questions like "why is it legal to kill anyone without trial?" But I think these arguments overlook important considerations. Courts only have power to the extent that the political branches of government choose to abide by their pronouncements. When courts overreach, there is the possibility they will be ignored, and as a result such overreach poses a grave threat to the rule of law. It is for this reason that it's important not to confuse the two separate questions of: "is this bad?" and "is this illegal?"

In the U.S., the founders expressly rejected the idea that courts and judges might bind the hands of the President and Congress in matters of foreign policy and security. The judicial branch is, by design, a domestic institution. When acting abroad, the American President, advised by Congress, retains all the powers that are inherent in an independent sovereignty. And that includes killing outsiders who pose a security threat. Sovereign nations have always had that power, and I doubt there are any that would explicitly disclaim that power.

Clearly, though, the powers the President can project domestically are circumscribed by the Constitution and can be reviewed by the courts. The touchy part is figuring out how to draw the lines: where does the jurisdiction of the court end and the sovereign foreign-affairs authority of the President begin? It is very dangerous to draw the line in a place that overextends the courts' inherently domestic authority and jurisdiction.

I propose that it's better to kill a terrorist like Al Awalki by drone strike than to degrade the judicial system by trying him in abstentia. Trials in abstentia degenerate to farce, and are illegal under federal law ([http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2003/06/when_can_a_defendant_be_tried_in_absentia.html)) as well as under the laws governing the International Criminal Court. Nothing in the Constitution says that due process always requires a trial. Saying that Al Awalki has due process rights, and that those rights are satisfied in his peculiar circumstances by consideration of an executive tribunal, does less violence to the rule of law than trying him in abstentia.

<comment><USER14> Our country has one of the best snatch-and-grab military outfits in the world. Go get this guy and try him. It will probably even cost less than sending a drone with a hellfire attached to it, and it's his right as a citizen to be tried before execution.

<comment><USER15> The argument that we should send special operations forces every time to go grab people is a common one, but it falls short in several respects.

The first is that most people do not realize how long and difficult the modern training pipeline is for SOF. Operators are extremely valuable and hard to come by and you do not want to risk them unnecessarily when you have other legal means of accomplishing the mission. For example, it takes 12 months to even qualify as a Navy SEAL, and then another 12-18 months of platoon training before a deployment. Only a tiny fraction of those who start the SEAL pipeline actually make it through due to the difficulty of the training. It is for this reason that the Navy offers $40,000 to anyone who can make it through the training ([http://navyseals.com/files/ChallengeSEAL.pdf](http://navyseals.com/files/ChallengeSEAL.pdf)) and reenlistment bonuses for operators can approach $100,000. And never-mind the cost of the equipment used during the operation. How much do you think the stealth helicopter that got destroyed during the Osama Bin Laden raid cost?

The second is that there is some serious armchair quarterbacking going on. I think its crazy to assert what our armed forces should and shouldn't do without a full understanding of what you are asking of them. The complexities of planning a SOF operation that goes deep into a place like Yemen are quite involved. For more on this, I suggest the book _The Black Banners_ by Ali Soufan. It possible (and even likely) that a capture operation for Anwar al- Awlaki was either impossible, or possible but likely to end in the death of al-Awlaki anyway.

<comment><USER14> But this is what they do. This is why we train them. This is why we pay them such (which is still paltry for the risks). Of course it's risky, and extremely dangerous. My argument is that every American citizen deserves the right of due process and trial before they are executed.

<comment><USER15> My point is that you and I have no idea whether a mission to capture al-Awlaki is "what they do or not". To know whether such a mission is possible or realistic requires knowledge that few people in the world actually have. Whether to deploy SOF or not is a command decision made on a case by case basis. We can't know sitting behind our computer terminals whether it was a realistic option or not. I assume it wasn't, otherwise why wouldn't they have tried to capture him? I imagine he would have been a very valuable source of intel.

There are a lot of people out there who seem to feel pretty strongly about sending our armed forces in harms way in this type of situation. I can't help but wonder if any of those people stand to lose anything if such an operation were to go poorly. It just boggles my mind that we would risk American lives and millions of dollars of training and equipment when we have other legal options that are less risky.

<comment><USER14> Then I think you have to let Anwar al-Awlaki go, plain and simple.

>when we have other legal options that are less risky.

What other legal options are you talking about? What they are doing is 100% illegal, it goes directly against the 5th amendment. Straight from the article:

"The Bill of Rights is clear. The Fifth Amendment provides that no one can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Sixth Amendment provides that "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury," as well as the right to be informed of all charges and have access to legal counsel."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am no lawyer, and so can't say anything about a legal opinion. But from a "my way of looking at it" perspective: someone who is actively trying to kill american citizens, and is, meanwhile, preventing himself from being tried by hiding in a foreign country should be stopped. Better for all involved if he's stopped without killing, but stopped either way.

I would draw the comparison to someone holding a hostage at gunpoint. You don't put that person on trial before final judgment comes down.

<comment><USER17> On the other hand, US has a sloppy record of actually getting the guy they wanted. [http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of- civilia...](http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of-civilians- killed-by-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen)

I would draw the comparison of someone holding a hostage at gunpoint, so cops go and kill an innocent guy in neighborhood that is pretty much unrelated with the person holding the first as hostage. I'd definitely want to setup a way to judge those incompetent cops.

<comment><USER16> I don't disagree you there. Especially where such high stakes are involved everyone must be held accountable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wasn't there some kind of unpleasantness around the time of Abe Lincoln's presidency, resulting in the killing of several hundred thousand American citizens without trials?

It really irks me when this kind of discussion is focused on US citizenship, as if nobody else counts. Either the US government has a right to decide that somebody somewhere is so dangerous that he needs killin', and then go whack him, or it doesn't. I don't see how it's not OK on due process grounds, but only if the guy is a US citizen. Anyway, this kind of rule is likely to result in some kind of a circular arrangement, in which the US whacks undesirable French citizens and France whacks German citizens in return and then Germany reciprocates by killing US citizens, and hey - no rules are broken.

BTW, I can't say that I am against all government-ordered killings in principle. Governments conduct wars and military operations, sometimes with good reasons. And wars don't just result in killing people "on the battlefield", as Rand Paul says. Suppose that some terrorist group is preparing an attack somewhere - are you supposed to send special forces after them with a death sentence from some court in their pocket?

<comment><USER13> > Either the US government has a right to decide that somebody somewhere is so > dangerous that he needs killin', and then go whack him, or it doesn't.

Every nation has the sovereign right to kill people in other nations. It's a fundamental precept of sovereignty. However, nations also bind themselves to their own laws. In the U.S., the Constitution gives U.S. citizens certain rights even when they are not on U.S. soil. That is the only thing that would make it illegal for the U.S. to kill someone on foreign soil.

<comment><USER19> >Every nation has the sovereign right to kill people in other nations. It's a fundamental precept of sovereignty.

Citation please?

<comment><USER20> Thomas Hobbes wrote that, in the absence of organised societies/government to pass and enforce laws, people are in a "state of nature" where every person has a natural liberty to do anything they think necessary to preserve their own life (what he termed war of all against all).

Civil governments remove this "state of nature", curtailing liberties and creating rights - for example, giving you the right not to be murdered by while taking away your liberty to murder other people.

As there is no government of governments to pass or enforce international laws, nations are in a permanent state of nature. One nation bombing another over some land is like one wolf fighting another over some dead prey - they're just doing what they naturally do. It's not like the wolf-police are going to stop them.

<comment><USER21> Hobbes's _Leviathan_ is essentially a work of fantasy fiction. It has little to no grounding in historical fact. His idea of a "state of nature" is an unsupported assertion.

<comment><USER13> Leviathan is a philosophical work, not an anthropological one. The "state of nature" doesn't denote a real period in human history.

<comment><USER22> > Leviathan is a philosophical work, not an anthropological one. The "state of > nature" doesn't denote a real period in human history.

Right, its a thought experiment like Schrödinger's cat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Interesting bit of political wonkery ahead.

There's a way to get rid of a president. It's called impeachment. Impeachment is a political trial for political crimes. Basically looking like an idiot. It's not a criminal trial.

Why is that important? Because we don't criminalize politicians doing their job. It's expected that the president do things which would never be acceptable if an average citizen does them: kidnapping spies, blowing up things here or there, sending warships in harm's way, and whatnot. We don't call these crimes because in point of fact somebody has to make decisions like this. It's part of the job.

(I'm not approving of any of this, simply trying to explain how the system works.)

So I agree with Mr. Paul's first sentence, with one change: "I BELIEVE that _the systemic killing of American citizens_ without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate."

Or, in other words, killing any American overseas without a trial is wrong all the time, but I understand presidents do things that are extraordinary. One of the jobs of Congress is to provide a check on his power. (Congress has made a terrible mess of this oversight responsibility. Congress is ultimately at blame in all of this for giving a wink and nob when it was started.) What's, for lack of a better term, _evil_ , is the creation of a system to automatically do things that bend the rules to this degree without the president having any skin in the game at all. He gets this crazy-broad power, and he's not risking his office when the decision is made to use it. That is insane. And I do not believe a debate has anything at all to do with it. It's wrong. It should stop. There's nothing more to be said.

If the president wants to go off on some bone-headed assassination adventure, he won't be the first one, Congress should debate and take action depending on the specifics. But if he wants to create a system whereby robots are used to assassinate citizens abroad on a regular basis without trial? There's no amount of debate in the world that's going to make that work.

</comment><comment><USER24> "I believe that killing an American citizen without a trial is an extraordinary concept and deserves serious debate."

Opposed to killing anyone without a trial?

<comment><USER25> War has gone on for as long as civilization has been around, it is not an extraordinary concept.

<comment><USER12> That's not what is being discussed here. There is difference between a combat situation as part of warfare and targeted executions of induviduals outside of war.

<comment><USER4> You must have a much clearer idea as to what 'combat situation' and 'targeted executions outside of war' means than me.

Is it acceptable to bomb a tent of generals planning a campaign in the middle of a war?

<comment><USER26> Yes; although war has rules. It's not clear whether this is part of a war or not.

Is the United States at war with Yemen? No.

Are the Yemenis being bombed civilians or military? Well, they're not the military of any particular state. We're in a murky territory here now, where the US gets to unilaterally declare war on individuals and deem them "not civilians" so it's ok to bomb them.

<comment><USER4> This is not a war with a state. That would be much more clear cut.

We are clearly not at war with Yemen. Yemen, the state, is cooperating with US efforts in their country.

The US gets to unilaterally go to war with individuals (that are part of a larger movement that relies on extreme violence against non-combatant civilians to achieve its goals, it is important to remember) because they've unilaterally gone to war with the US.

<comment><USER27> The US didn't seem to take this view when Osama was doing it to the Russians.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Dear world: We can execute you all day long without regard, but we can of course not execute an American, because that would be horrible.

I hope I am no longer around when a different, tyrannical regime develops a technology that gives them an edge that negates all of our defenses and we are subject to random drone attacks on our neighbors, communities, cities.

Face it, we are an unprincipled, unjust tyranny. We are more like than not any other tyrannical regime that had legal protections in place for the approved group of people, while totally negating those rules for people that weren't part of the approved group. It's nothing more than present day, larger scale primitive tribal society. It's pathetic.

If we want extrajudicial executions, we need transparent and verifiable proof and capital punishment for abuses and even mistakes. The higher the stakes, the more costly the mistakes.

If everyone is so confident that there is nothing wrong with their actions, why are they not stepping forward demanding capital punishment for any transgressions.

</comment><comment><USER29> > Show us the legal case for executing __a United States citizen__ without a > trial.

It kind of says it is OK to kill non-citizen untermensch. I find this attitude very common and highly disturbing.

Russian army managed to takeover Crimea with only handful of deaths. If you count death toll, US army looks like bunch of happy-trigger-amateur-cowboys.

</comment><comment><USER30> From the article: "I don't doubt that Mr. Awlaki committed treason and deserved the most severe punishment."

Why does the author not doubt it? I doubt it until I have seen evidence.

It is my understanding that Awlaki called for the murder of American civilians, but I do not believe that meets the legal standard of treason. The Obama administration has said that Awlaki was involved "operationally" in planning attacks on Americans, but the national security state has said all manner of speech constitutes operational involvement in terrorism, including Javed Iqbal's broadcast of Al Manar, a Hezbollah-controlled television channel, and the Humanitarian Law Project's attempts to teach peaceful conflict resolution strategies to a terrorist group.

<comment><USER31> He is actively pre-empting attempts to derail his primary point.

It's possible he also believes that Awlaki committed treason, but more importantly, by making that point without any kind of moderation, he's making it substantially harder to accuse him of wanting to be soft on those horrible, evil terrorists.

He's also implicitly making the argument for a trial stronger: If it is entirely certain that Awlaki committed treason, then surely the government has clear evidence that would have made a trial a formality?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> "I don't doubt that Mr. Awlaki committed treason and deserved the most severe punishment" And yet has anyone heard exactly what is was that he did? All I ever heard is that he put out propaganda about how America sucks. But I have never actually heard any of it.

<comment><USER33> It was _everywhere_ when he died;

His propaganda wasn't that America sucks, it was a call to take up arms against US targets. He exchanged emails with the Ft. Hood shooter, he advised the underwear bomber, he was not a good guy..

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al- awlaki...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki-video- blogs)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> 8 Stories of Civilians Killed by U.S. Drone Strikes in Yemen

[http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of- civilia...](http://www.policymic.com/articles/89135/8-stories-of-civilians- killed-by-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen)

</comment><comment><USER35> The problem is its not civil law, this under war law..as terrorists are considered not to have the same rights as combatants under the Geneva Convention..

Spies are under similar guidelines..sometimes they get trials sometimes they just get shot

<comment><USER27> Yes, and we've always been at war with east asia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I seriously wonder why the rest of the world tolerates the US drone program.

Sure, they probably __Mostly __get bad guys, but the implications and ramifications of being able to kill anyone in the world at any time by remote control at the whim of a select group of people are too large to ignore. The fact that some of them are US citizens is just legal icing on the cake.

It is asked very often but bears repeating one more time... Why is it that people feel the need to take up arms against the US? I don't think this is a namby pamby kumbaya question either but is directly relevant to our long term security.

</comment><comment><USER12> Executing non-US citizens is fine, apparently. I don't see anyone objecting to that. It's another fine example of US exceptionalism.

Note that I'm talking about executions, not killing as part of warfare.

<comment><USER4> >Note that I'm talking about executions, not killing as part of warfare.

I'd be curious to see where you, personally, would draw the line.

Is it not warfare to kill someone that is plotting on harming civilians as a primary means to advance their agenda?

<comment><USER12> > Is it not warfare to kill someone that is plotting on harming civilians as a > primary means to advance their agenda?

I think you just defined a whole lot of law enforcement operations as warfare. I do not agree with that definition, nor do I suspect many would.

If the US had invaded Yemen and they were targeting specific people to help with their strategic objectives there, that would be a more fuzzy area, and the morality of that would depend on the situation of the invasion.

As it stands, the drones are executing people in countries the US is not at war with.

That said, where do _you_ personally draw the line? Now, take that situation and imagine that instead of the US sending robots to kill muslim preachers, that some place like Iran or China had sent in robots to the US to kill a US citizen like Jim Bell (after all, he has advocated for assassination markets, so the same argument can be made that he is dangerous). Is the line in the same place in that situation?

<comment><USER4> >the drones are executing people in countries the US is not at war with.

Because we are not fighting a state. We are _cooperating_ with these countries not fighting them. They don't have the resources (or the resources are unreliable) to treat these things as law enforcement problems.

And I'd personally draw the line at a clear and credible threat. If they demonstrate they have the will and have, or are actively trying to obtain, the means to attack.

For example, if someone speaks about killing people then amasses a bunch of explosives, it is time to act. If someone seems to be acting in a command capacity to people that have the means and will, as previously described, it is time to act.

On the other hand, if someone happens to be in contact with someone in that first group but does not seem to be aiding them (passing commands, gathering materials etc.) then that person should not be targeted.

If we could go to these countries and tell them "Listen, we have intelligence telling us that this person is training people and sending them into this country to kill people. Could you go grab them for questioning and maybe gather some evidence and put them on trial?" and if they would act on that, that'd be great. I'd be all for that. But that seems like wishful thinking more than anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Worth a listen on this topic - Radiolab on the 60 words that define 'The War on Terror'. Includes a discussion on the group who sit and discuss who ends up on this kill list. [http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/#13999071198021&%7B%2...](http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/#13999071198021&%7B%22ready%22%3Atrue%7D)

</comment><comment><USER38> I hesitate to make historical comparisons because many are melodramatic, but I think it's fair to relate this time to another dark period in U.S. history.

The word "terrorist" has become so powerful that it supersedes judicial processes. In early 2002, federal agents harassed many of my friends who belonged to a mosque in the Northeast. Some were detained and abused by police officers. Sadly, this behavior has continued, further evolving into a vehicle for racism and religious prejudice. I recall a story on HN several months ago about a startup investor who was detained in an airport all day because he was Muslim.

If you don't like your neighbors because of their names, their traditions, the color of their skin or the smell of their food, you can simply call them terrorists. That word, even when it is devoid of concrete evidence, has the power to ruin someone's life. In this specific sense, our modern fear of "terrorists" reminds me of the power of the word "communist" during the 1950s, in the McCarthy era.

Eventually, most Americans saw McCarthy's so-called Red Scare for what it was: an excuse to act based on personal prejudices and political agendas.

</comment><comment><USER39> It won't stop until the same officials allowing this, supporting this, are put on a similarly effective list.

Technology has simply given the tool to anyone and its a matter of time before that threat becomes far to real against even safe targets

</comment><comment><USER40> A lot of people are asking for trial by jury so that we can be sure he is guilty.

That doesn't seem so fail-proof seeing as maybe 4% of death row inmates have been wrongfully convicted.

</comment><comment><USER41> Hasn't the CIA been doing this for decades anyway, like many other secret services around the world?

</comment><comment><USER42> Or any human being that isn't an immediate threat for that matter.

</comment><comment><USER43> Wow! I mean WOW!!! You guys must read those comments on New York Times website. Especially those NYT/Readers' Picks. WOW! Really EYE OPENING! WOW!</comment>


Ask HN: Any dormant domains you want to sell? - <AUTHOR> Wondering if anyone has a domain they no longer care for and want to sell? Only interested in .com <comment><USER2> How about mailscrub.com?</comment>


Blockstore: A Key-Value Store on Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> http://blog.onename.com/blockstore-bitcoin/ <comment><USER2> Namecoin is around for years, and it's true key-value blockchain database, not DHT with values hashes stored in chain within financial transactions(why?). Another cryptocurrency, Nxt, has messaging ability giving possibility to write up to 1K chars within message, up to 10K in messages chain, enough for many kinds of documents.

<comment><USER3> Bitcoin technically has the capability to store at least 1K bytes per transaction using multi-sig outputs. 66 bytes per output * 15 possible outputs (for standard transactions) = 1K bytes. And you could do even more than that with non-standard transactions, making transactions with 3K bytes or more.

That said, you probably don't want to do this, because it contributes to blockchain bloat.

We made the decision of storing the data in a DHT because it's more efficient and you can store much more data than a few thousand bytes.

<comment><USER4> But BitCoin community is against abusing the financial block-chain for general purpose [0]. Reducing bloat is good, but why bloat it in first place?

[0] - [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_chain#Objective](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alternative_chain#Objective)

<comment><USER5> Good thing is that no one really controls block chain.

<comment><USER6> No single entity controls it, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. If someone is abusing the blockchain by bloating it with useless garbage, there will be consensus for fixing that. So don't build a business or technology around abusing Bitcoin's blockchain, because you will be left out.

<comment><USER7> Why not set clear rules? 1 byte of blockchain costs XXX millibitcoins. You like it — you use it. You don't like it — you don't use it. It's clear that if anyone can use blockchain as information storage, someone WILL do it, now or later. I think it's better to set the rules sooner than fix things later when they are out of control.

<comment><USER8> Don't bitcoin transaction fees provide a means to handle that without resort to fixed centralized policy?

<comment><USER6> No, because the miner who gets the fee isn't the only one who will have to work extra. All full nodes will have to relay and store that transaction. And there is no known way to pay full node operators in a way that can't be abused.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been working on a Namecoin light-resolving client lately, and this looks really intriguing. However, like with Namecoin (but more urgent because of the need for Bitcoin blocks), how "fast" can a node come online to this system (and how much data is needed to be downloaded)?

Are you aiming for the "light-resolver" marketplace, or is this solution really for people who are already running full Bitcoin nodes?

<comment><USER2> Interesting. When your client will be released?

<comment> ryan-c Not sure who huntaub is - there's an hl involved in Namecoin already that I know of but I don't think that huntaub is him.

Anyway, there's a somewhat detailed blog post that I helped write about light client design up on the Namecoin blog.

[http://blog.namecoin.org/post/109811339625/lightweight- resol...](http://blog.namecoin.org/post/109811339625/lightweight-resolvers)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seriously, this BUZZWORD meets BUZZWORD linkbait is getting old, especially the blockchain variety. Bitcoin is not the hammer to every nail. This is not a good idea and there is not even an attempt here to rationalize why this is a good idea.

<comment><USER11> But the cryptographic scarcity and consensus of Bitcoin may be just the thing to solve certain longstanding issues with DHTs, by increasing the cost of Sybil and DoS attacks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What incentive do blockstore nodes have to store data? Bittorrent nodes have the tit-for-tat mechanism for faster downloads. IPFS nodes get monetary compensation via 'filecoin' (in the works).

</comment><comment><USER13> Isn't Bitcoin already a key-value store? One private key can store millions of dollars of value.... :)

<comment><USER14> It can store an integer value. Storing longer data requires partitioning it across multiple transactions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> They're currently using Namecoin, and it works perfectly. The argument to use Bitcoin seems to be that it's sexier. Is it harder to get funding for Namecoin applications?

</comment><comment><USER16> Neat! So if I understand correctly, first you retrieve the "value" from the blockchain, which acts as the index into the DHT you're running separately?

Are you seeding the DHT with your own machines right now? At web scale, wouldn't the number of machines participating in the storage network (as opposed to the blockchain) need to be huge?

</comment><comment><USER17> Can anyone ELI5? Honestly, I'd settle for an ELI12 on this one.</comment>


What makes people cheat? [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html

<comment><USER2> Basic summary

* Most people cheat a little and more often compared to cheating a lot and less often.

* When reminded of morality, people cheat less.

* The greater the distance from cheating to reward the more likely people are to cheat.

<comment><USER3> Can we reduce piracy by having "morality reminders" in software? For example, every once in a while, you could ask the user whether they paid for the app. If they did not, you might tell them that piracy is not all that common and that most people are actually more honest than they are.

<comment><USER4> I was employed by a company that makes bible software, and they did exactly this. Very rarely, while the user was reading the bible using this software, it would pop up a dialog box reminding the user how wrong it is to copy software illegally. They actually got people calling them and apologizing, apparently in real agony over their sin. It must have seemed like a message from god.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's an outline of some of Dan Ariely's studies which I keep in Instapaper for when I need some extra fascinating topics to discuss with friends:

<http://bookoutlines.pbwiki.com/Predictably-Irrational>

</comment><comment><USER6> Wow, honestly I was just going to watch bits and pieces of this video to "check out" the topic. Instead I got sucked in pretty quickly with his stories/experiments/results.

It is fascinating that Dan Ariely studies society to the degree that he does. Kind of comforting.

saved... /social_hacking_201/</comment>


Html textbox based location filter - <AUTHOR> http://staticandvoid.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/a-better-way-to-enter-your-location-on-a-html-form/

<comment><USER2> Would be useful if it did a course grain geo-lookup on your IP to start it off in the right country.</comment>


Five Keys to Inner Strength from Five Years in Prison - <AUTHOR> https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/five-keys-inner-strength-five-years-prison#1559073007 <comment><USER2> I have little knowledge on what Dread Pirate Roberts actually did but I _cannot_ imagine spending the rest of my life in jail.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the main reasons why so many systems get hacked? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> The web was built on shaky foundations which cannot support the weight of its teeming millions.

For instance, a 51% (I cannot seem to find the study, perhaps someone else has it bookmarked) of compromises result from attacks on passwords; many of those passwords were simply guessed, because humans are neither skilled at producing random output nor remembering long, complex strings. Passwords are a poor solution, and it is the wildest dream of the information security industry to replace them, but it is a slow venture.

Security is also quite fickle. What is safe in one environment can be dangerous in another. tar has pretty solid defenses against directory traversal; you have to invoke it with options that explicitly allow files to be placed outside of your current directory, if that behavior is desired. Except wait, is there a symlink to / in that directory? Nevermind then, you can place files where you'd like. Raise your hand if you knew that.

</comment><comment><USER3> 1.Many companies don't have dedicated security resources. If the choice is between adding security or getting a new feature out, most companies will choose the new feature.

2\. Security is a moving target so even if an application was made with best security standards, if it's not being actively maintained, new security attacks will get through. New 0-days come out on a regular basis

3\. Security needs to be perfect or close to it. An attacker only needs to find one critical vulnerability or be able to tie together a handful of medium and lower-severity bugs

</comment><comment><USER4> Companies don't care about security and don't pay for security professionals.

Most big hacks could have either been prevented, or detected and limited, if the company had a proper security team with the authority to make the changes needed.

It will take legislation increasing the liability for companies before this gets fixed. The Internet of Things in particular is going to be a massive problem unless manufacturers are liable for the security of their products.

</comment><comment><USER5> Because they all use the same system, the same software.

This is the Monsanto problem: lack of genetic diversity.

<comment><USER2> This really isn't true in any common cases. For instance web frameworks are making SQLi and CSRF, and to a lesser extent XSS, less common. When everyone was rewriting the same code in their CGIs over and over again, many of them got it wrong and opened themselves up to these attacks. While it is true that standardizing on a small number of stacks can increase the effectiveness of 0day exploits, they are not responsible for the majority of break-ins.</comment></comment>


With Waymo Robotaxis, Customer Satisfaction Is Far from Guarantee - <AUTHOR> https://www.theinformation.com/articles/with-waymo-robotaxis-customer-satisfaction-is-far-from-guaranteed <comment><AUTHOR> The author has some of the highlights in a Twitter thread:

[https://twitter.com/amir/status/1109103146964381696](https://twitter.com/amir/status/1109103146964381696)</comment>


Lessons from Lars Rasmussen (with link to PDF) - <AUTHOR> http://gaborcselle.posterous.com/lessons-from-lars-rasmussen

<comment><AUTHOR> This a summary or transcript of the same event (the Warren Centre Innovation Lecture 2009) that this talk comes from: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=784074>

(that didn't get any votes or discussion when I posted it, but I still think it's worth watching or reading)</comment>


dot.dom: A feature-rich JavaScript template engine in 510 byes - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/wavesoft/dot-dom <comment><AUTHOR> I created a codepen where you can try it in action: [https://codepen.io/anon/pen/Kargex?editors=0010#0](https://codepen.io/anon/pen/Kargex?editors=0010#0)

</comment><comment><USER2> What is this syntax? const {clicks=0} = state;

<comment><AUTHOR> It's object deconstructuring, including a default value: [https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Referen...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Destructuring_assignment#Default_values_2)</comment></comment>


The definitive guide to disabling auto updates in WordPress 3.7 - <AUTHOR> http://make.wordpress.org/core/2013/10/25/the-definitive-guide-to-disabling-auto-updates-in-wordpress-3-7/

<comment><USER2> Here's a simple guide to disable the auto updates for WordPress 3.7.1 [http://bit.ly/18VvQPz](http://bit.ly/18VvQPz)</comment>


Show HN: roundabout.io - Jobs for devs by devs (London) - <AUTHOR>

Roundabout.io is a job list for startups/companies in London.
It isn't fancy, and it doesn't want to disrupt anything. It's a simple job list, with jobs from real startups/companies in London. It's invitation only, and it's moderated (only to avoid recruiters).
Feedback/comments/critics please!
http://roundabout.io <comment><USER2> One comment - I'm a Python dev _and_ cloud / systems infrastructure guy and I'd love to see jobs listed here. Can we broaden the term from "developers"?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. There are few systems infrastructure openings (see pusher for example). Those posts are welcome. I've only banned PR/Marketing/SEO from the list (and dozen of recruiters).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> <http://roundabout.io>

</comment><comment><USER4> How is it different from <http://workinstartups.com/> ?

</comment><comment><USER5> Could you share your tech details (stack, etc.)?

</comment><comment><USER6> at last! i hate recruiters!

</comment><comment><USER2> As a London geek: amen!

</comment><comment><USER7> Keep it up Roundabout! :)</comment>


A Mysterious Virus That Could Cause Obesity - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/2016/12/mysterious-virus-cause-obesity/ <comment><USER3> For the sake of discussion let's just say this virus makes people more prone to Obesity (certainly there is a lot of correlation)... It would be interesting to test if the damage and/or mechanism of this virus is a one time event or ongoing issue. What would happen if the people and/or chickens were given anti-viral meds... or took lots of vitamin C? Is the effect reversed? I have no idea what would happen but I'd be very interested to see. HIV patients given antiviral drugs sometimes experience lipodystrophy, which may somehow be related but that's just a wild guess.

Also, if I'm a ruthless chicken farmer wouldn't I want all my chickens to have this since it makes them heavier based on the same food intake?

Finally, what's going on with the people who have the antibody but haven't gained weight? What's different about their immune function, diet and/or lifestyle.

</comment><comment><USER4> This could also be a possible explanation for this: [http://www.livescience.com/10277-obesity-rise- animals.html](http://www.livescience.com/10277-obesity-rise-animals.html)

>Allison first stumbled across evidence of overweight animals while looking at data on marmosets from the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. The average weight of the monkeys had gone up over the decades, he noticed, and there seemed to be no plausible explanation. Allison queried primate center researcher Joseph Kemnitz as to what the cause might be: Were the marmosets from a different supplier? Had they been bred to be larger? The answers were "no" and "no."

>But the monkeys' diets had been changed over the years, a switch that was well-documented by the lab. So Allison tried running the numbers again, this time controlling for the diet change.

>"It only made the results stronger," he said. With the diet change, the animals should have lost weight, if anything.

<comment><USER5> > With the diet change, the animals should have lost weight, if anything.

I think the far more likely explanation is that they don't have a complete understanding of nutrition and their expectations about the diet change were wrong.

"But we put the marmosets on a No-Fat diet! They should be losing weight!"

<comment><USER6> Fad diets a la Taubes's poorly researched book are not very popular in lab settings, where calories in/out work tends to make quantification easier.

And given the low cost and overhead of fresher food, many research animals I've been involved with in a past life are pretty well compared to th humans overseeing them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone know whether as a matter of epidemiology, prevalence of this virus matches any part of an obesity map like this:

[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention- source/map-o...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/map- of-global-obesity-trends/)

My guess is this virus would be equally prevalent in North America and Western Europe and therefore as a matter of public health has no impact whatsoever on obesity.

Instead, in my reading in North America it is very difficult to eat in a healthy way and in my personal experience people are eager to find reasons other than the food supply, tastes, and behaviors.

If, on the other hand, this virus was prevalent in North America but very rare in Western Europe it would give some indication that perhaps it was worthy of attention. I would like to know if anyone has applied this differential.

<comment><USER8> There's actually a lot of data on this because adenoviruses are popular vaccine vectors of study right now, and the selected serotype must be one that as few people as possible have titers against, so researchers test random people for immunity.

For example, [0] (2010) reports that ~5% of people in the US were positive for Ad36, 35% Thailand, 52% South Africa, 91%(!) Malawi, 88% Cameroon, 48% Botswana, 43% Brazil. Malawi, Cameroon, Thailand and Botswana are solidly in the lower % obesity parts of the map that you linked to, while the US has the lowest antibody prevalence and highest obesity. They don't have Ad36 data for Europe unfortunately, but ...

Ad36 is not the only adipogenic (fat-causing) serotype. Ad5, 9, 31, 36 and 37 are all correlated or linked to being adipogenic [1]. The above paper [0] has numbers for Ad5 if you're interested: Europe was 39% negative, US 31%, the African countries 10-13%, Brazil 18%.

[0] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19925902](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19925902) [1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26352001](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26352001)

<comment><USER9> Depending on how it spreads, the virus could appear to be more common in populations where there has been historic starvation, because it seems like it would help you survive in those situations.

<comment><USER10> And the flip side of the coin is it would cause extreme obesity if by some economic miracle carb intake were totally unlimited and trended toward infinity. So it would eventually (on a very long scale) be bred out of economic areas of infinite carb availability. But eventually is far too long and too much human suffering, so temporarily we're very very fat.

As a hypothesis you could create a mathematical model where the faster a country industrializes or otherwise moves beyond bare subsistence and periodic famine, the harder the spike of obesity.

That's not a bad match to existing obesity maps, especially when the obesity map is corrected for country of origin not current geographic location.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A quick Google search brought up a paper from '97 on this topic: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9385623](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9385623) . Considering all the progress in genetic diagnostics I wonder why this topic has not gained more visibility. Is it due to correctness, statistical relevance for the general population (or population outside India) or slowness of knowledge dissemination in the medical community?

<comment><USER12> Without regarding any other research on this topic, this particular paper has some interesting notes that may be considered. The sample size (52) is somewhat small, and the humans in this sample are already obese. (Even) the N-AGPT group (no antibodies found) had a 30.7 BMI on average. This makes it difficult to conclude that the virus was the cause of obesity based on this paper alone, as the entire sample set was obese by definition (BMI >30). At the very best one could infer that the level of obesity was affected by the virus to some extent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> 'In God we trust, all others bring data.'

I love that quote, I can't remember seeing it before.

<comment><USER14> I've seen "in good we trust, all others pay cash" 30 years ago - <USER2> paraphrasing might be new but the basic saying isn't.

<comment> nommm-nommm In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash is the name of a novel that the movie A Christmas Story was based on. I don't believe that the novel invented that phrase though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _"There are three ways that we think Ad-36 makes people fatter: (1) It increases the uptake of glucose from the blood and converts it to fat; (2) it increases the creation of fat molecules through fatty acid synthase, an enzyme that creates fat; and (3) it enables the creation of more fat cells to hold all the fat by committing stem cells, which can turn into either bone or fat, into fat. So the fat cells that exist are getting bigger, and the body is creating more of them."_

I assume they mean three possible ways and that only one of them is probably happening or do they think all three are happening (required)? I doubt all three would be happening but I could be wrong.

Minor nitpick... Is the list ordered by some priority or is it arbitrary (and if arbitrary bullet points or hyphens would be nice instead of emphasizing the count).

<comment><USER16> > So the fat cells that exist are getting bigger, and the body is creating > more of them.

That summary at the end indicates that the researchers believe all 3 are happening.

<comment><USER15> Must be my mental holiday hangover but I didn't see that summary. I assume you mean the last sentence which I assumed was part of the third point: _So the fat cells that exist are getting bigger, and the body is creating more of them_. I suppose it does require 2 and 3 but does it require 1?

<comment><USER16> Yeah, I read it as minimally requiring 3), and either 1) or 2). So probably meant to include all three.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Curse you, interwebz, for triggering today's time suck by forcing me to surf deeper and deeper into PubMed. There is a bunch of new papers on AD-36 in just the last 8 weeks!

Anyway, here are some points of interest:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517116/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517116/) "Adenovirus 36 and Obesity: An Overview" \-- non-paywalled _full text_!

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25479564](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25479564) Adenovirus 36 _attenuates_ weight loss from exercise (!) but improves glycemic control by increasing mitochondrial activity in the liver.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27825952](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27825952) Adenovirus 36 antibody detection: Improving the standard serum neutralization assay. (The first assay I heard of, in 2001, cost about $500 then.)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24614097](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24614097) Proof-of-concept for a virus-induced obesity vaccine; vaccination against the obesity agent adenovirus 36

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27903748](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27903748) Hepatic Expression of Adenovirus 36 E4ORF1 Improves Glycemic Control and Promotes Glucose Metabolism via AKT Activation

</comment><comment><USER18> The truth is that obesity is complex and does not have a single risk factor. Lack of exercise, over-eating, depression, anxiety, gut bacteria, food chemicals (emulsifiers, asapartame etc.), refined grains and now this virus all are risk factors. They also interact with each other, making understanding complex (see [http://outcomereference.com/outcomes/3](http://outcomereference.com/outcomes/3) )

I am glad though they are researching this. If a vaccine could be found, it might decrease risk for a significant portion of the population. It does not negate the fact that dish portions in North America are much larger than they should be or that there is still too much processed food in the average american diet.

</comment><comment><USER19> So is there a virus out there that will do the opposite? Or maybe some gene modifications that could be made?

<comment><USER20> Maybe, here's one (with a few human subject): [http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v4/n10/full/tp201498a.html](http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v4/n10/full/tp201498a.html)

Here's another (in mice, not sure if they've tried people yet): [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22458428](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22458428)

The best thing people can do to change their gut flora is to cut back on sugar and increase dietary fibre.

<comment><USER6> Gut flora engineering is in fact a prominent line of research many groups are studying. The idea of tailoring the gut flora to reduce sugar uptakes is a very compelling one.

But it's also raising hard questions about why we think it's okay to sell so much sugar in foods...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Assuming they are trying to come up with a treatment based on this theory but that wasn't mentioned.

</comment><comment><USER22> tldr; a virus, Ad-36, may or may not cause obesity in humans.

> Though Dhurandhar and Atkinson have conducted several strong studies showing > the contribution of Ad-36 to fatness, skepticism remains. Atkinson says, "I > remember giving a talk at a conference where I presented 15 different > studies in which Ad-36 either caused or was correlated to fatness.

<comment><USER23> It's amusing how you quote only the first half of the paragraph and show by that what the second half of that very same paragraph states: People ignore the results, cause they don't fit their world view. For those who do not want to search for it, here's the full paragraph:

Though Dhurandhar and Atkinson have conducted several strong studies showing the contribution of Ad-36 to fatness, skepticism remains. Atkinson says, "I remember giving a talk at a conference where I presented 15 different studies in which Ad-36 either caused or was correlated to fatness. At the end of it, a good friend said to me, 'I just don't believe it.' He didn't give a reason; he just didn't believe it. People are really stuck on eating and exercise as the only contributors to fatness. But there is more to it."

\---

Edit: The next paragraph seems to be also very relevant, so again reprinted for those who do not want to click through:

Dhurandhar adds, "There's a difference between science and faith. What you believe belongs in faith and not in science. In science you have to go by data. I have faced people who are skeptical, but when I ask them why, they can't pinpoint a specific reason. Science is not about belief, it is about fact. There is a saying—'In God we trust, all others bring data.'"

<comment><USER22> > a good friend said to me

Why is a gut feeling relevant?

The anecdote you were compelled to add is journalistic flare and is immaterial to the conclusion drawn from actual studies, which I quoted originally.

> People ignore the results

The tldr was a reference to the studies and their results...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There's an endless search for blame, but it's almost always about food intake. Types of food, amounts of food, level of activity.

In modern society, people generally eat ridiculously calorie dense overprocessed garbage food that ravages insulin sensitivity and then they remain inactive for 23+ hours a day, barely shuffling from a car to a desk to a car to a couch. Unsurprisingly, they gain weight.

<comment><USER25> Congratulations on completely not understanding the entire issue of weight gain and obesity research that's been happening for the last 15 years. You win all the prizes.

<comment><USER26> We ban accounts for being uncivil like this (and below), so please don't do this again. Instead, please (re)-read the following, and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

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

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

<comment><USER25> I have read the guidelines but they don't cover this situation. There doesn't seem to be a way for me to respond (or, especially, not respond) other than like I did. How should I, assuming the following:

\-- The literal part of the comment was misinformation.

\-- The subtext of the message was flamebait, implying that people are fat simply because they cram too much food down their throats.

\-- No response would have just left the false information hanging thus validating the idea. Therefore no response was not a useful option. (Think anti-vaxers. Don't want to leave misinformation alone because it propagates.)

\-- A response that talked to the points made in the comment would have validated both the text and subtext even further.

My response pointing out I was aware of the misinformation and the subtext to let the poster know I wasn't going to validate it nor accept it seemed to be the appropriate solution.

What would have been the proper response that would nullify both the misinformation presented in the comment AS WELL AS the subtext?

<comment><USER26> Comments to HN need to be civil and substantive. The comment was neither. Here's how I look at it:

 _" Congratulations on completely not understanding"_ \--> snark and personal swipe—definitely uncivil.

 _" the entire issue of weight gain and obesity research that's been happening for the last 15 years"_ \--> ok, but just mentioning this isn't the same as saying anything substantive about it.

 _" You win all the prizes"_ \--> more snark and personal swipe

Civility is most important, so if you'd dropped the first and third bits and kept the second, we wouldn't have chided you. But if you wanted to post a good comment, it could have begun like this:

 _Obesity research for the last 15 years has shown there 's a lot more to this. For example,_ ... and then add something specific.

Consider how much more polite and specific KirinDave's reply was: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13267354](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13267354).

<comment><USER25> * > ...and then add something specific*

No, No, Absolutely not!

Don't you understand?! Anything specific would legitimizing the comment and subtext of the posters comment. This feeds into a false narrative that's been going on for years.

Anything without snark would have made the commentator's message seem legitimate! Only the snark shuts down false "scientific sounding" narrative and the fat shaming subtext.

KirinDave's reply, while well intentioned, still feeds into this narrative and allows the commenter to continue arguing that fat people just need to buckle down and stop shoveling food in order to balance calories.

We'll disagree on this. I think a lack of civility and the addition of snark is indeed called for in these types of comments. However, I understand your comments and realize that the mods make the community. Time for me to step away I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Article just shows that that the virus helps makes glucose easier and leads to more fat generation but the subject of article doesn't show clean eating and rigorous exercise, try as you may the body cannot make energy deposits (fat) out of thin air

<comment><USER15> No the article doesn't show that. It just shows there is a correlation of increased weight gain for both chickens and humans that come in contact with Ad-36 virus.

The mechanism to how the virus works is unclear as stated by the article (3 possible ways were alleged) as well as how so many do what you just did: assume that a virus has little role and that it is the patients fault:

 _Atkinson says, "I remember giving a talk at a conference where I presented 15 different studies in which Ad-36 either caused or was correlated to fatness. At the end of it, a good friend said to me, 'I just don't believe it.' He didn't give a reason; he just didn't believe it. People are really stuck on eating and exercise as the only contributors to fatness. But there is more to it."_

Did you actually read the article?

<comment><USER28> It's because we as a society treat obesity as immoral. You see this across any disorder where there is a sizable proportion of the population who think it's a "choice" rather than a disease that needs to be treated: depression, alcoholism, ADHD. People refuse to believe evidence in contradiction to their moral upbringing, rather than refine their morals.

<comment><USER29> Your cause and effect are backwards. People think that obesity, depression, alcoholism, ADHD are moral failings _because_ they think that they're under your conscious control and therefore not susceptible to biochemical intervention.

(In particular, to break the cycle we'd have to start by teaching people better biology — it's no good arguing with people's morals if you don't start from the same basis of facts as them.)

<comment><USER28> I think you're just misreading what I wrote. "People think it's a choice because they think it's immoral" is clearly an absurd parsing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> [removed my unsubstantiated complaints about the article]

<comment><USER31> Downright deceptive summary.

The article shares a boatload of interesting, relevant evidence of a correlation between certain viruses and fat.

Plus, the article actually expresses some doubt that the "hook" was the cause (it was not a hook, it was a rooster's talon)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Virus, really? Would it cause an epidemic in so-called third world?

Or is it a social virus, which has something to do with habits, social norms, junk food and lifestyle of over-consumption?

<comment><USER33> It did? The US may be the only first world country in the top 20 obese countries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I know that posting the original title is usually recommended, but shouldn't it be proper etiquette to remove sensationalism and click-baity messages on HN?

"The" is very misleading, so is "Cause Obesity".

Wouldn't "A Mysterious Virus That Could Interfere With Hunger" be much more accurate?

<comment><USER9> No. One virus made chickens subjected to the virus gain weight when compared to the control group, even though they were fed the same amount. That virus actually very directly causes obesity, and the claim is that there are similar viruses in humans, which we've found correlational data for, but we can't ethically test for it.

<comment><USER35> But you clearly cannot eat at a deficit and gain weight. A virus cannot directly make you gain mass.

<comment><USER36> Like others mentioned, your body can allocate energy in a variety of ways depending on hormones. If you're at a caloric deficit, your body can do things like: reduce heat production, reduce energy available for activities, reduce metabolism, reduce production of proteins for hair/fingernails, etc. There's no hard requirement it burns fat. That's what healthy bodies do of course, but metabolic syndrome is where that entire system doesn't work.

<comment><USER34> This is not a topic I'm an expert on, I was originally just annoyed with the way the article title was worded, but those claims seem pretty wild. Do you have anything to back those up?

> reduce heat production

Then what? It only takes a few hundred kcals of lesser heat production to reduce an adult body a few degrees, which would cause severe hypothermia.

> there's no hard requirement it burns fat

To what extent? Are you saying he would die of starvation before losing significant weight?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Primer on Information Theory and Privacy - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer-information-theory-and-privacy

<comment><USER2> Google Cache:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QzG7EHf...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QzG7EHfWjtkJ:www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer- information-theory-and-privacy+https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer- information-theory-and-privacy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

</comment><comment><USER3> What the eff ? :

"Safari can't open the page "[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer- information-the...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/01/primer-information- theory-and-privacy") because Safari can't establish a secure connection to the server "www.eff.org"."

<comment> mike-cardwell The site seems to be unresponsive atm: <http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/eff.org></comment></comment>


No More Plastic Legos? Company Searches for 'Sustainable' Material - <AUTHOR> http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/no-more-plastic-legos-company-searches-sustainable-material-n379976

<comment><USER2> Why would they need this? LEGOs last forever and can be resold and passed down through generations...

...Oh, they just want to lower product quality so people have to buy new LEGOs. :)</comment>


Gandhi's Secrets for Success - <AUTHOR> http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/article.cfm?AID=1710

<comment><USER2> Its always amazing to think that without mass media (and internet ofcourse), Gandhi and his team were able to connect to millions of diverse, educated and un-educated Indians in his cause - via letters, newspapers, meetings and gatherings.

Reinforces the fact that content is the king. No matter how many twitter badges and facebook buttons you put, if you have nothing important to add to what is already out there, it does not matter.

Do not agree with a few parts of the article though - there is a great amount literature on Gandhi and his team. And due to the fact that they spent a lot of time in jail, a lot of it is written by themselves.</comment>


iOS 4 Update Now Avaliable - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/iphone/softwareupdate/

<comment><USER2> Am I the only person who consistently sees headlines like this and thinks "I thought cisco was on version 15 or something, wtf?" only to be reminded of that other ios?

<comment><USER3> Amusingly, Cisco also had a trademark on the name iPhone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have heard rumors that iOS 4 is going to be a little pokey (as in slow pokey) on the iPhone 3G. Can anyone attest to that? Or refute that statement?

And does anyone know of a site showing how to downgrade if I decide it is too slow and I want to revert back to iPhone OS 3.1.3?

(Sorry to ask, but I figured this crowd would know the answers to both of my questions off the bat.)

<comment><USER5> It feels slower. It seems to be possible to downgrade from iOS 4:

[http://translate.google.de/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl...](http://translate.google.de/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apfeltalk.de%2Fforum%2Fanleitung- downgrade-ios-t313210.html&sl=de&tl=en)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you're a developer, the version released today is the same build as the one that has been available as the GM Seed since WWDC.

No need to upgrade.

Edit: apparently there are a couple differences. Game center isn't installed in the "retail" version, and there seems to be at least one fixed bug on non-3GS devices (see comment below). But the build is the same.

<comment><USER7> Nah, it's not the same. The "no-default-wallpapers-on-iPod-touches-3G"-bug is gone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> iPhone 3G owners (like myself) may want to check this <http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4204>

<comment><USER9> blarg - multi-tasking was the one update I wanted.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Direct download links: [http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/21/ios-4-now- available/comme...](http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/21/ios-4-now- available/comments/28781629/)

<comment><USER10> The other two/three missing links: [http://www.tuaw.com/2010/06/21/ios-4-is- now-live-soon-at-itu...](http://www.tuaw.com/2010/06/21/ios-4-is-now-live- soon-at-itunes/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Careful if you have a 3G -- twitter reports are saying the new OS is even slower than 3.x:

<http://twitter.com/#search?q=ios4%203g%20slow>

<comment><USER12> This is very strange - OS4 feels distinctly snappier on my 3GS.

<comment><USER13> General consensus seems to be 3GS is faster, 3G is slower.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It makes me really unhappy with Apple that the 1st generation iPhones and iPods, although having the same processor and memory as the 2nd generation ones, were made incompatible with this release.

It's not nice when a hardware maker dictates I should buy a new gizmo to enjoy the features practically identical gizmos have access to.

<comment><USER15> This is not true. The original iPhone and iPhone 3g only had 128mb of ram. The 3gs has 256mb.

[http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/17/iphone-4-confirmed-to- ha...](http://www.macrumors.com/2010/06/17/iphone-4-confirmed-to-have-512mb- of-ram-twice-the-ipad-and-3gs/)

<comment><USER16> He said 1st vs 2nd gen, not 3rd. The iPhone 3G gets this updates, and it has the same amount of ram as the first generation iPhone / iPod touch. Same CPU too.

There may be a technical reason, but that isn't it.

<comment><USER4> Maybe the lack of a GPS? Also, the 1st Gen iPhone has the lowest-rated battery life. Maybe those two factors led Apple to drop it. Maybe iOS 4.0 consumes more power, because of CPU utilization and the experience was unfavorable.

Then again, I bought my 3G a month before the 3GS came out. Verizon screwed up their deployment of towers in my area, at a time when I was job hunting and needed to make/take cell phone calls. So I had to switch (before the 3GS was release). But again, I've had my phone for less than a year, and it would suck to have it be obsoleted/EOL'd by Apple.

They probably don't WANT to keep it around, but for customers like me, who want their device supported for more than 13 months, they kept it.

<comment><USER14> The 2nd-gen iPod has no GPS either. That's no technical reason.

The only conceivable reason I find is the lack of bluetooth in the 1st-gen iPod. I can't believe this is a requirement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hmm. The iPod app has become very unstable for me. After downloading a podcast, it reliably crashes to the home screen when switching tabs.

I will say it _is_ crashing to a very nice looking home screen, in any case.

</comment><comment><USER18> Any word on iBooks? I'm not seeing it yet, only for the iPad.

<comment><USER19> <http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ibooks/id364709193?mt=8> should get you it now. Otherwise it may take some time to propagate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ive been using the final build for two weeks and been having a mail issue. I use the mail client to receive and send my Gmails. Many times the count number even after checking my mail remains and the count is wrong due me seeing in the mail client phantom emails with no content. Also it does not do search well returns no results at times but when I go to gmail on web search works fine. Hope they fix this a bit annoying.

<comment><USER21> Yeah I ran into the same issue, but it went away eventually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It seems many are having issues with gmail via exchange/activesync on iOS 4 eg <http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=932449>

[http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?tid=5e07d...](http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?tid=5e07dc8778026255&hl=en&start=80)

</comment><comment><USER23> Is there any chance to become available for the iPad too? I'm very happy of my iPad. I could not stand up from my bed this morning because of incredible back pain when I stand up. This lasted all day and will probably tomorrow too. I really enjoyed the iPad.

<comment><USER24> I believe the most precise date they've given for iOS 4 on iPad is "this Fall".

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Updated and it promptly lost ALL my contacts. Looks like some conflict with Google Sync which conveniently went offline afterward...

Teaches me well to install software on release day, next time let others test it first...

</comment><comment><USER26> Does anyone know if mobile Safari supports websockets yet?

<comment><USER27> If you have an iOS 4 iPhone could you do us a favour and access <http://vm.io/wm> and click "connect".

A near-real-time twitter feed should appear if WebSockets are supported (tested w Safari5 Desktop, Chrome 6).

Please share your results. Thanks!

<comment><USER28> Doesn't look like it does just yet (3GS, iOS 4 GM seed).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Does anybody have a list that shows which of the new features are available on the old 3G model? Is it just the multitasking and video that don't work?

<comment><USER30> I had been looking forward to orientation locking ([http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/04/iphone-os-4-beta-3-adds- orien...](http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/04/iphone-os-4-beta-3-adds-orientation- lock-ipod-controls-to-multi/)). Apparently they tied that feature to multitasking, so no orientation locking on 3G.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> It's taking forever to do the backup. I wonder if there's something wrong.

<comment><USER32> That was also the case with the GM release, so this may be normal.

<comment><USER31> How much time does it take?

<comment><USER32> I can't remember exactly, but the whole upgrade process (including backup) needed somewhere between half an hour and an hour (on my 3G).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Pandora is finally useful.

</comment><comment><USER34> Worth noting that Android 2.2 "released" a month ago still isn't officially available. Android fan here, by the way.

<comment><USER35> Kind of off-topic, but since it's a discussion about iOS and Android, you know what I think would be the best thing ever that could happen to the iPhone? If Apple would officially support dual-booting Android. Think about it, Apple could claim making the best device (in terms of display quality, hardware, manufacturing), but also would be the only phone on the market that lets you use the 2 best phone OS's at the same time. It would be kind of an advanced feature, so it wouldn't interfere with the 'user experience' of the normal consumer. Basically full of win for everybody.

Of course I can expect this to happen when hell freezes over I guess.

<comment><USER36> This is already pretty much possible. A jailbroken iPhone gives you the best of both worlds - and you don't even need to go through the hassle of dual booting. And it's actually ridiculously easy to get up and running.

I would argue that a jailbroken iPhone is currently the best device available. You get Apple's slick UI and ease of use alongside Android's restriction-free environment.

Interesting anecdote: I actually turned off multitasking with my jailbroken iPhone. Except for some very specific cases I think most people are going to find multitasking not a big deal at all.

<comment><USER35> Well I've seen Android booting on a 3GS but that's not very stable as of know, is it? If someone manages to get Froyo running flawless on an iPhone4 with all the hardware support (camera, dual-mic, gyro, compass etc.) I would probably get one (don't have much love for iOS).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> How come it says tethering is new? Tethering has been available on the 3GS for ages, I've used it numerous times.

<comment><USER38> Are you in Europe? In the US, AT&T forbids tethering. I think the new update allows you to tether but you have to pay for it.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Steve Jobs and scope creep, what can we learn from it? - <AUTHOR>

Here's an excerpt out Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs:<p>"Job's prickly behaviour was partly driven by his perfectionism and his impatience with those who made compromises in order to get a product out on time and on budget. 'He would not make trade-offs well,' said Atkinson. 'If someone didn't care to make their product perfect, they were a bozo.'"<p>A lot of blogs promote start ups/products to release quickly or iteratively in order to get feedback from customers.
Given the scope creep/perfection of Apple products (compared to the competition), Apple been able to stay ahead of the competition, while still releasing high quality and successful products.  What parallels can be applied to start ups? <comment><USER2> In addition to what others here have said, Apple historically has been a hardware and software shop. It takes a lot more time for them to piece things together than it would for a web or mobile startup, something Apple have very low presence in themselves. Aside from the OSes and mostly desktop software (which are giant tasks by nature), very few of what Apple does can be directly compared to how most tech startups operate these days.

</comment><comment><USER3> None or very few. Apple was not a startup when it was polishing products to perfection. For a startup, the first imperative should be to stay afloat, or to generate enough revenue to even begin thinking about features that may be "nice" sometime in the future.

</comment><comment><USER4> Startups generally don't have the luxury of cash reserves that Apple has. Apple can afford to be patient and release things when they are ready. Startups usually cannot.

<comment><USER5> Furthermore, no one is lining up outside your stores days in advance to get at your product/service. In all likelihood, a handful of people know and care about your startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Actually, Apple was a start up. Start ups don't all have to share the same strategy.</comment>


New York town grapples with cryptocurrency mining in shipping containers - <AUTHOR> http://northcountrynow.com/news/massena-delays-cryptocurrency-meeting-discuss-code-changes-0230298 <comment><USER2> Town deems land as surplus, takes it. Cryptominers approach to buy the parcel of land to build a mine. Town is delaying meeting so they can either 1. figure out how much they can milk from the Cryptominers. That or 2. if they want to disallow all mining in shipping containers. The article doesn't say. I'm betting on #1.</comment>


Coffee helps women cope with stressful meetings but not men  - <AUTHOR> http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com/2011/01/coffee-helps-women-cope-with-stressful.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+BpsResearchDigest+(BPS+Research+Digest)

<comment><USER2> Coffee doesn't help women cope with stressful men?</comment>


Afterglow – A live-coding lighting controller, built with Clojure and Overtone - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/brunchboy/afterglow <comment><USER3> The keywords Clojure/Overtone immediately caught my attention.

I'm particularly interested in combining music tempo/selection/etc and lighting/video/other presentations with feedback from the crowd - <USER2> temperature, ambient noise, range of movement - so that the music and surroundings are guided by the DJ, but based on the crowd. This is obviously not quite that, but gets a bit closer to it perhaps.

Also, that's an amazing README - was just hoping that the demo animations would be at the top so I'd immediately understand what this was for.

<comment><USER4> Thanks! I was floored when a colleague told me he saw Afterglow on the front page of HN this morning, I wasn't even aware it had been submitted. Your ideas of crowd feedback input are interesting. If you can get those encoded as MIDI or OSC somehow they could feed right into cue variables and effect parameters. As for ambient noise, one of the next big areas I want to explore is audio input and FFTs so that effects can respond to energy at different parts of the audio spectrum, and let you build sound-driven light shows—like some multi- head fixtures can do already, but spread spatially over your entire lighting rig, regardless of who made which piece.

I hope you can explore building some of those ideas and let me know how they go. I've found the framework so far to be very productive for integrating with new concepts—I added control of laser shows via Pangolin Beyond over UDP in a weekend. The learning curve is steep (less so if you know Clojure) but I'm happy to help and answer questions, and that's been improving the documentation too.

And thanks for your feedback about the README. I know it can use more work, it's hard to explain something this sprawling, but I keep improving it. I also want to shoot some video of the rich grid controller interface on the Push and Launchpad, how they tie to the web UI and other MIDI controllers, and how effects can react to pad pressure. But usually I'd rather code a new feature than take the time to do that… Which is why the only performance video I have up so far came from another user.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is pretty awesome, glad to see this come to HN. Look also at OLA [1] running underneath this project.

[1] [https://www.openlighting.org/](https://www.openlighting.org/)

<comment><USER4> Indeed, without OLA I would not have even been able to get started. And at their request, I pulled my Clojure interface for OLA into a separate library, ola-clojure [1] which Afterglow now uses, but which can be used by anyone else who wants to control lighting from Clojure at a lower level than Afterglow provides.

[1] [https://github.com/brunchboy/ola-clojure#ola- clojure](https://github.com/brunchboy/ola-clojure#ola-clojure)</comment></comment>