Pacific Fibre cable project sunk by US fears about Chinese espionage - <AUTHOR> http://www.interest.co.nz/business/60485/kiwi-pacific-fibre-cable-project-sunk-us-fears-about-chinese-investment-espionage-it- <comment><USER2> They have some right to block this if they feel there will be espionage, but should have to pay all cost differentials required to not use Chinese equipment and investment. (NSA is welcome to invest, since they'll be wiretapping it anyway, and if European intelligence wants to subsidize ALU to provide equipment, they can have their own monitoring.)

Realistically, any major fiber system is going to be monitored by virtually all intelligence agencies of major powers -- at minimum the US plus the endpoint nations, but I wouldn't be surprised if China, Russia, and maybe eventually other countries established submarine tap technology, either in the middle or at underwater branch/repeater units.

Angry and sad if this kills the project entirely -- I was really looking forward to Pacific Fibre :(

<comment><USER3> Can you tap fiber? I thought it was only possible to tap underwater cables that emit electromagnetic waves?

<comment><USER4> If you can get access to the cable then it is possible to splice into it using fairly standard techniques. Here [1] is an article from 10 years ago that looks at what was going on back then. There is speculation [2] that the US Navy has submarines equipped with 'splicing chambers' and cable laying equipment for this purpose.

[1] [http://www.zdnet.com/news/spy-agency-taps-into-undersea- cabl...](http://www.zdnet.com/news/spy-agency-taps-into-undersea-cable/115877) [2] <http://defensetech.org/2005/02/21/jimmy-carter-super-spy/>

<comment><USER5> Wouldn't someone notice if the cable went out of commission for 10 minutes while they spliced?

<comment><USER6> If your underwater fibre goes down for 10 minutes would international espionage really be the first thing that comes to mind?

<comment><USER7> If it comes back, then yes. I don't think fiber can have a "loose connection". It either works or it does not.

<comment><USER8> That may be true of the fiber, but it's not true of the network equipment driving the fiber. Like all computers, these occasionally need hardware or software upgrades too.

<comment><USER2> You could also arrange for your subsea tapping to be at the same time as an attack (IP or electrical) on the shore station, if you really want it to be difficult to detect. Or do a real cut in one place (with a trawler), while tapping at another place. And possibly cut 5 cables at the same time...

Anyone with real security requirements assumes long-haul cables and the general Internet are monitored. Point to point crypto on links is one of the easier problems to solve.

(the harder problem is doing something once you've tapped -- you either need to build a multi-wave analysis box and low-bitrate exfiltration solution over an IRU you've purchased, or run your own big cable to the tap location. Much easier to tap at the cable landing site.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's very sad to see Pacific Fibre shut down, because they had done an incredible amount of work to get the major corporate and political players on board. They were basically putting forward the only credible plan to lay a new cable, and it's now very unlikely that the Southern Cross cable will lose its absolute monopoly (it's essentially the only connection that New Zealand has to the outside world). It's a sad day for all technology-driven businesses that want to start (or remain) in the country.

</comment><comment><USER10> 400MM USD project, of which from the map about 15% of the distance is AU-NZ, 85% is NZ-US. Population of NZ is 4.4MM people, so less than 100 USD per person. Maybe a crowd sourcing effort could get some of the way there in exchange for bandwidth, or wide equity investment in a project company. Possibly some funding from users on the AU / US sides as well.

Also for the security concerns, can you do an external audit of the equipment? How much does it cost for somebody to strip down some chips and do the necessary reverse engineering? You would think this could be costed out as an additional cost due to the trust gap between the countries, then the security issue becomes one which can be resolved but at a cost that is potentially not competitive rather than just a political issue where one side appears not to have interest in free trade.

<comment><USER11> It's not a case of some chips though. To be sure, you would have to do it to every chip you used - and even then it'd be quite possible you've missed something.

Realistically this is about power rather than espionage. In a similar way to how the booming US displaced Britain of a lot of the major international cables around the turn of the 1900s, so China will want to try it.

<comment><USER10> Not sure what you mean about displacing Britain, but sounds interesting, can you elaborate?

I would have thought you could structure a deal to maintain power where necessary so that China can't come in and cut off your bandwidth, but maybe not.

Regarding the chips, I wouldn't have thought you need to be 100% sure, 99.9% might be good enough if you can get there by random sampling of significantly less chips than 100%. In any case, that cost analysis is what's required and that's the case e.g. Huawei are making here.

There are reasons to be careful in dealings with the Chinese, but it might be better for both sides if some level of transparency can be maintained.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If only there was some way to scramble data transmissions so that they would be unreadable to unauthorized adversaries...

<comment><USER12> I wonder: if accurately reported, does this objection signal that the USA thinks commercially-available encryption _isn't_ sufficient to prevent Chinese spying?

<comment><USER13> I think it may be more that commercially available encryption is not being used widely enough, or in a strong enough form. You can use 4096 bit RSA keys, but not many people do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> New Zealand is currently undergoing a nationwide rollout of residential fibre and ISPs are proudly promoting upcoming 'ultra-fast broadband' services. The unfortunate reality is however that without investment in more overseas bandwidth, the fibre is going to do little other than allow New Zealanders to watch HD re-runs of Shortland Street.

<comment><USER15> _the fibre is going to do little other than allow New Zealanders to watch HD re-runs of Shortland Street._

On the other hand, it only takes one or two New Zealanders to download content from foreign servers and mirror it, through bit torrent or other means, to everyone else in NZ.

<comment><USER16> Transfer caps are the norm here - we used to have zero-rated national traffic but that was phased out by all ISPs some time in the early 2000s.

You're absolutely right, if all our piracy at least was kept on-shore via DC++ or similar, it would likely cut demand for international bandwidth in half (the same goes for probably any country). As it stands there are substantial caching servers employed by every ISP for most high-traffic static content (Youtube, Steam, onshore broadcasting...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't understand this... Haven't we solved this problem (i.e cryptography?)

Monitoring equipment in the cables don't help you solve math problems any faster?

</comment><comment><USER18> It's fair enough, really: the US wanted exclusive spying rights.

</comment><comment><USER19> When will we finally get rid of the monopoly on bandwidth :(

I wish the government would just spend the money investing the difference. We could sell our assets for something useful!

</comment><comment><USER20> This is pretty sad news.

In the 90's, I heard that ihug internet used to get their bandwidth via a satellite to the USA.

Do options like this still exist? Would they even be feasible for todays bandwidth requirements?

It would be interesting to know what kind of options exist that could provide some much needed competition against the Southern Cross cable

<comment><USER21> Yes those options still exist, no they do not even come close to the bandwith or the pricing available on submarine cable systems.

Pricing on Southern Cross cable dropped massively a few years back when PIPE's PPC-1 went from Sydney to Guam. Ending the cosy duopoly between AJC1 and SSC. It was also one of the first cables out of Australia that wasn't owned partly by an incumbent telco (Telstra, Optus etc).

<comment><USER20> It seems like a smart idea for another player step in and maybe build another NZ-AUS only cable.

I must admit, the pacific was seemed hugely ambitious and I was wondering if something would come in and derail it. I never thought that espionage reasons would be one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is very disappointing.

[http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the- internaut/pacific-f...](http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the- internaut/pacific-fibre-plug-pulled-steven-joyce-sam-morgan-vikram-kumar/) \- has a good summary of coverage on this issue from Radio NZ.

</comment><comment><USER23> Did they even try to approach Google about this investment? Article mentioned a bunch of telecoms, but not Google, who is getting into fiber infrastructure in a big way and for whom $400m is chump change.

</comment><comment><USER24> that's right! Leave the spying on Americans for the US Govt..

</comment><comment><USER25> This sucks. The US tap cables all over the place but heaven forbid a new cable goes down with even a hint of Chinese involvement!

<comment><USER26> But surely there is a disctinction to be made between a liberal western democracy, and an oppressive one that doesn't respect human rights?

<comment><USER13> 'liberal western democracy'. That's actually quite funny.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, remember that thing with college students and tanks in Times Square?

Oh wait...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Things That Could Bring Down Amazon in Ecommerce - <AUTHOR> https://capitalandgrowth.org/questions/1275/what-could-bring-down-amazon-in-ecommerce.html <comment><USER2> Used to boycott Walmart and Microsoft, now boycotting Amazon and Bezos.</comment>


Show HN: Aurora Borealis Alerts with a Blinky Tape LED Strip - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Blinkinlabs/BlinkyTape_Python/blob/master/Aurora.py

<comment><AUTHOR> There's a full write up with some videos of this in action on my blog: [https://unop.uk/dev/led-strip-aurora-alerts/](https://unop.uk/dev/led-strip- aurora-alerts/)</comment>


A comparison of Javascript IDEs - <AUTHOR> http://www.nilzorblog.com/2013/12/a-comparison-of-javascript-ides.html

<comment><USER2> Anyone know how to replicate the sublime text CTRL+D multiple cursor thing in IntelliJ? I realize you can refactor variables/functions/classes but sometimes you need to CTRL+D text that isnt in those refactor groups</comment>


Think twice about that F-bomb in your next talk - <AUTHOR> http://wekeroad.com/2011/11/08/some-people-not-have-way <comment><USER2> Whether you like to admit it or not, swearing is and will be taken as a sign of disrespect or superiority. You (99% percent of us) would not drop the F-bomb in the presence of a new boss, for example, unless you had very good reason to think it was ok. It's similar to the fact that the boss teases subordinates, but the reverse is much rarer. Swearing is absolutely a status strategy, even when speaking to groups. For all the people who claim that swearing is essentially as innocuous as any other speech, and only prissy people think anything of it at all, it would be interesting to see their behavior around their professional or social superiors. There'll always be the people who pipe up to claim they treat everyone the same, and don't know what status is, but on the whole, I'm pretty sure the social implications and power dynamics of swearing show very strong patterns. Swear all you like (I do), but please don't pretend that profane language doesn't have different effects from normal language.

<comment><USER3> One nuance to this is that not all profanity is created equally. Essentially none of the people here that would drop the F-bomb in a presentation would utter the word "cunt" in any __remotely __professional environment. It connotes disrespect much more strongly and status perhaps very little, probably negatively.

<comment><USER4> I've found anecdotally that acceptance of that word in a professional environment is limited to the two tails of the income distribution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm with Stephen Fry on this one:

"There used to be mad, silly, prissy people who used to say swearing was a sign of a poor vocabulary. Such _utter_ nonsense."

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

<comment><USER6> Sure, but it _could_ be a sign of poor taste.

Not for the supposed vulgarity, but for the lack of use of more interesting words.

It's like the rampant over-use of the word "awesome". Fine word, nothing wrong with using it, but using it as the adjective for _everything_ indicates a lack of critical thinking skills.

<comment><USER7> If I have to deal with people using marketroid-style 'impact' when the correct word is 'affect', then others should just suck it up and not worry about 'fuck' being used as 'lack of verbiage'. 'Impact' in presentations needs to die (well, perhaps it can stay in physics or medicine presentations...)

<comment><USER8> How about the use of "impactful" ? (I swear by The Fates, the FSM's Noodly Appendage, and the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch that actual English speaking human beings used that word)

On the few occasions that I hear someone using the word "impactful", I'm tempted to ask "Do you mean 'effective'?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting to see the responses here.

I felt the point was spot on, which is that if you are going to use profanity in your presentation it is useful to 'think twice' which I read as, "Sit back and think about what you are trying to achieve by doing that." The OP gave some examples of reasons people might come up with; waking up the audience, setting the tone, Etc. In general there is a lot of difference between folks who do spend a bit of time thinking about their presentation and those who basically spin one off on the fly.

So if you're using profanity, and you think about _why_ you chose to use profanity, and you agree with that choice then by all means go with it. However if you find that you're trying to bracket some key message that you really want your audience to go home with, then perhaps swearing isn't necessary. It can also be a lot less effective than you think.

Saying "Social media is so _over_ " can be more effective at getting attention than "What the fuck is Social Media?" if the audience is invested in social media and have been defending it, as a concept/meme/market, with skeptical acquaintences.

<comment><USER10> I think one of the reasons that the author misses is that, as used by Zach Holman, 'fuck' levels the field between presenter and audience. "I'm not so important that I can't swear." It can be arrogant or overly formal to embrace how "gorgeous" your slides are, to emphasize how "gifted" you are at presenting. Instead, it emphasizes the fuckhead in all of us; the flaws, in order to say unequivocally "Yeah I'm an asshole sometimes, but here's what I think and I think it's worth hearing: I hope you do too."

<comment><USER9> Ok, I can see that, but I've seen folks who have tried and failed to make the audience think, that they themselves (the presenter) thought, of themselves (the presenter) as just another voice in the crowd.

In general if one is presenting and choosing to change one's vocabulary and speech habits in order to be less off putting to the audience, one risks coming off as insincere and condescending. Just like prose in the third person singular sounds presumptuous :-)

<comment><USER10> Presenting _is_ choosing to change one's vocabulary and speech habits, in order to bond with the audience. It's a matter of how good one is that determines whether a "fuck" is a fuck-up or a fuck-yes.

[eww, that parallelism felt forced, but I can't resist.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A. Why have we editorialized in the title? If the author thought "Fucking Your Way Out" was an appropriate title, it should be the title here on HN, should it not?

( _I_ don't think the title is appropriate or elegant, and maybe there's a meta-policy on HN to avoid putting "fuck" on the home page, which there are good reasons to avoid, having to do with brand and overzealous filtering software and whatnot. But I think it's kind of misleading, _especially_ for an essay like this one, to advertise one title and put another one on the essay itself!)

B. If there is one fucking thing that will cause me to reconsider my personal policy of avoiding the use of the word "fuck" online, especially in public writing, it's the phrase "F-bomb", which is just fucking awful.

If you're trying to avoid the word for the sake of young children, or for the sake of avoiding the emotional impact of a real "fuck", you obviously need to say "effing" (in speech) or "fscking" (in print) or any of the hundred thousand other classic euphemisms, because "F-bomb" is not a _substitute_ for "fuck". It just doesn't work, grammatically.

If, on the other hand, you're discussing the word from a literary standpoint, let me introduce you to a little concept called scare quotes: You can say "fuck" and not mean it! The safety is on!

I think my real problem with "F-bomb" may be that it's obviously a word for _conducting a meta-discussion of the word "fuck" in front of young children_. Perhaps my reaction would be much the same if you addressed me in baby talk and ended every sentence by patting me on the head. I'm not convinced that such a word needs to exist – If the audience doesn't understand "fuck" well enough to safely read it, why are you discussing the word? But when you absolutely need such a word, try the simple phrase "the F-word". You will sound like a schoolmarm, but then again it's not as if you were going to avoid that.

<comment><USER12> Presumably you've seen:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ>

(Louis CK, NSFW, totally worth it though)

<comment><USER11> I should take down my whole complaint and replace it with this link.

(Tragically, one can no longer assume that I've seen anything, so thanks for the link. Whatever happened to the version of me that actually watched TV?)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I really find that it's all dependent on the context.

The use of profanity in a presentation (or the use of humorous images) can set the tone of the talk, and in a larger context, sets the tone for the event.

People have stated that profanity isn't appropriate in a "professional" context, and I think I agree with that. I don't use profanity around my clients, I wouldn't put it in a report, and if I wouldn't use it in a talk internally at my company.

I work at a "professional" company.

As an artifact of the industry I work in, however, I see a fair number of talks that aren't supposed to be part of a "professional" context. They're supposed to be part of a social context. In infosec, there's a continuum of "professionalism" in events which ranges from a bunch of folks in a bar giving talks while drinking to a conference like RSA.

For what it's worth, I get way more out of events like the former (although certainly not because of people swearing).

I think if you're giving a presentation at an event, you need to know what the context of the event is, and your presentation should match it.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think the word "F-bomb" says a lot. To many, including I guess the OP, "fuck" is a "bomb", a word that rouses them from their slumber and causes them to say "OMG, did he just say 'fuck'". And while you still have this attitude, it's always going to be effective.

This "swearing isn't cool" attitude annoys me. It isn't cool, I agree. It's just neutral; for emphasis, like "very" or "awesome".

Get off your high horse. I'll say fuck if I please.

<comment> dorian-graph Why is it that if someone dislikes swearing in some regard they're considered to be on a high horse? It seems like having some view points simply isn't allowed . . which I usually find amusing as those who are against people with view points like this are usually in support of some modern, disruptive cause. ;)

It kind of reminds me of in high school where the kids who studying were told effectively to get off their high horses and the others would proudly proclaim they will not do their homework as they please.

<comment><USER7> Disliking another's way of speaking, regardless of profanity, is generally considered a high horse. Someone who doesn't like the way slumdwellers speak for example. Or someone who doesn't like the way folks trained with clear diction speak.

If you dislike the way a person communicates - not the content, but the method - then you're of the opinion there's a better way they should be talking. Hence: high horse.

<comment><USER15> I think those are different. I say "y'all" because I grew up in the southern US, and we recognize the need for a proper second-person plural here. Not everybody likes that word, but I'm not saying it in order to annoy them.

On the other hand, the very thing that DEFINES a swear word is that everyone knows that it's offensive. To choose a word BECAUSE it's offensive, then demand that people not be offended by it, is silly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Fuck" is a crutch.

Personally, I use it fairly often since I talk like a sailor, but I wouldn't use it in a professional presentation because there's better ways to communicate ideas, to evoke emotion, and to engage the audience. You might not know what those ideas are, but to be a better speaker, you need to find out.

A couple years ago, I was studying sketch comedy writing at Second City (essentially the center of comedy, and where SNL, Daily Show, etc recruit from). As part of our last class, we had to put on a sketch show, and our teacher/director told us that we were allowed to use "fuck" once in our show, and this was a sketch comedy show ... the reason being, we had to find the one place where it be most effective and use it there. Every other place where we wanted to use, we had to find a better way to communicate our ideas.

And you know, we were better for it.

Using it in the title defeats the entire purpose of the word since everybody is already paying attention to you. "Fuck" is a draw word ... You need to find a better way to make them laugh and interested.

<comment><USER17> By "crutch," I assume you mean that it can be worked around, but it's easier for most people to use it. The words "I", "that" and "the" are also crutches in this sense. Arbitrary limitations can help you develop your creativity, but you shouldn't then conclude that the things arbitrarily disallowed are somehow bad in and of themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I agree wholeheartedly.

As any good writing or speaking course will mention, swears are a literary crutch.

English especially is a wonderful langauge for wordplay. Like most langauges we have entire genres of humor based on how and which words are used.

Most of the swearing I see on the internet is simply a lazy stab at adding adjectives or getting a reaction. I feel the same way about the (over)use as John Hodgeman does about the word "meh."[1]

I think you gain an even greater disdain for swearing with the more critical literature you read. Reading Ebert's movie reviews or perhaps Gordon Ramsey's words, you realize they have a kind of eloquence that you don't often see in everyday speech. It is because they work at it, and refined writing is beautiful, but also because they take the time to avoid lazy crutches like swearing.

[1]: <http://waxy.org/2009/02/john_hodgman_on_meh/>

<comment><USER19> Which Gordon Ramsey? The chef? He swears incessantly.

<comment><USER20> I think he's referring to "eloquent swearing" - meaning that Ramsey doesn't just drop an F-bomb, he does it with style :). I've heard some great ones from him - once he described a burnt omelet (I think that's what it was) as "something that dropped out of my dog's f __ _ing a_ *hole". You can't help but laugh at that visual.

<comment><USER21> The exact argument against the use of profanity is that the omelet would be _better_ described as "something that dropped out of my dog's dirty backside" or something similar. That is, there is no "eloquent swearing" exception. At all. Full Stop.

Holding that profanity _can_ be used to positive effect in conveying passion and attitude is the precise argument _against_ the "profanity is a crutch" crowd.

<comment><USER20> Completely agree here. Ramsey is about shock value - something that's incredibly cliche. You have to be damn good to be able to pull it off. 99% of the wannabe-dhh's out there aren't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's exactly like stand-up comedy: some swear brilliantly, some do okay at it, and amateurs think that is what's funny.

And to paraphrase Isaac Asimov: Profanity is the first refuge of the insufficiently eloquent.

</comment><comment><USER23> <http://xkcd.com/137/>

<comment><USER24> See, the thing about this comic is using profanity as a way to demonstrate non-conformance. But this does not seem to be the case here. Nobody here thinks that Zach is going to lose his job due to language.

What I see is the opposite, actually. I started watching Zach's video on the Play app, in which he drops a "play some fucking music" in there. I couldn't help but think "Aww, he thinks it's cute to talk like a brogrammer".

Put that together with the slide in his talk, and I can't stop having the impression that his use of language is more of an attempt to "sound cool" to his peers than to he actually "being himself".

It's the same as teenagers smoking due to peer-pressure.

<comment><USER25> > See, the thing about this comic is using profanity as a way to demonstrate > non-conformance.

FYI, It's this type of trite language that sets off my pretentious cunt alarm. I stopped reading after this sentence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The difference many people are missing is between moral offense and aesthetic offense. The author is claiming the latter; it's a critique of bad style. You can disbelieve the claim or disagree with it, but it's not prima facie nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER27> It would be difficult for me to disagree more strongly with this article. To say that Zach is somehow lazy because he used a swear word is missing the forest for the trees. I have probably attended more than 50 conferences in the last few years and of the hundreds of talks I've seen, Zach obsesses over his presentations more than nearly anyone I've ever known.

The talk you pulled a single slide from, completely out of context, was simple, beautiful and useful - Readme Driven Development and TomDoc have been incredibly useful concepts driving productive development at GitHub and the talk was very effective in getting across what they are and why they are helpful.

The vast majority of conference talks are pretty awful. Often they are a handful of slides with little design or thought put into them, consisting of a generic Keynote or Powerpoint theme with a dozen slides with 6 bullet points on each one with the speaker simply reading them off. Or impossible to read code or any of another hundred horrible presentation mistakes. Many of them are boring, hard to follow and unfocused.

Zach, on the other hand, puts hours, often days, of work into each of his talks, focusing on making them simple, entertaining and useful to the audience. He uses jokes, like this, to keep the audience awake and paying attention - which given the way most conferences are set up, is necessary to keep people from checking their email during your talk. The amount of focus and attention that speakers like Zach pay to delivering their message is so much more respectful to the audience and the organizers than something mind- bogglingly unimportant like not swearing. Zach understands the majority of his audience, respects their time and tries to make his time in front of them worth it, and improves developers lives by effectively delivering information to them. This is more than I can say for more than half the speakers I've ever seen. To focus on Zach as a target because of using language that all of us use every fucking day is not only useless and mean, but harmful to the already difficult environment that is the technical conference world today.

Instead of the handful of people that might have been made slightly uncomfortable with language they probably use all the time, how about a blog post on the thousands of developers who are now more effective because of the actual content of his talks?

</comment><comment> dorian-graph Agree wholeheartedly with this post Conery.

In the English language we have so many beautiful words we can use and most people seem to have limited vocabulary. Why should we be content with lower, near meaningless words when we can learn news words and use those effectively?

.. and what if people don't understand them? Use words appropriately with who you're talking to and consider what Handel said after the first performance of Messiah: "My lord, I should be sorry if I only entertained them; I wish to make them better."

</comment><comment><USER28> I can think of two well-known things I've seen in the blogosphere that use cursing heavily. The first is Mike Monteiro's "Fuck You, Pay Me." <http://vimeo.com/22053820?utm_source=swissmiss> I think in this situation the usage is appropriate and he used repetition of this phrase effectively throughout his presentation. The second isn't a presentation, it's an advice- giving website "Good Fucking Design Advice." <http://www.goodfuckingdesignadvice.com/> To me it comes off as tactless and pretentious. I get that it's playing to the "frustrated designer" but this type repetitive usage is the type that washes out the meaning of a curse.

Personally I love cursing when it's appropriate. I go to a school where students and their teachers will often curse in front of eachother. It's never in aggression or anything, but the other day I came into class feeling ill and I was about to tell my teacher she asked, "feel like shit?" She knew a bug had been going around.

In my opinion, curses are indicative of someone's character. That's basically it. Use it in your presentation if you want to come off as a light-hearted extrovert not to be taken too seriously.

</comment><comment><USER29> "Fuck" isn't cute or particularly clever, but like "bullshit" it does make for more effective communication in appropriate contexts.

Many years ago, one of mentors offered "You can't fuck scared and you can't sell broke," as the first rule of sales...and I only needed to hear it once for it to stick.

And at times the word "fuck" is a necessary component of the concept, e.g. nothing adequately describes fuck you money except "fuck you money."

</comment><comment> buff-a This person believes that you should follow his rules.

This person believes that even if you clearly don't follow his rules, he will evaluate your content based on how much your behavior would indicate that you value you them if you did follow his rules. o_O

This person values presentation over content.

There are plenty of people on earth like this. Its good to know they exist. But lets not spend any more time discussing them.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think HN's title here is more accurate than the actual article. Do not expunge "fuck", or any other word, from your vocabulary just because it can be misused. I can misuse many words just as easily as peppering "fuck" everywhere but he doesn't seem to be arguing to get rid of anything but swears.

If you're preparing a talk like that, you should be thinking twice about everything you prepare, though, not just "F-bombs". Did you put that "fuck" there to sound edgy? Unless you're presenting to a group of 12-year-olds nobody's going to think you're edgy.

On the other hand, I love to use "fuck" to establish tone. A few judicious and well-placed "fuck"s and you can easily establish that you're just like everyone else in the room and you're essentially just chatting rather than talking down at them or anything like that. Sure, if you banned yourself from using this word you could establish the same tone via a variety of methods but, sometimes, you just need to fucking cut through the bullshit and stop pussy-footing around.

<comment><USER7> There's also the aspect that, used well, using 'fuck' in a presentation helps to imply "I'm not selling you something here, making it sweeter than it actually is. I'm telling it like it is"

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Swearing is the spice of language, some people like more spice, some people like less, some like their food bland. But there is a point at which the food just tastes salty, and most importantly you need a blend of spice to make things really shine, you can't just use salt and MSG.

Swearing is an art, not a science.

</comment><comment><USER32> If, as the author clearly states, its okay to use the word "fuck" in presentations then what's his problem with using it for dramatic effect in the lead? Where's a better opportunity?

The word "Fuck" is a dramatic word - it inherently conveys passion, I'd argue that Zach's use was the most appropriate use of the term (if you're going to use it at all).

I'd find this post more compelling if he just said "using profanity is the easy way out" instead of consistently trying to say "some profanity is okay, just not this usage".

</comment><comment><USER33> Fuck you! ... Pay me.

<http://weblog.muledesign.com/2011/04/creative_mornings.php>

It's the one time I've seen it work well.

</comment><comment><USER34> Frankly, this is one of the things that really turned me off to Adeo Ressi, in his talks, presentations and classes he constantly drops F-bombs -- I assume to make him seem more hip/cool/grounded/whatever -- but it comes across as arrogant. However when I expressed this previously people disagreed... whatever. I dont think it makes you look cool.

I wish I could take a pill and have that word expunged from my own vocabulary though... I say it far too much in my private moments!

</comment><comment><USER35> This is one of those issues in which I clearly see generational differences. I am pushing 40, and my opinions are at odds with most of the commenters.

In your personal language, your choice to curse or not is none of my business. But in the business world, it is unprofessional.

I won't think you are a bad person for cursing. But it will lose my respect. I will most likely stop taking you seriously. And the likelihood of my choosing to do business with you in the future is minimal.

</comment><comment><USER36> > I'm not offended at the presence of the F-bomb, I'm offended that someone > with his talent takes the easy way out.

I think the conversation would be more productive if we considered the language used when people respond to those who use profanity. Typically we're talking about being "offended" or "taken aback" (Scott Hanselman's post). From my trusty Apple dictionary I find that offense means "annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself or one's standards or principles".

So essentially this is a whole argument about annoyance caused by a choice of language. When it's said "I'm offended that someone with his talent takes the easy way out." it's further revealed that the annoyance is not coming from any high moral ground but is purely stylistic. All the talk about "do(ing) better" or cursing being a "crutch" is a red herring.

Further, this offense is caused by "disregard for oneself or _one's standards or principles_ ". It's rather arrogant to think that anyone should have any regard for your standards standards or principles at all. It's time to grow up and realize that getting upset by the particular style of another's words is a waste of your time and attention.

</comment><comment><USER37> Could someone explain to me how I could convey not only the content of my message but also the tone of my feelings more concisely than:

What the fuck is all this fuss about?

</comment><comment><USER38> The real question here isn't whether the F-bomb is appropriate. Rather, it's how to balance entertainment and content in a technical presentation.

Zach's talk is memorable. People will remember him and talk to him afterward for sure. People will also think he's a strong presenter -- half of his jokes fell flat, but his confidence was impressive.

I do improv for fun at a "family" theatre in Hollywood. In my experience, skilled comedians use the "F-bomb" to convey character and to show they're "one of the guys," not as a shock word.

In this talk, rather than using shock words, Zach is filtering his content through a character -- an informal "brogrammer" who loves alcohol and swears on occasion. This is his ploy to entertain the audience while talking about a superficially-boring subject -- documentation.

Does it work? Well, perhaps Zach doesn't come off as an all-knowing expert. But, he does deliver a few messages in an entertaining fashion.

After all, would you rather have _everyone_ agree you gave a "good" talk (and then forget about it, since there were so many "good" ones), or be a bit controversial and have a few people really take notice and love your point of view?

<comment><USER39> Yep, sure, lots of people will remember Zach and talk about him. It's too bad that they won't remember what he was talking _about_. When the presentation drowns out the content - assuming there was any content to begin with - that's a problem.

<comment><USER38> True, a lot of people get wrapped up in the presentation and are sparse on content, as I believe happened here.

However, the goal of these is often not to go in depth but to give your audience main points to remember. So, there is plenty of room to give an entertaining and contentful talk.

I am disappointed when people try to play it safe by avoiding humor or by hiding their personality. Making yourself relatable and engaging is important too!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I think it's a question of appropriateness. Cursing gets peoples' attention and stirs up powerful feelings and attitudes. Use a curse word at just the right time, and you turn a mediocre presentation into a good one. Or it can turn a good presentation into a fucking great presentation.

On the other hand, if you use profanity too fucking gratuitously, it will turn your presentation into a fucking piece of shit. Motherfuckers who _aren't_ offended by it will learn to fucking tune that shit out and will be mildly pissed at you. The fucking douchebags that _are_ offended by it will be, well, fucking offended by that shit.

In the case that the article mentions, my biggest reaction is a simple "Meh". I suppose a case could be made that it's a cheap shot aimed at getting peoples' attention, but ultimately, I don't feel like it was overdone. Nor do I feel it really helped a whole lot. I suppose if I were the presenter, I'd cut the "fuck" out for the simple reason that its use doesn't help my presentation out enough to justify having to hear people complain about it.

</comment><comment><USER41> > I'm not offended at the presence of the F-bomb, I'm offended that someone > with his talent takes the easy way out.

This is silly. It's like arguing "I have no problem with X, but ..." followed by things that you would never say if you in fact had no problem with X.

If the author had never been acculturated/trained to think that swearing was wrong, he wouldn't have written this post.

I.e. where are the blog posts on how you should think twice about using the word "goldfish" in a presentation? There aren't any because people really, truly, have no problem with the word "goldfish", unlike the word "fuck".

EDIT> If you want to argue against swearing in presentations, then do so. Don't pretend that you have no problem with swearing -- it just makes you look dishonest.

EDIT2> "acculturated" doesn't mean what I thought it meant. Substitute "trained"

</comment><comment><USER42> Hello All

If you want students in compulsory education (up to 16 in the UK) and in 'post compulsory College' (up to 18 here in the UK) to read any of your stuff at college, then you need to watch the language. Walled garden type systems block profanities.

Fsck could be used and would add a certain cachet...

</comment><comment><USER43> Not sure about this one - I don't mind swearing if it's really rare and if someone wants to put something shocking on their slide because that's their style of bringing attention to some issues, then I'm completely fine with it. I know some people who happen to sometimes swear in emails, but knowing they'd do the same thing in person, it seems perfectly normal.

What really annoys me is "f^^k", "s^^t" and other "words" like that. If you don't normally swear, don't write it. If showing "fuck" on your slide makes you cringe, just skip it. It's neither natural nor needed. It's not censored - everyone knows exactly what it was supposed to say, but they also know you didn't actually want to write it.

<comment><USER44> See, that I don't understand at all. To me "f __k" and "fuck" are equivalent. If you want to use a word you should stand by it – it's also typographically much nicer. "F __k" is a lazy cop-out. It doesn't soften the blow, it only looks ugly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Two thoughts:

"Fuck" seems like an excellent filter. It lets people who are more concerned with appearances and rules rather than content know that what I'm saying isn't something for them. That's ok, not everyone has to like what I say; the quicker they come to know that probably the better for both parties. The kind of person who could become offended by a simple word choice is just so different from me that I doubt we'd ever get along.

My second thought is that it also just seems like a more powerful form of the word "very" or "really" to me; only more fun. Like those words, if you overuse them it will get annoying, but otherwise I just don't fucking care.

</comment><comment><USER46> It's a title slide, there isn't really space for actual clever word play. You can use some other single word for emphasis, you can make "important" even bigger, or I guess use some exclamation points, but those are kind of invisible. Or you can do with out any emphasis and just go with a affectless title slide. Whatever you go with, using 'fucking' only looks like a grammatical trick (or more of a trick than using 'extremely' say) if you do still cringe at the word or are still a little opposed to it.

</comment><comment><USER47> I don't like swearing in presentations when the presenter is attempting to appear cooler then the audience they are addressing. These presentations tend to also be full of goofy pictures and lots of hyperbole and really turn me off.

On the other hand, when I'm sitting through a very technical talk and the engineer giving the presentation warns the audience about "wading through a lot of shit to get this feature working" I tend to take them seriously on that point.

</comment><comment> buff-a _Swearing says more about your abilities as a speaker then it does your content... that's the problem._

Oh, god, can we please stop repeating this fucking shite.

 _If you don't care enough to flex the language at your disposal, why should I give a fuck about what you have to say?_

If your ability to perform rational thought is so bad that it thinks that sentence us logically sound, then you probably aren't going to be able to comprehend or use what I have to say.

</comment><comment><USER48> "...Swearing says more about your abilities as a speaker then it does your content... that's the problem."

Good thing he is talking about speaking instead of writing.

EDIT: That is in the opening paragraph, and this is in the closing paragraph:

"...The minute you drop that F-bomb, that's when you lose me. If you don't care enough to flex the language at your disposal, why should I give a fuck about what you have to say?"

Irony? :-) (replace say with write)

</comment><comment><USER49> Like most of life: Time and Place.

My advice: Do what you want, but recognize you're subject to the rules of the above, and interpretation can vary.

</comment><comment><USER50> I feel that most occurrences of the word 'fuck' are unimaginative and fail to utilise the full expressive potential of swearing. There are countless interesting words and phrases that convey the same emotion as the F-bomb, and I would rather see more of those. I will not say that it's always inappropriate to use 'fuck' but it's certainly overused.

</comment><comment><USER51> IMHO, it's more funny to hide F-bomb in your presentation, so only a few people will notice it :) See, for instance, Schwarzenegger's F-bomb hidden in Veto letter - [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/schwarzenegger-f- bo...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/schwarzenegger-f-bomb- in_n_340579.html) .

</comment><comment><USER52> I have a tendency to swear like a sailor. I try to keep it "pg 13-ish" when posting online. It's against the rules to use profanity at work, so I work really hard at behaving there. But I still tend to swear too much around co- workers when not actually _at_ work. SIGH. It annoys me. I think it makes a very bad impression.

</comment><comment><USER53> Come on, now. Would this "Artur on SSDs" video be nearly as memorable (and therefore efficacious) without all the swearing?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7PJ1oeEyGg>

</comment><comment><USER54> This puts into words why I found the use of "shit" in <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3209500> jarring despite not really being offended.

</comment><comment><USER55> The irony of writing long blog posts and HN comments about "unnecessary cursing" in a presentation (thereby linking to and discussing the presentation 10x more) is almost too much for me to bear.

</comment><comment><USER56> Swearing should be a strength of your vocabulary and not a weakness. Occasionally it can be used to great effect, but hopefully is not relied on in general conversation.

</comment><comment><USER57> I'm not offended by vulgarity in presentations, it's just a personal turn-off. It puts little "this person has an attitude problem" ideas in my head.

</comment><comment> ryan-allen The last person I saw swearing in a tech presentation also happens to own a one-off Pagani Zhonda. I'm sure he's doing something right!

</comment><comment><USER58> If you're writing about people's skills as communicators, learn the difference between the words then and than.

</comment><comment><USER59> For some reason I thought the "F-bomb" was going to be Facebook. Oh silly me.

</comment><comment><USER60> Never trust a man that doesn't swear.

Dad 1987

</comment><comment><USER61> kids these days with their swearing and rock and roll...get off my lawn _old man voice_

</comment><comment><USER62> consider the troll nature of Rob's composition

<comment><USER20> What would that be exactly? Could I apply the same thing to this comment?

<comment><USER62> Not all uses of the word troll are necessarily derogatory. In its high form, a troll (the article, not the person) should evoke and provoke discussion. The article is well written using the very vernacular of the subject piece. The article and its subject article form a nice meta-circular structure. Something, i'm sure can be appreciated on HN :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> ... What? If I use "fuck", I have a strong personality and want to sell you on my superiority? What an absurd premise.

</comment><comment><USER64> The article says that swearing is the easy way out, and that intelligent, talented people can do better. I'd go further and say that swearing nothing more than cheap fucking theatrics, and gimmicks.

</comment><comment><USER65> Before anyone points out that fuck is the most versatile word, I'd like to point out that 'blog' can serve all the same functions.

<comment><USER66> s/f.ck/smurf/g

It illustrates the level of writing skill/vocabulary/maturity quite well.

<comment><USER67> "Documentation is smurfing important."

Interesting. You might want to modify your regex so it won't tell people to smurf their hard drive. They might take that wrongly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I don't understand why so many fucks have to fucking bitch so much about other people's fucking lexicon. Fuckers who get offended by fucking words are really sad. Well, mostly fucking immature. However, it is fucking sad when some fuckers can't bring proper attention to the fucking subject matter in a cogent fucking manner. Life is all about fucking balance.</comment>


Akihito and the Sorrows of Japan: The Anxious Emperor - <AUTHOR> https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v42/n06/richard-lloyd-parry/akihito-and-the-sorrows-of-japan <comment><USER2> Akihito is a great man. He was born in a very powerful position and yet worked hard to make sure Japan and the world ended up a better place because of him.

<comment><USER3> It's hard to see beyond the image that has been carefully constructed (as all public figures require), but in the 12 years since moving to Japan I have done nothing but gain more and more respect for the man. He's had to deal with exceptionally difficult politics and he largely seems to have been successful all the while not seeming to be intruding on the democratically elected government. I hope his legacy will continue, but I suspect he will be an incredibly hard act to follow.</comment></comment>


From China, With Love - <AUTHOR> http://devttys0.com/2013/10/from-china-with-love/ <comment><USER2> As a perhaps unnecessary (for HN) reminder: This is a primary reason that "anti-circumvention" legislation, that "outlaws" e.g. decompiling and/or reverse engineering (1) machine code in proprietary devices (in this case, for research purposes), needs to be permanently put down.

Without examination, existing circumstances repeatedly demonstrate that we more than a bit likely to be subjected to hidden weaknesses and exploitations we are uninformed about and have not agreed to.

\----

(1) decompilation/reversing, as in the referenced, recent D-Link case, or perhaps even simple extraction of a compressed fileset

<comment><USER3> The DMCA Anti-circumvention clause explicitly makes an exception for "security testing" and "encryption research", amongst others. Search for those terms on this page:

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201)

I am no law scholar, but I get the impression that, in general, reverse engineering and research are exempt from most forms of IP protection (which is what the DMCA is).

<comment><USER4> Except that as far as I know you can't share most of what you learned with anyone else.

<comment><USER3> As far as the text of the DMCA goes, the only restrictions on sharing what you learned are if that sharing could facilitate copyright infringement rather than advance knowledge or security. I can see how that could be a bit hazy in some cases, but certainly should not apply to cases like this one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Strangely, the whole GoAhead code including the backdoor seems to be on Github: [https://github.com/socoola/yhrouter/blob/master/user/goahead...](https://github.com/socoola/yhrouter/blob/master/user/goahead/src/goahead.c#L969)

<comment><USER6> I filed an issue, see what happens. Unclear if this code is a legit copy...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This was interesting but the title "From China, With Love" seems descriptively weak and unnecessarily confrontational, as if somehow the Chinese government were to blame for one router manufacturers backdoor.

<comment><USER8> * Chinese intervention and even ownership of its local industries is a well-known phenomenon. You can't on the one hand believe that NSA --- err, Clyde Frog --- is strongarming US Internet companies into complying with court orders while at the same time seriously suggesting that Chinese manufacturers are independent of the Chinese state.

* How much do we know about Shenzhen Tenda? All I could find in 5 minutes or so of research is that it's the result of the efforts of D.P. Quan to provide networking and enrich the lives of all people through, IIRC, excellence.

* China has a very well-established, well-attributed track record of attacking the tech infrastructure of the rest of the world, and does so through proxy organizations.

* A very blatant backdoor with minimal tech support value is something that is more valuable to a state than to a random tech company.

<comment><USER9> US gadgets have backdoor - blame the bad programmers

Chinese gadgets have backdoor - evil Communist country making a grand scheme.

<comment><USER10> Ever since the Snowden situation began every security issue related to the US has invited comments suggesting the NSA might be involved. I don't see your point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "One teensy-weensy, but ever so crucial little tiny detail is that the backdoor only listens on the LAN, thus it is not exploitable from the WAN"

mh, so not really phoning home is it ? I thought this was pretty interesting until i read that..thats a pretty minimal security risk.

<comment><USER8> It also means that any bit of unprivileged clientside malware an attacker can get onto your machine might be able to use the bug as a pivot, first to your whole network, then potentially back to a more privileged place on your machine.

<comment><USER11> True, however we are talking about a $30 consumer router. Most people using something like that have alot of other security flaws to worry about (but usually dont) and arent that interesting as an attack target to hackers anyway.

Anyone with a "whole network" who remotely knows what hes doing wont be using a router like that one.

<comment><USER12> _Anyone with a "whole network" who remotely knows what hes doing wont be using a router like that_

Which router would he use?

<comment><USER11> Probably a enterprise grade router if its a bigger/corporate network or something halfway decent that supports OpenWRT

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is why I've replaced all my home network gear's firmware with [http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index](http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index)

<comment><USER14> I've found openwrt to be quite superior, especially config and packet management.

<comment><USER15> Also, if you're looking for open-source firmware for 3G/4G USB-enabled routers, then check out ROOter. ROOter is based on OpenWRT, and supports most of the popular routers and 3G/4G USB dongles.

[http://ofmodemsandmen.com/supported.html](http://ofmodemsandmen.com/supported.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How many other embedded systems on our networks have these backdoors? As the number of important devices (Nest, I'm looking at you) on my home network increases, so does my risk profile.

<comment><USER17> I used to do R&D for the US defense industry. Three years back I was catching up with a friend from that industry and asked what they're up to these days. Her answer? Hacking into connected appliances (furnace, video games, espresso machines, etc) with the goal of turning them into listening devices, making them explode or catch fire, or otherwise malfunction.

If you can dream up a sick way to mess with people, odds are there is a government somewhere funding research into it.

<comment><USER18> You call it a sick way to mess with people, governments will refer to it as cyberwarfare. I'd say that the US / Israel's attacks on the Iranian uranium enrichment facilities (Stuxnet) was just a tame and reserved trial, and that most modern countries have plans in place that will unleash a devastating cyberattack on loads of internet-connected devices.

I'd say routers are particularly vulnerable, if only because they are smart (Linux) machines, but in most cases users will never check them for anything odd going on. As this article shows, it takes but a simple command for them to execute stuff, and given how Linux is a general purpose OS, they could install and perform any kind of task - like install backdoors and whatnot on the PC's behind the routers, which can then in turn be disabled or used in a massive botnet to perform a DDoS or other attacks on other systems.

Just think about the implications of there being a backdoor in every internet- connected computer system, or the consequences of all-out cyberwar.

<comment><USER19> A senior VP of a prominent credit card processing company in the US told me that he fields an average of 200,000 attacks originating from Chinese and Iranian IP addresses every day. Governments having backdoors everywhere would be terrifying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Off-topic: does anyone know what software was used to make graphics like [http://www.devttys0.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/10/recvfrom....](http://www.devttys0.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/10/recvfrom.png) ?

<comment><USER21> It's a feature in IDA.

<comment><USER8> You can get even better graphics out of Hopper.app, which is a great little program. Hopper will even do a decent first-pass conversion from assembly back to C.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yet IDA Pro is much more mature and feature-rich, and it has become an industry standard. I wish there was an open-source alternative.

<comment><USER8> We use both, but when I can get away with using Hopper, I try to, because the UI is nicer, the program feels faster, and the Python extension interface is built right in.

Disassemblers are a good target for open source development. They're commercially valuable only for a very small subset of users, and the market leader is terribly mispriced relative to the value it provides, which drags the whole commercial market for them down.

<comment> X-Istence Not only are they terribly mis-priced, it is very difficult for people that are not in the security industry but have an interest in reverse engineering to get access to the software because the author won't sell to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Perhaps it's time for an open-source router. Does one exist? I would support a crowd-funded ADSL router.

<comment><USER23> There's DD-WRT, and of course a ton of free routing software. But I think you mean open source hardware, which would be very difficult, considering the need for high-performing ethernet hardware and the like.

<comment><USER24> Have you looked into Snabb Switch? ( [https://github.com/SnabbCo/snabbswitch/wiki](https://github.com/SnabbCo/snabbswitch/wiki) )

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In china, I think TP-link is much better than D-link and Tenda, Tenda is just rubbish, it's not easy to use, TP-link is much easier to use, but I am not sure does it have backdoor.

<comment><USER9> search for backdoor keyword

userRpmNatDebugRpm26525557

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Hey, I guess PRISM belongs to China, too!</comment>