Huffington Post ends commenter anonymity - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/22/huffington-post-ariannahuffington

<comment><USER2> >I just came from London where there are rape and death threats

This is wrong on so many levels. Yes, anonymity gives people a wider range of expression and some use it badly. Did she stop to consider those that use it for good? Say goodbye to comments such as "I work for the government and I see so much waste everyday" or "I'm secretly gay, and here are some reasons why I don't feel safe coming out". We might as well ban driving because there was a horrific accident in London last month.

<comment><USER3> That anonymity also allows for people to make direct threats against other non-anonymous posters and gives leverage to people who doxx others. Its up to each site to weigh the pros and cons and it is totally legitimate to say that downside outweights the upside.

<comment><USER4> Anonymous threats doesn't harm anyone.

<comment><USER5> In the general case, this is true, but in the specific case, not so much.

While a threat doesn't actually do any harm to a person, it does ruin discourse.

Reason being that some people are more sensitive than others, and will not post things that they feel are controversial or personal since they feel they'll be challenged or threatened for it. Even if those threats are completely bunk and amount to nothing but trolling, the chilling effect on discourse is still there.

<comment><USER6> If discourse is the problem, what's wrong with some sort of HN/Slashdot/Reddit-like crowd sourced moderation?

That's the way to solve that issue.

<comment><USER5> Once the post is there, the damage is done. It'll stay in its position for a while before being modded to invisibility. If it makes our hypothetical user think twice before posting, game's already over.

And if using a threaded system like HN,/.,Reddit, etc, if the threatening post is the only response to a comment, downmodding it doesn't accomplish anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _I feel that freedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what they say and not hiding behind anonymity._

Because freedom of expression works _so_ well when you make reprisals easier?

</comment><comment><USER8> Well, this happened in the biggest media company in Sweden (Aftonbladet) back in 2011 when they required everyone to login and authorize Facebook access to comment.

The editor made the choice after the attack in Norway[1] and brought up that the norwegians handled the situation very good with more openness, more conversion and more democracy. He goes on saying that the hate is too much for normal people and if you want to say what you think, you should stand for what you think.

Blogpost in swedish from the editor: [http://bloggar.aftonbladet.se/janhelin/2011/08/sta-for- vad-d...](http://bloggar.aftonbladet.se/janhelin/2011/08/sta-for-vad-du- tycker-pa-aftonbladet-1/)

Same blogpost translated to english: [http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbloggar.aftonbladet.se%2Fjanhelin%2F2011%2F08%2Fsta- for-vad-du-tycker-pa-aftonbladet-1%2F&act=url)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks)

<comment><USER9> I have a fake Facebook account for this exact reason.

In this world of big, perpetually stored data, I don't know why anyone would be interested in having their casual conversations tied to their real identity. I'm sure if you really wanted to, you could figure out who I am; I won't deny that. But I'm not going to hand it to you. So many things said, so easy to take them out of context.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think, for the most part, general news sites shouldn't have comment sections.

<comment><USER11> I feel the opposite. Nowadays, I can't stand reading general news without a comments section. I think it's one of the areas where "crowd intelligence" actually works amazingly well: in uncovering fallacies, subtle agendas, propaganda, misrepresentation of facts, etc. I feel I might be polluting my mind when I read a piece of general news that is not being subject to commenting.

<comment><USER12> It all depends on how things are run. On some sites the comments are written by people who are borderline illiterate. On others the comments are insightful.

I am somewhat hesitant to say it, but a good policy might be to charge people a small fee (like $5/yr) to post comments. Much of the trolling and illiterate nonsense would be would be filtered by such a system, at least from what I have seen in places like Metafilter or the WELL.

Edit: or we could do things mailing list / Usenet style and just have people run spam filters on their own. Of course, some NGs are overrun with noise that makes them almost unreadable. Also, most computer users are not sophisticated enough to actually set up a killfile or spam filter on their own.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure having people pay would give good results, in the french newspaper "lemonde.fr" for instance you have to have to be a subscriber to be able to comment. There are less comments than on other big new sites, but I can't say the quality is significantly higher. Better grammar, maybe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog"

Wouldn't it be better if we kept it this way? I agree -- the comments section of some websites is really bad, but anonymity is important. Look at Reddit -- the trolls don't even get a chance because the crowd sourcing works so well that relevant material is pushed to the top, while the hate comments are way at the bottom.

Like Schneier said [1], "Beware the Four Horsemen of the Information Apocalypse: terrorists, drug dealers, kidnappers, and child pornographers. Seems like you can scare any public into allowing the government to do anything with those four." Coming soon to the list, internet trolls?

[1] - [http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/computer_crime...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/computer_crime_1.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> Their site, and therefore they can do anything they want with it, but real name policies are like a bur under my saddle. I would never comment on a site that required me to give my identity beyond the ones I expose by choice (and all the ones I expose without, IP etc).

</comment><comment><USER16> I really hope that we can figure out this whole "people being absolutely terrible on the internet" thing.

A lot of people say that it's just because this is how people really are, but I'm not convinced. I know for a fact that I'm a lot ruder on the internet than I'd ever want to be in real life, regardless of consequences. I've found that "real name" policies help (not necessarily forcing a real name, but at least trying to encourage it, while still allowing for pseudo-anonymity).

The stuff that's happened in the gaming community is disconcerting too

<comment><USER17> It's not just the internet.

What's going to happen on HuffPo when the nasty comments don't go away? Use the State to bludgeon the offensive speakers? Where will that end?

<comment><USER16> Historically you lose your right to free speech when you start making death threats.

If you've read the news recently you'd see a lot of very violent stuff being thrown at people. Internet or not, people are not allowed to say they are going to rape your corpse and harass you over and over. So "using the State to bludgeon the offensive speakers" seems like a reasonable reaction to these people.

Some of the stuff (that bomb threat twitter thing) is a bit much, but there's a limit to freedom of speech.

<comment><USER12> There are other ways:

* Spam filters -- if we can spot viagra ads, we can spot rape threats. A paid moderator can review posts that are flagged by the filter but which are not actually threatening.

* Charging people for the privilege to post comments on the site. You are free to make commentary on your blog if you do not want to pay, and a small fee (e.g. $5/yr) creates just enough of a speedbump to keep most trolls off the site. This can also help cover the cost of a paid moderator.

* Upvote/downvote systems, though these tend to descend into mob rule / groupthink / downvote-because-I-disagree.

<comment><USER16> ok I don't think that the gov't should be moderating huffpo comments. Upvote/downvote stuff might be good at least for trolling stuff (but it too can be abused in the right situations).

However, actions are actions. Just because it's easier to do something on the internet doesn't make it more legal.

Obviously the seriousness of it all has to be judged , but if you're harrassing someone constantly on the internet (even if it's "just" making a bunch of online accounts and commenting extremely viley everywhere), you do not have my sympathy.

If I were putting hateful messages into your (snail) mail box every day and sending your friends photoshopped pictures of you in compromising situations, would I be pardoned? Doing on the internet shouldn't either

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How much effort will they put into assuring you will sign up with your real identity? Any info on that?

<comment><USER19> It's nonsense. What can she possibly do? Make you create an account with the government, verify your SSN & Tax ID and then you post comments with your legal name? By that point someone else will just make a mirror of Huffpost; scraping the content and allowing anonymous comments... or even more likely people just won't bother with HuffPost anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > She said: "Trolls are just getting more and more aggressive and uglier and I > just came from London where there are rape and death threats."

What?

<comment><USER21> Man held after banknote campaigner receives rape threats on Twitter

Police say man arrested on suspicion of harassment offences, after shadow minister criticises Twitter's response to abuse

[http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/28/man- arrested-...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/28/man-arrested- rape-threats-twitter)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm sure that this change will mean that HuffPo's comment section will live up to the high quality established by articles such as "Lady Gaga nude video" and "Amanda Bynes tweets something crazy."

</comment><comment><USER23> Huh. Centinel, Federal Farmer, Brutus, and Cato[1] would all have issues with this policy.

[http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm](http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm)

</comment><comment><USER19> _> "I feel that freedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what they say and not hiding behind anonymity."_

Only a privileged person can think like this. So what happens to all the people who live in places where sharing a conflicting opinion can get them in trouble? I say that as if USA is not of those places, but lately....

<comment><USER12> Even a privileged person should not think like that. When you are looking for a job, do you want a controversial political opinion from 10 years ago to get in the way? Ward Churchill learned this lesson the hard way:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill_September_11_at...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill_September_11_attacks_essay_controversy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The trolls are winning.</comment>


By 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the sea - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/599759/by-2050-there-will-be-more-plastic-than-fish-in-the-sea <comment><USER2> Oh my God ! :(</comment>


Redis + RDBMS use cases? - <AUTHOR>

I have seen a few instances of projects establishing or moving to a Redis + PostgreSQL combination, instead of a pure NoSQL platform.<p>I am curious to know from those who have implemented this, what was the idea behind the design, and what problems did such an implementation solve? <comment><USER2> To me the question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of NoSQL. For the most part, NoSQL isn't a categoric replacement for relational databases but rather an additional set of potential tools. For a lot of system, you'll only need a single solution, and a given NoSQL product might provide a number of benefits over relational databases. There are, of course, benefits to a single solution, like simplicity.

However, there are solutions that relational databases tend to be better suited for than most NoSQL solutions. Compared to a number (but certainly not all), NoSQL solution, RDBMS tend to provide better ACID guarantees. They were also meant to work well with data on disk, versus only data in RAM. They are obviously suited for highly structured data. Finally, the biggest advantage in my mind is reporting. You can argue that map reduce is more powerful and, properly implemented, scales infinitely better, but for people not dealing through terabytes of data a day, relational databases are better for reporting simply because they have better tooling. Not only is the tooling support (like excel) better, it isn't uncommon to find a business analyst tweaking a GROUP BY or WHERE clause to achieve what the want.

Why pick redis + something? Two common cases: large data, ad-hoc querying. If you are doing a time series, you'll often see people store just the ID in a redis sorted set, get the range of Ids they want, then go to something else and pull out the full records based on those ids. This can be a must-implement solution if you are dealing with large, of numerous records. As for ad-hoc queries, if you are familiar with Redis, this should be obvious. Maintaining a lot of secondary indexes manually can be a pain.

<comment><AUTHOR> My question stems from the concept that NoSQL is not a categoric replacement for the RDBMS. In some cases a MongoDB, CouchDB, Cassandra, etc. could serve as an application's only data store. In most of the scenarios I deal with, the ad-hoc capabilities presented by an SQL interface to common reporting or analytic tools are very important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> StackOverflow uses a Redis + MSSQL combo.

[http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/69164/does-stack- ove...](http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/69164/does-stack-overflow-use- caching-and-if-so-how/69172#69172)</comment>


Ask HN: Do you watch cartoons? - <AUTHOR>

Ive been a hacker for quite some time now, I find myself watching cartoons occasionally when I get my hands on television. I find them a very effective way to relieve the mental pressure. The absurd activities take my mind off of the issues at hand for a little while, which to me is a great mental relief.
To my surprise, a lot of hackers around me also watch cartoons. Compared to non-hackers, most of whom consider cartoons a childish activity and waste of time.
So here is my question, do you still watch cartoons? <comment><USER2> Hey, that's very interesting, because I currently am working on a startup idea of my own, and today just about 2 hrs back, I wanted to enter our database with some random content (this is to do with multimedia stuff). And I chose cartoons. Not sure why! I find them creative, amusing, absurd, logic(&physics)-defying, and of course funny! I could have chosen anything though ... I think there is a synergy between hackers, sci-fi and cartoons!

</comment><comment><USER3> yes, although not necessarily for the same reason your stating. cartoons are a medium i enjoy in many different forms because what is depicted isn't restricted by what can or can't be done on film.

there are some great serious movies/shows in cartoon form that couldn't be done on film due to the restrictions of reality/cgi/etc..

and for that exact same reason, there are some great humor-based cartoons that are funny because of the absurdity introduced by removing the limitations of reality.

</comment><comment><USER4> I love cartoons. Specially bugs bunny, X-men & Avatar. People say it's childish watching cartoons but not all the cartoons are childish.

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't watch old-school cartoons much, but I do enjoy shows like Family Guy, which has quite a bit of absurdity itself.

</comment><comment><USER6> I seem to have become an evangelist for Robot Chicken!

</comment><comment><USER7> Cartoons are the only thing respectable on TV.

</comment><comment><USER8> some non-comedy cartoons that I have enjoyed for their escapism: afro samurai & death note.

</comment><comment><USER9> Heck yeah. South Park, Family Guy, The Simpsons, The Ghost in the Shell, Sailor Moon.</comment>


The Problem with the Stock Market - <AUTHOR> http://blogmaverick.com/2009/05/06/the-problem-with-the-stock-market/ <comment><USER2> Summary of the article: What caused the last two bubbles? Financial engineers and also some long term investors (people buying houses). I believe the government should therefore penalize financial engineers vs investors.

Not really worth reading...

</comment><comment><USER3> Cuban leaves out the role of monetary inflation. From 2003-2007, MZM was growing at ~8% a year, corporate revenues at around ~10% a year, bank credit expanding at ~11% a year, gold at 23% a year. Meanwhile corporate bonds were only paying about 6%, and CD's were around 4%. In other words, if you can just buy something that does not dilute (like gold or stocks) you make a return of ~8% a year in dollars.

When monetary inflation is running higher than the interest rate on bonds, the Nash equilibrium for stock prices is infinity. More precisely, the Nash equilibrium is for there to be a currency run. It can be somewhat rational to buy stocks even at obscenely low dividend yields, because it is better than holding on to a rapidly depreciating dollar. But if the currency run does not materialize, you are out a lot of dough. We are all victims of an out of control monetary system.

<comment><USER4> How is the Nash equilibrium for stock prices infinity when inflation is greater than the interest rate on bonds?

I can see that being the case when the universe of goods consists solely of stocks and bonds (i.e., no other products are available for purchase) and you expect the current situation (interest rates, inflation, etc) to persist into perpetuity.

But, if either of those conditions is untrue I don't see how infinite price is the equilibrium (which isn't to say it isn't just that I don't see how it is).

Mind explaining?

Also, the fact that some prices were increasing doesn't necessarily mean there is inflation. Rising prices could be just as easily explained by real increases in real total wealth while the quantities of some good remained fixed, or at least grew slower than the overall economies rate of growth.

<comment><USER3> _How is the Nash equilibrium for stock prices infinity when inflation is greater than the interest rate on bonds?_

The Nash equilibrium is for the market to select some good other than Federal Reserve Notes to use as a store of value. People can just keep borrowing money, investing it in something like gold, and the price will continue to appreciate in terms of dollars. As everyone start to do that their is a full fledged currency run. The price of everything in dollars heads towards infinity as the dollar becomes worthless. (perhaps worthless is an overstatement as the government might still create some demand by taxing in dollars. But effectively worthless compared to its value now).

This article illustrates more clearly how the scenario can play out: <http://www.safehaven.com/article-5205.htm> (note that the author's prediction did not happen, because monetary inflation came to an abrupt stop in 2008. Not coincidentally, the stock market proceeded to crash).

 _Rising prices could be just as easily explained by real increases in real total wealth while the quantities of some good remained fixed, or at least grew slower than the overall economies rate of growth._

The price of good X is simply the ratio at which market actors are willing to exchange X for dollars. For the price to rise, one of four things must happen:

\- The supply of X can be decreasing

\- The supply of dollars can be increasing

\- Demand for X can be increasing

\- Demand for dollars can be decreasing

Changes in the supply and demand for dollars we call "monetary inflation".

So if you say the rising prices are some other cause, it can either be the supply of X is decreasing or the demand for X is increasing. Now we know that the supply of gold or real estate is not decreasing. So that leaves us with the possibility that demand is increasing. But the price increase is happening in every category of good - gold, oil, farm land, downtown skyscrapers, copper, stocks, etc. When demand for every good denominated is increasing, that's basically synonymous with saying that demand for dollars is falling.

For further evidence, note that MZM and total credit creation were also rising at ~10% a year. These are both a more direct measure of monetary inflation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's not a long entry and his tax proposals aimed at producing desired results make for a worthwhile read.

He bolded the main takeaway:

"The beautiful thing about this country is that we like to work hard, and we like to take chances. Unfortunately, over the last 15 years, the incentives have been to take chances as a financial engineer rather than as an entrepreneur. We give far more money to people who play games with financial instruments than we give to people who come up with ideas for the next big thing. That needs to change if we want to remain a leader in this world."

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure how investing is taxed right now. On the assumption that the author is calling for an existing tax to be taken away from a certain kind of investment:

Under the current tax structure, the author believes that investors are encouraged to engage is overly risky behavior. It is not obvious that reducing taxes on a subset of financial instruments will make the rest of the instruments less appealing. The flexibility of the taxed instruments is not necessarily made up for by an increase in the rewards of the untaxed instruments. Massively increasing taxes on the instruments you dislike seems like a more straightforward incentive system.

(I'm not convinced that choice of instrument divides investors into "good" and "bad" categories, but the author's proposed solution seemed like an easier target.)</comment>


Being Stupid And Litigious Is No Way To Go Through Life - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/11/being-stupid-and-litigious-is-no-way-to-go-through-life/ <comment><USER2> I talked to that guy, he wants to sue:

Google, Conde Naste, The Poster of the image, and Tech Crunch.

I think he might win!</comment>


Ternary Computers: The Setun and the Setun 70 (2006) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://dl.ifip.org/db/conf/ifip9/sorucom2006/BrusentsovA06.pdf <comment><USER2> One thing that worth noting: the character set was odd, and called "RUSCII"</comment>


How Google Backs Up the Internet [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNliOm9NtCM

<comment><USER2> This would be a lot better if the slides were given separately from the video. Anyone have a link to them?

<comment><USER3> I'd be interested also. I did some searches but came up empty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Meh, video. Any TL;DW link?</comment>


Interesting – Improved UX/UI of Google on GitHub – Check the Site - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bisratyalew/Google <comment><USER2> You can present your own project ([https://bisratyalew.github.io/Google/](https://bisratyalew.github.io/Google/)) in the Show HN category, see [https://news.ycombinator.com/show](https://news.ycombinator.com/show)

Leave out the 'Interesting' and 'Check the Site' in the title. By submitting it's implied that you think it's important/news-worthy.

        input = input.replace(" ", "+");
        input = input.replace("=", "%3D");
        input = input.replace("&", "%26");

Using URI encoding methods is better than maintaining a short list of replacements here, see [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/encodeURIComponent)</comment>


Ask HN: How do YC rejects connect? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
Congrats to the few who made it to YC Summer 2012.
My application did not make it to YC, but I am still working on my idea. I am interested in connecting with those who did not make it to YC, but are still working on their idea.
Any pointers appreciated.
Thanks, Bharad [star at bharad dot net] <comment><USER2> This is probably your best bet <https://twitter.com/#!/nReduce>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, looks like a great resource!</comment></comment>


TOR Made for USG Open Source Spying Says Maker - <AUTHOR> http://cryptome.org/0003/tor-spy.htm

<comment><USER2> Nothing to see here, move along.

Summary: tor was written to help e.g. informants securely get information back to the US government; but an anonymity network that _only_ carries spies' information back to the US government is not terribly useful, so they opened it up. Yes, tor was made for spying, but not (necessarily) for spying on tor users.

<comment><USER3> Preposterous. No one buys it, and you shouldn't be selling it.

<comment><USER2> Why not post your reasons for disagreeing with me? You may convince someone, or at least have a fruitful discussion.

<comment><USER4> Why respond to the troll? There's certainly no point to that!

"Preposterous" sums it up nicely. If you don't think it's preposterous, then you would not be in agreement.

What else needs to be said? You either believe the hogwash or you don't. No need to get into facts, those are obvious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The title might be misleading here: tl;dr: TOR was made by spies to use to transmit information securely.

When I read the title, it implied to me that it was designed by spies as a trojan to leak information back to them. That would have made a much more sensational story, which is why I jumped to that conclusion, I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER6> This open source:

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Open_source_i...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Open_source_intelligence)

Not this open source:

<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Open_source>

</comment><comment><USER7> As they say, "anonymity loves company"

</comment><comment><USER8> Ironically, WikiLeaks got its start spying on a Tor exit node.</comment>


Hacker News Facebook Group - <AUTHOR> http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_114326995294656 <comment><USER2> #startups irc.freenode.net

<comment><USER3> This should be posted as a separate article. I've browsed HN for some time without knowing about this IRC channel.

<comment><USER2> I should add it to the FAQ too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just a couple of quick tips and things to point out after spending a few minutes chatting with everyone in the group.

At this time you either can't (or it's not apparent how to) opt out of chat for a given group. You have to sign out of chat all-together.

You can opt out of email notifcations by clicking the "Edit Notifcations" on the top right of the Group window.

If you comment on a post, you're automatically subscribed to that post and begin recieving notifcations when others comment. You can also opt out of these on a per-post basis by clicking the "unsubscribe" link under the title of each post.

Hope that helps alleviate some of the noise so the group stays useful to everyone.

<comment><USER5> If you do not turn off the notifications, your inbox will look like mine: <http://i.imgur.com/RKQ9y.png>

I was away from my computer for the past couple hours and came back to 154+ emails. Time to "Edit Notifications"...

<comment><USER6> YES! Holy farking email spam! I just got back from a lunch meetup. Someone else had added me and I had hundreds of emails.

In a related note, Facebook needs to let you edit notifications via the mobile interface. I looked, and couldn't figure it out. I actually ended up pulling out my Mifi at the end of the meetup and logging on to Facebook with my laptop just so I could opt out. Wow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Am I the only person who would rather this was a private group? (so non- members can't see posts). Even if Jason just approved every join request I think this would be better.

Example: your employer doesn't need to know that you are talking to an interesting startup.

<comment><USER8> Although it's easier said than done, IMO your employer/coworkers really shouldn't be friends with you on Facebook. That's what LinkedIn is for. I know you can't control their friend requests and it would be odd to ignore them. Thankfully people are starting to figure this out in my experience; at my current job none of my coworkers (other than actual friends) have sent me friend requests on Facebook.

With that said, the same reasoning also makes me question the value of a HN Facebook group.

<comment><USER9> Thanks. You've successfully talked me out of this, for today anyway.

People often ask how other social networks will ever compete with Facebook. To me that's like asking how your house's living room will ever compete with the theater at your local high school.

<comment><USER10> Do you mind if I quote that line about the living room and the theater (with or without attribution, as you wish) elsewhere in cyberspace?

<comment><USER9> You may take it wherever it wants to go. And, though I'd potentially be entertained if you attributed it, that is not required.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am reluctant to join because I'm in one group with around 40 people and it makes my whole Facebook experience a bacon+toast hell, especially with the group chat - can anyone figure out how to opt out of chat for a group without going offline of chat altogether?

<comment><USER12> bacon+toast hell?

<comment><USER13> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacn>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toast_%28computing%29>

I first learned the names for these familiar social app behaviors from Adam Rifkin's "Pandas and Lobsters" essay:

[http://ifindkarma.posterous.com/pandas-and-lobsters-why- goog...](http://ifindkarma.posterous.com/pandas-and-lobsters-why-google- cannot-build-s)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What will happen in this group? How will it be useful? (Not meant in a snarky way, I am curious.)

<comment><USER15> Think of these new groups as listservs. A way to stay in touch with your group or team.

Listservs + Yammer actually with the group chat feature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Won't use. My reason might sound silly though - I like that Hacker News looks _different_ from a facebook feed page. Its sickening to have _everything_ look the same. I think that prevents you from wearing different hats at different times, which could water down engagement quality.

FB should at least let you select a different profile picture for every group you're part of :P

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a shitshow.

</comment><comment><USER17> == Initial benefits

\- Instant collaboration. (No more HN Office Hours and the like.)

\- Live group updates (wall posts, news, (even chat, ha!))

== Initial problems

\- No way to connect HN handle/karma to FB

\- No social moderation

\- Bottleneck administration (No matter how much of a rockstar Jason is.)

\- Group chat doesn't support large group conversations well. (approx 6 lines of chat displayed at a time)

Anyone else?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I beg any facebook employees that read this to please implement a Confirm All button. I've pressed confirm over 1,800 times today. It's like being on LOST.

<comment><USER18> Thanks Jason. I'll forward your suggestion to the groups PM.

Disclamer: this might be by design. The proudct was intended for small groups of people that actually know each other (families, soccer clubs, close friends, etc).

<comment><USER19> Any software designer who thinks the product will be used as designed must be a newbie. :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is an interesting way to see how groups scale with lots of people. Chat box is cramped.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> this will probably hit 1,000 members in the next couple of hours. If you all find it useful, I'll take the time to keep it alive/engaging.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This could actually be a really interesting experiment. I have to still approve though it's open :( :( and the amount of requests is insane. It's like a video game clicking the accept button in real time.

<comment><USER20> maybe ask every person to post their names here as well to verify? tiring task though, so maybe not.

<comment><USER21> It's not like HN is restricted. Who would want in other than HNers?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think it is a good idea but I will wait for the storm to settle.

</comment><comment><USER23> This might be an overkill but how about geo-specific HN groups aside from the general one?

Bay Area Hacker News, San Diego Hacker News, etc.

<comment><USER24> I'd hate to miss the opportunity to meet/chat with someone brilliant because of geo-fragmentation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The signal to noise ratio is a bit low...

</comment><comment><USER26> Honestly, I only joined to get a "Hacker News" tag on Facebook. Is that how Facebook works? Meaning can other people now see that I am on Hacker News (or rather, a member of the group)?

Also, maybe someone wants to send freelance work my way and contact me via Facebook :-)

</comment><comment><USER27> There is also a sub-group for HNers who are also students: [http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_152776264761584...](http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_152776264761584&ap=1)

</comment><comment><USER28> Interesting dynamic. I thought about creating a LinkedIn group, but I guess this might have a bit more of a personal touch. On the other hand, a LinkedIn group could possibly have been better for recruiting.

<comment><USER29> There have been 3-4 linkedin groups, they never go anywhere ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This will be interesting if it can be tied in with Facebook Connect -- taking over the live website chat space. It's really annoying to _always_ have a new message in chat, though.

</comment><comment><USER31> Tip: don't comment on any of the posts, unless you want to endure tens and tens of notifications (esp. if you have Desktop Notifications installed).

</comment><comment><USER32> I thought facebook groups died years ago? This sort of brings us back to the original purpose of facebook. Collaboration and networking!

<comment><USER33> See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1765111> =)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Nice to put a face to peoples HN handles

</comment><comment><USER35> Nice. Will be curious too see what secondary benefits this adds to HN and FaceBook...

</comment><comment><USER36> Depending on how this goes, this might actually make me use my Facebook account.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Well, this is a hell of a new way to stress test "social design" for scale.

</comment><comment><USER37> "Your chat message wasn't sent because Hacker News is offline." nice

</comment><comment><USER38> You should make it open. (or approve my request to join :)

<comment><AUTHOR> It is open, but I still need to approve :(

<comment><USER39> haha sorry jason... i just joined too!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Nice, joining this turned on the new Facebook for me. :)

</comment><comment><USER41> the gender ratio is really astonishing. there are probably 400 comments on the main page and i am not sure i have seen any women there.

</comment><comment><USER42> Holy crap this could be a time sink!

Proceeding with caution :)

</comment><comment><USER43> shall i make a hacker news fan page?

</comment><comment><USER44> This is actually insanity.

Most of you are on FB and you are here as well. So why create another space to converse? Is it because FB has a potential to do it better than anyone else? I'd say yes and no. Yes because it has largest user base. No because they are testing features and there are many other services which has done lot better in organizing, facilitating group conversations.

Either case, the HN group and many other such popular groups showing up at FB, only tells one thing: it is going to be a huge hit. How it gets adopted later, like how Twitter Lists did, only time will tell.

<comment><USER45> HN also affords, for some, a degree of anonymity absent from Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> you should cede group admin rights to pg</comment>


Game Cheating Tutorial: God-Mode in GBA Pokemon - <AUTHOR> http://www.garin.io/game-cheating-tutorial <comment><AUTHOR> Author Here.

Wanted to share this fun post with you guys. Of course, it's inspired by the current Pokemon craze :)

Feel free to ask anything and let me know if you spot an error!</comment>


Wikileaks Must Be Stopped - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080202627.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

<comment><USER2> "Its reason for existence is to obtain classified national security information and disseminate it as widely as possible -- including to the United States' enemies."

That is _not_ their stated goal. They aim to expose and distribute material of interest to the public, not national security information in general.

"These actions are likely a violation of the Espionage Act, and they arguably constitute material support for terrorism."

Yes, 'likely' and 'arguably'. Except that it's difficult to see how the Espionage Act applies to a group outside of the US. Also material support for terrorism actually means supplying _materials_ i.e. money, weaponry or physical goods. Which they obviously are not doing.

"On Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told ABC News that Assange had a "moral culpability" for the harm he has caused."

Oh please. This is coming from people who have been involved in the direction of military actions that have needlessly killed civilians. They don't have the moral high-ground here. Additionally; I'd like to see this harm quantified in some way. Thus far there has been much talk about damage, but no evidence.

I'm all for holding people to account, but these kinds of statements seem like FUD to me.

"Assange is a non-U.S. citizen operating outside the territory of the United States. This means the government has a wide range of options for dealing with him. It can employ not only law enforcement but also intelligence and military assets to bring Assange to justice..."

Well firstly, lets establish what law he has broken shall we? That is a rather extreme option, with it's own set of complications.

This article is full of lots of tough talk, but blithely ignores the complications of international law and dipolmacy. It also fails to ask one simple question; does the Obama Admin. see it in their best interests to arrest Assange?

</comment><comment><USER3> As a European this comments really pisses me off _"In other words, we do not need permission to apprehend Assange or his co-conspirators anywhere in the world."_ The political hatred the US has gotten from around the world stems largely from the idea that the US can do whatever it pleases wherever it pleases.

Also

" _The United States has the capability and the authority to monitor his communications and disrupt his operations. "_ Julian Assange is a good hacker, he made the first free portscanner (precursor to Nmap), co-invented Rubberhose deniable encryption and wrote the Usenet caching software NNTPCache. I highly doubt the United States is monitoring his activity.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, the idea that the U.S. should blow apart its international alliances to apprehend someone whose activities are protected under American law is slightly insane. Then again, the author has a history of such things.

<comment><USER5> I hope not. Unfortunately the US doesn't have the best "track record" for respecting other countries laws. Off the top of my head the "extraordinary rendition" program and the SWIFT data records comes to mind.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States) [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/05...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001605.html) [http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated- tortur...](http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban- cia-rendition) [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/15/swift_processing_hal...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/15/swift_processing_halt/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I work in cryptography. This field has taught me something rather applicable here:

It is far better to know your secrets are in the hands of your enemy than it is to not know when they are in the hands of your enemy.

If your secret stuff is released on Wikileaks, you know about it. You can take steps. e.g. Evacuate your informants before the Taliban whack 'em. If the Taliban get their hands on a list of CIA informants, without the CIA knowing, those guys would be screwed. As it stands they've got a fighting chance.

Wikileaks or sites like it are now a fact of life. If the CIA disappears Assange into some banana-republic torture-hole or simply assassinates him, his fate would most likely be leaked to Wikileaks successor. The cat is now out of the bag.

The U.S.'s only real option here, aside from investigating how that data was leaked in the first place, is to attempt to improve their ability to cope with leaks when they do happen. Time often makes all the difference, so they would be well served by developing a relationship with Assange. e.g. "You give us a 48-hour heads up when you leak something from us and we'll forgo atomizing your brains with precision guided explosives." It's not like Assange would have a choice if presented with such a deal. However embarrassing his assassination might be for the U.S., it will ensure that the next Wikileaks plays ball.

</comment><comment><USER7> FWIW, this guy and his employer earn their living by foaming in the mouth "for America".

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

<comment><USER8> Maybe you could elaborate on what you mean by "foaming at the mouth"? I read the wikipedia article you linked to and nowhere was that mentioned.

<comment><USER7> He is someone whose job is to find/conjure-up all sorts of enemies and threats facing the United States. His employing think-tank takes a political leaning that's so far to the right, that they see nothing in this world that isn't a "vital interest" or a "mortal enemy". They see the world through the lenses of a globalized Monroe Doctrine. They profit materially from pain they inflict upon people; either emotional pain in the fear they evoke in the American masses, or the real physical pain in others when they launch recreational wars.

So, this hired-mouth can cry foul all he wants. Those old enough to exist before the Iraq invasion remember similar tunes. As for his opinion, it's nothing but an invoice line-item; commissioned by the Gun and Oil interests, draped in a flag and fig-leafed with God.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Yes, I will engage in a little ad hominem, only to give context to the author's surrounding beliefs:

 _Marc A. Thiessen served as a speechwriter for United States President George W. Bush (2004-2009) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2001-2004)_

The argument is very well laid out and I'm not qualified to mount a case against his claims; however, it does have a slight political tinge to it.

</comment><comment><USER10> "The United States has the capability and the authority to monitor his communications and disrupt his operations."

So, a member of the American Enterprise Institute is privy to the US Government's electronic spying capabilities? And, he's complaining about the release of intelligence-related secrets? I don't actually think he knows for sure that Wikileaks' communications are monitorable, but the statement is laughable.

<comment><USER11> It would turn into an encrypted Wack-a-mole, evolving the state of the art for information dissemination. The author clearly believes that the DoD has magic computers, or the equivalent of a digital nuke.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm far more threatened by Mr. Thiessen's implication that surveillance should be the sole domain of government than I am of Assange's attempts to thwart such secrecy.

Governments should not have unchecked powers of surveillance. We all know the myriad ways that can go wrong. Somebody has to be watching these people and that's just what WL is doing.

Don't trust anyone to have your best interests at heart.

</comment><comment><USER13> I laughed when the author cited _a US law_ claiming the United States' ability (specifically the FBI) to legally _violate international law_. That's like me citing my own personal law that says I may legally violate state laws and burglarize any house I want to.

<comment><USER14> There's a US law about invading an international court to free US citizens.

There are a bunch of reasons why the US is hated by quite a few people, most of which boil down to: (a) many US presidents are war criminals (b) the US is a very big "western" nation that likes to start wars (c) the US doesn't play nice with international standards and organizations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I find it bizarre that so many people suddenly care so much about the lives of a couple hundred civilians in Afghanistan. Between the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, and nary a tear was shed by a reporter anywhere, but suddenly God knows how many people are out for this fellow's blood.

The world's a funny place.

<comment><USER16> > but suddenly God knows how many people are out for this fellow's blood.

It's propaganda, in aggregate. The stated rationales don't matter. All that matters is that the idea gets lodged in the public mind, that Wikileaks is a legitimate threat, an enemy of the state, a rogue organization. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It doesn't matter, so long as enough people believe it.

Why I don't know. What's the next play? When I heard the term "cyber warfare" in the past, I wouldn't have thought of this, but here we are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The thing that concerns me is how panicked governments seem to be over the release of documents and their reaction is insane (IE seemingly trying to block out all free speech and free right to publication, etc) that I can't help but wonder what they're not wanting to be leaked.

Someone without secrets doesn't worry about things being leaked. What secrets do these governments have that are huge to the point that they seem to be wanting to violate their own laws to block this guy.

<comment><USER18> You don't need privacy if you have nothing to hide, eh?

<comment><USER17> Not particularly no, it's a nice thing to have and it certainly helps as a private citizen, however this is generally confusing anonymity with privacy. I'm comfortable sharing things online because I'm anonymous, because I'd prefer people in my personal life not know about certain things. However I don't keep this information to myself for an illicit benefit, however people don't have a reasonable expectation or justification to know what I'm doing at 10pm on a wednesday night. My boss does have a reason to know what I'm doing at 10am on a Wednesday, in fact he showed up at my job site - didn't concern me, because I wasn't doing anything I shouldn't have been.

However I have a reason and a reasonable expectation to know what my government officials are doing, or _at least_ be able to appoint someone to supervise them. Yet I'm told 'tough shit' because my government for as far as I can see is embezzling my money to areas of government I have no legal rights to even have a trustworthy official even monitor them.

Security Intelligence Services is watchdogged, but why aren't members of my parliament as closely watched as fucking _spies_! Spies have _a lot_ to hide, and they have _justification_ to hide it, my MP _does not_ have a reason to hide things from me because they got my vote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've been surprised recently how many worldly people have been cheering Wikileaks and think what they're doing is OK. This isn't a judgment on anyone - just surprise. I'm as big an infojunkie as anyone ;-)

Is there significant support amongst the intelligentsia for nixing laws like the Espionage Act and Official Secrets Act that the government and military rely on?

<comment><USER20> "Is there significant support amongst the intelligentsia for nixing laws like the Espionage Act and Official Secrets Act that the government and military rely on?"

It's not that there is widespread support for nixing those laws, but since the US government has been using those laws rather broadly (most notably during the invasion of Iraq), I'd say there is support for revising those laws.

Laws that protect secrets are a sort of Schrödinger's cat, though, in that in order to decide if they are a secret, you have to know the secret. So all government declared secrets are both secrets and non-secrets at the same time.

It will be a long time before the Iraq invasion documents are declassified, far too long from now to consider it ammo for those that want a more transparent government.

I'm not defending Wikileaks nor their supporters necessarily, but I would guess that this is the link of thinking with exposing (some of) these documents. For some documents, clearly they are exposing things just to provoke people and draw media attention, for which they have been insanely successful.

</comment></comment><comment> b-man I would like to see how this guy would react if it was an American citizen leaking information about _random_enemy_country_. Should the federal authorities of said country have the right to violate foreign soil?

<comment><USER21> Exactly. The level of hypocrisy is astounding. It is well-known that the US has been spying on other countries for a long time. There is a track record of involving citizens of foreign countries to engage in acts which are considered treasonous by their own countries standards and, if they had been our own citizen, treason in our own as well. What the US calls "treason" against itself would just be called "smart intelligence gathering" by the other country.

<comment><USER22> It is well-known that all countries has been spying on other countries for a long time. The USA is not special here. Just about all countries spy on each other and have done for millenia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Wikileaks is the only place in the world where you can be a whistleblower without the threat of censorship or persecution. Sounds like two of the best things to happen to democracy in a long time.

<comment><USER19> .. until you're suspected of being the whistleblower, of course: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10529110>

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> "The Web site must be shut down and prevented from releasing more documents -- and its leadership brought to justice."

The latter imperative might be achievable.

The former is the height of delusion.

<comment><USER25> > The latter imperative might be achievable.

It might be, but so might putting a replacement online a couple of days later.

<comment><USER26> 'The latter' would be 'leadership brought to justice'. Read carefully.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Commentary is really scary for his lack of understanding of the actual law that could be applied to this (whether or not you agree with what was done, there's a difference between that and what's legal/what's not). For a great breakdown of whether or not its legal, see [http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/26/pentagon-papers-ii-on- wi...](http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/07/26/pentagon-papers-ii-on-wikileaks- and-the-first-amendment/)

</comment><comment><USER28> Interesting Op-Ed, but I think it's criticism is misplaced. Wikileaks in this case is a provider, much like YouTube. Although their intended goal is to bring to light embarrassing and/or immoral actions by governments, they have no contractual obligation to the United States. Holding them accountable for information provided by 3rd parties seems a stretch at best, and if successfully prosecuted, all news media should be wary.

The op-ed's criticism should really be placed on the provider of these documents, and those that decided he could be trusted with a security clearance. He had a contractual agreement with the government, was informed of the consequences of breaking his oath, broke it, and should be prepared for the consequences.

The government knows the best way to prevent future cases like this: prosecute the leaker to the fullest extent they can. If the leaker is executed as a traitor, everyone with clearance during war-time will carefully consider breaking their oaths knowing that it will cost them their lives. Harassing and intimidating publishers will have little to no effect on future leaks, and is probably a waste of the governments time to pursue.

</comment><comment><USER29> I am struck by four things.

1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off. I don't mean the nicey, lets-go- protest-down-at-the-student-union kind of protest. I mean people who are not normally angry with anybody else in the world talking about throwing him in jail and/or killing him. Devil or Angel, that's a whole heap of pissing off he's accomplished.

2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals, yet he's just some guy running a web service. That's awesome if you're Assange, but for the rest of us, we have to live with the world that results with whatever he decides to leak or not.

3) Anarchy is not the same as openness. Openness says I demand full insight into what my government is doing. If not me personally, then somebody I elected or appointed. Anarchy says any type of secret is bad and open air always beats secrets. Governments can't function without secrets -- even your local small town has to have secret meetings to discuss personnel issues and such. Wikileaks is, to my mind, opposed to this cornerstone of government. That's anarchy.

4) If Assange wants to play this game, he should think long and hard about where it's going to lead him. Right now he's having a field day because records are centralized and available electronically. But for every move there is a counter-move. I know if I were running a covert op anywhere in the world there's no freaking way I'd put anything on a computer anywhere. If he would rather have millions of little secrets offline and out of sight, that's what we're going to get. Which makes the entire intelligence community _even harder_ to manage for those folks managing it. Is that better than what we have now? It's the exact opposite of what he says he wants.

There's a certain amount of cocky self-promoting asshole about Assange. As much as I want the maximum amount of liberty, freedom, and openness, this isn't the way to make it happen.

<comment><USER30> >1) Wikileaks is really pissing people off

This is because what they're doing is effective. Ineffective things don't piss people off and trigger military disinfo campaigns. The author of the WPO blog article is an AEI member, a player in the neocon agenda: not some random pundit.

>2) Assange has more power than many 3-star generals

I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are.

>3) Anarchy is not the same as openness... Governments can't function without secrets

Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is serving a public need in challenging a growing regime of secrecy that blossomed under Bush and that Obama has failed to reign in.

>4) If Assange wants to play this game, he should think long and hard about where it's going to lead him... If he would rather have millions of little secrets offline and out of sight, that's what we're going to get.

Opsec has a cost. The more expensive it is to keep the secrets needed to maintain questionable military practices, the less chance these practices will continue.

>There's a certain amount of cocky self-promoting asshole about Assange. As much as I want the maximum amount of liberty, freedom, and openness, this isn't the way to make it happen.

I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day.

<comment><USER31> "I'm fine with that. Assange isn't killing people. 3-star generals are."

Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them.

If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information?

"Government can function with much less secrecy than it currently does. WL is serving a public need in challenging a growing regime of secrecy that blossomed under Bush and that Obama has failed to reign in."

That's because Obama knows the importance of secrets.

"I'll take a self-promoter over a murderer any day."

Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference.

<comment><USER30> >Yes he is. The information he released in the latest round of "secrets" gave away informants to people that can (and will) kill them.

Specific examples would be great.

>If he gave information about locations of jews to the Nazis, would we say it was freedom of information?

The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison.

>That's because Obama knows the importance of secrets.

Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging.

>Wikileaks failed to remove actual names. I don't see a difference.

Most people recognize the difference between dropping bombs on civilians and revealing the names of those involved in the killing trade.

<comment><USER31> "The jews weren't attempting to occupy Germany at the time so probably not the most fitting comparison."

That's not the point. The point is that if information was given to the Germans, it would have resulted in many deaths. Occupation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

"Absolutely. The truth can be politically damaging."

Can I have your social security number, address, phone number, mother's maiden name, and when you are going to be away from your home? We have no secrets around here

"Specific examples would be great."

This tells me you haven't read any of the documents released.

<comment><USER31> "Occupation doesn't generally happen without bloodshed. Involving oneself in occupation is an investment in bloodshed. The jews who died during the Nazi regime didn't make a choice to involve themselves in bloodshed."

And the people in the documents didn't ask wikileaks to release the names to the world and potentially to their enemies. Bloodshed could be avoided, but wikileaks is willfully looking the other way.

"If I were involved in attempting to use force to extort land or resources, I would assume the risk that my identity would be exposed. This is one reason I don't involve myself in these things."

That's like saying, because you gamble at a casino, it's an accepted risk that you will lose all your money (after we just found out that the casino has been cheating at all of the games).

"That makes two of us, it seems."

There are actual names in the documents released. I'm not going to make your point for you. If you want to continue to look foolish, it's fine by me.

<comment><USER30> >And the people in the documents didn't ask wikileaks to release the names to the world and potentially to their enemies. Bloodshed could be avoided, but wikileaks is willfully looking the other way.

If someone is an informant for an occupying force they have assumed a role in the occupation. This involves risk.

>That's like saying, because you gamble at a casino, it's an accepted risk that you will lose all your money (after we just found out that the casino has been cheating at all of the games).

If you decide to gamble, you put your money at risk. You know the odds are stacked against you: you just don't know to what extent. The rational choice is not to play.

<comment><USER32> "If someone is an informant for an occupying force they have assumed a role in the occupation. This involves risk."

Isn't this true? Why is this being downvoted? Anyone who informs for one side in war against the other _has_ involved himself in the war and can be expected to be punished if the other side got to know about it. This was true during the American War of Independence and is no less true now. Reconciliation might happen _after_ the war, not during the war.

This applies to people informing against the Taliban as well as against the American/NATO occupation force. Which side is "good" is somewhat irrelevant. Which side you find "good" probably depends on where you were born more than anything else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> What I think everybody has lost site of is that Afghanistan, pre 9-11, was a country that facilitated an environment that allowed people who would normally be local village thugs to turn into James Bond villains that rammed airliners into buildings on the other side of the planet killing thousands of civilians drinking their morning lattes.

The Afghan war was most certainly not a war of colonial aggression or some bullshit diversionary war in the wrong country and _nobody_ has floated any realistic options other than occupying the country as way to prevent more buildings from being knocked down. It's not even entirely clear that even _that_ minimal goal has been accomplished.

The point of all this wasn't to spread Democracy to the oppressed people of Afghanistan and give them clean water and schools. It was to eradicate an environment that facilitates and encourages people to plan and execute complex operations intent on killing us as part of an insane world domination plan to bring forth a new Caliphate on this Earth in order to establish a particularly hard-line version of Islam on humanity.

It just so turns out that our best estimate of what will stop the festering insane world domination cancer that grows there is a nice dose of Democracy, schools and economic growth. Perhaps that's wrong and misguided, but I have yet to hear of a plan that doesn't include "better government and stronger economy" that has any chance of working. And you can't have those things without some semblance of security. And you can't have security against people who want to establish a global Caliphate through a plan of killing and terrorizing civilian populations without killing a few of those assholes in return.

 _I mean, what's the alternative? Go door to door and politely pass out flyers asking them nicely to stop having aspirations of killing the infidel to cleanse the world? I wonder how long the Peace Corps would last amongst people who's idea of a reasoned response to "let's drill a well for the village" is to cut their head off with a dull knife and send a video of the decapitation to their family._

I'm not sure I really understand how to have a productive debate concerning this issue with people who think that the proper response to 9-11 should have been a shrug of the shoulders and enhanced sanctions.

I don't think anybody wants us to be at war there -- the ass end of the Earth. It's not like we're getting any material benefit from it -- quite the contrary in fact. But I objectively think that anybody who holds naive ideals that you can execute an invasion, conduct security operations, stabilization initiatives and nation building in such an inhospitable, economically hopeless part of the world and not end up with dead civilians is a moron. And I most certainly haven't heard of a reasonable plan that would exclude such unfortunate casualties. Cries for NATO to get out are _never_ followed by a plan for what to do after that that would prevent the social and economic degeneration of the country into what we had to deal with in the late 90's and early 2000s.

To be perfectly honest, nobody really cares if Afghanistan soft crashes into a fractured state of tribal warlords who kill far more civilians than any occupation force could ever hope to do. Afghanistan will never be an advanced industrialized society.

What we all care about is if they soft crash back into a regime that supports complex and grandiose terror operations outside their borders. And due to woeful mismanagement the entire conflict, it's not clear where they'd land, but it's not likely to be a peaceful agrarian society.

<comment><USER34> Plenty of people have floated and tested ideas other than occupying the country as methods of preventing "more buildings from being knocked down". Indeed, nearly all terrorist plots that have been prevented have used these methods: investigative policing.

For someone seemingly so versed in the issue, I'm surprised of two things:

1- That you're apparently unaware that there are two primary schools of thought re: anti-terrorism. One is grand military force and the other is investigative tactics. The former is nearly beyond cost prohibitive (some might argue it IS cost prohibitive), of a highly questionable efficacy, and results in orders of magnitude more civilian deaths than the instigating cause (9/11). The latter has been demonstrated to be highly effective at preventing attacks.

2- That you're equally unaware that the killing of families in far off lands results in an increased number of surviving family/friends who take up arms in opposition to those responsible. There is now a wealth of information spanning years detailing the primary motivating factors of insurgents, most of which revolves around revenge for the death of family/friends and little of which has anything at all to do with Caliphates.

And lastly, it is the definition of naive to believe that "we're not getting any material benefit" from the war. You may not be, but many corporations have massive financial benefits and most politicians have re-election benefits (both pro-war and anti-war politicians, though primarily the pro-war variety).

<comment><USER33> 1\. Without going into particulars of military vs. softer responses, how then do you propose we conduct an investigative policy of counter-terror activities in a country hostile to our investigators without first establishing an environment a softer policy can survive in?

2\. I'm certainly not unaware of that. All possible effort should be made to not kill innocents as it does indeed feed the terror machine. I would certainly like to see persons responsible for indiscriminate civilian deaths dealt with. But unless you are aware of a method, technological or otherwise, of identifying bad civilians from good civilians in a population _a priori_ to bad civilians doing bad things, and of removing those people from the face of the earth without endangering the room full of people they shield themselves with, sometimes innocents will simply be caught in the cross-fire.

It's sad, it's unfortunate, but it happens. Apparently your decades of counter-terror experience says something different, please share an actual operational plan from intelligence gathering to final capture/kill of a notional bad-guy if that's not the case.

Outside of your naive and fantasy filled ruminations on how to conduct counter-terror operations, you do seem to be entirely ignorant of the reasons why we are conducting operations in Afghanistan in the first place and it had everything to do with establishing a Caliphate.

"Like the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, of Iran, Osama bin Laden made his anti-Western passion and plans clear in print years before gaining prominence through a frontal assault against America and its friends. The Encyclopedia of the Afghan Jihad, a multivolume guide to paramilitary and terrorist activity, written by his followers in the late 1980s and early 1990s, signaled bin Laden's intention to wage an anti-Western campaign far beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The encyclopedia was probably compiled and published in Peshawar, Pakistan, in late 1992. Because it doesn't provide a date or an exact place of printing (an intentional wartime evasiveness pervades the writing), one must make guesses about its provenance based on the text and on conversations with Pakistanis, Afghans, and Arabs. The encyclopedia, "one of the Sources of Energy for the faithful," was designed to transfer the knowledge and spirit gained from the "first brick of Islamic justice"—the successful war against Soviet communism—to a larger, more important campaign against the West, which bin Laden's statements have referred to only as kufr ("unbelief"), a classical- Islamic way of denoting geography by faith. The next jihad against America and its Muslim allies would, the authors of the encyclopedia prayed, lead to "the establishment of a castle of the Muslims, a [new] Caliphate"—a reference to the ruling politico-religious office of Islam's "golden age." For many fundamentalists, if not for the common man, the caliphate remains, at least sentimentally, the ideal geopolitical expression of Muslim universalism—an empire free of Westernized nation-states, where the shari'a, the holy law, reigns supreme, thus guaranteeing the union of Church and State and the brotherhood and strength of the faithful.

The aim of the encyclopedia and many smaller paramilitary and terrorist manuals that have appeared since 1992 is to democratize terrorism, to give to any true believer a portable guide to waging holy war worldwide. The encyclopedia has been found in print or on CD-ROM wherever al Qaeda has sent its cadres. Bin Laden and his followers also sought to accomplish philosophically what the Shi'ite Ayatollah Khomeini aspired to but never achieved: taking Islamic radicalism mainstream by forcing and dominating the discussion of holy war among the various strains of Sunni fundamentalism, which has become a significant force in every Middle Eastern country. Though unquestionably the most influential Muslim of modern times, Khomeini could never transcend the seventh-century division of Islamic society into those who recognize the legitimacy of the caliphal succession to the Prophet Muhammad (the Sunnis) and "the party of Ali" (the Shi'a), who believe that only Muhammad's son-in-law and his descendants can rightfully rule the Islamic world."

[http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/01/gerecht....](http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2002/01/gerecht.htm)

 _And lastly, it is the definition of naive to believe that "we're not getting any material benefit" from the war. You may not be, but many corporations have massive financial benefits and most politicians have re-election benefits (both pro-war and anti-war politicians, though primarily the pro-war variety)._

It's just money spinning around the drain. What I mean by not gaining material benefit is that it's not like NATO troops are returning home with chests full of loot like returning Roman armies on the frontiers. There's no new input of valuables into the economies of the nations participating in Afghan counter- terror operations.

<comment><USER34> Perhaps in the same method we investigate any and all other situations where we are not at war. As I stated, the efficacy of investigative anti-terror tactics is well established (these are what you call the "naive and fantasy filled ruminations). The efficacy of invasion and occupation via military force is not only not well established but is also turning into the cause of increased resistance and terror tactics (these you would apparently call "reality-based methods"). You failed to address these critical distinctions and your misplaced insistence on focusing on a Caliphate that now has little if anything to do with the bulk of terrorist activity is likely the cause of your failure to recognize the futility of waging war against a concept.

It doesn't take plundering a nation by the military in order for a war to have massive wealth producing opportunities for those involved in promoting it and deciding to under take it. As I said, you may receive no chests full of loot - but hundreds of corporations are, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. There is unquestionably a massive financial incentive for everlasting war. Meanwhile, the war you gain nothing from produces the opposite of what you seek (less terrorists).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I mean pretty soon he'll start doing things like exposing secret tapes of the president ordering break ins. If that happens the WaPo will have to ask Bob Woodward to start doing journalism again.

Wikileaks is the best thing to happen to freedom since the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI.

</comment><comment><USER36> First of all, why were 91,000 documents secret? I wouldn't really know, but isn't that something like half of all the significant events in the war so far? Doesn't that make this whole operation kind of veiled from the public eye? THIS is what Wikileaks is exposing; the fact that routine events in this war are being kept secret for no apparent reason, not just a few justified occurrences where secrecy is necessary. It should be the burdon of the governing bodies to justify making something a secret, but from these documents it looks like they're slapping a "confidential" sticker on every other file just for the heck of it.

</comment><comment><USER37> Whether it's terrorism or leaks, neocons - like this author - appear to frequently endorse head cutting as an effective method of battling hydras.

</comment><comment><USER21> That article was so full of double standards it was hilarious. Many of the things he accused WikiLeaks of doing, the US military is also doing, and often more directly and at a higher level of magnitude. Also, at the end I noted the author works for AEI. Not surprising.

</comment><comment><USER38> The reaction to WL seems to be driven more by fear and a lack of control. I question whether the blowback from leaks is greater than the unintended consequences and misguided efforts of military action as a whole.

This issue is the result of what you could consider a natural process as access to information becomes more efficient. Just an observation.

</comment><comment><USER39> I get the sense he thinks this a big political game. (after all, war is just the imposition of political policy via force).

Having spent some time with the folks he is pissing off, I don't think it's an understatement to say that he may just get himself killed.

<comment><USER21> That will be the ultimate proof of whether he's truly a threat to any powerful interests. If he suddenly disappears or has an accident one day, that will likely be the other shoe dropping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I hope Wikileaks can leak things about "Palestine" regarding where and who are benefiting from all its aid - not that anyone will care that much. Is there a disproportionate focus on the USA? China's another country that could use some leakage.

</comment><comment><USER41> Bizarre how he so broadly paints the world with America's laws.

</comment><comment><USER42> Is it just me, or is The Washington Post getting worse?

</comment><comment><USER43> Assange is a hero to democracy, the government dirty secrets must be uncovered!

Those informants aided the war, they aided civilian slaughter that many US troops did for fun, so I guess if they get killed, they had it coming.

The war is [supposably] over, why does the US need to have so many secrets? Are they embarrassed that their army is full of sadistic murderers?

These short sighted people that write articles like this eat propaganda.

</comment><comment><USER44> Knowing is always better than not knowing.

<comment><USER45> Perhaps. That we do not know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I am not American, so I do not know this author, but wow, this guy is evil!

From Wikileaks, I mean Wikipedia:

Marc A. Thiessen (born 1967) served as a speechwriter for United States President George W. Bush (2004–2009) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2001–2004). He is the author of the 2010 New York Times bestselling book, Courting Disaster.

"Thiessen's first book, Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack" - I think the title is probably all you need to know about him and the book.

"...a former military interrogator, and author of How to Break a Terrorist, characterizes Thiessen's book as "a literary defense of war criminals"

"...many Catholic thinkers strongly disagree with Thiessen's assertion in the book that <strong>waterboarding</strong> is permitted by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church." <i>Emphasis Added</i>

"Thiessen's promotional tour for Courting Disaster included a confrontational interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour and an interview with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show"

Man if he is shouting at John Stewart, you know the guy is evil.

He is all that I and am sure most Americans by their univocal rejection of the last government despise. He stands for all that made the last decade so dark. He is the f __* criminal.

Now as to the article. I am amazed. Override International Law? What on earth! What is he somewhat superior than everyone else? Does he think the US is so great that it can afford to pick a fight with freaking Europe? Or is International Law applicable only to others, or is law for that matter applicable only to others?

Man this guy is not only Evil, but an enemy of the people. If the Devil did exist and took the form of man, it would resemble him like a mirror image.

</comment><comment><USER46> Wikileaks, like Wikipedia, is one of the healthiest things to come out of the internet. The service it provides to the United States and the rest of the world is invaluable. The only group I see threatened here is that great "military-industrial complex," and that's fine by me.

</comment><comment><USER47> Wow, that article had government propaganda written all over it. Now I'm really glad somebody is standing up and exposing some questionable secrets.

America should be a government for the people by the people. I'm sorry, but hiding murders of children is not for the people.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the point of 'likefarms' - <AUTHOR>

I'm cleaning out a facebook dataset and noticed I've a lot of URLs which come from 'likefarms'. I just don't get it, why are they so common? What purpose do they serve either negative or positive. I'm at a loss! <comment><USER3> Amass some followers, then sell the likefarm (for a few cents per follower). The new owner will then replace the likefarm's content with their brand or whatever they wish - and it will look as if the brand has X hundreds of followers.

This practice is in violation of FB's ToS, and ethically questionable - <USER2> there's just enough money in it to make this worthwhile for the likefarmers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. Yes it seems quite an annoyance ! Some users I've come across are particularly bad for interacting with them. Bah.</comment></comment>


How the Neutrino's Tiny Mass Could Help Solve Big Mysteries - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-the-neutrinos-tiny-mass-could-help-solve-big-mysteries-20191015/ <comment><USER2> This is twice on HN homepage, I thought that was not possible. Guess I was wrong...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21258503](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21258503)

<comment><USER3> Actually that one was posted earlier; you can tell from the IDs. Timestamps get temporarily relativized on re-up; see [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19774614](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19774614) for explanation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21258503](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21258503).</comment>


Ask HN: How soon is too soon to switch jobs? - <AUTHOR> I'm asking in general, but here's my story specifically:
The company culture is great. My co-workers are all extremely talented people that I've learned a lot of good practices from. The company has a great reputation. Management likes me and has gone out of their way to make me feel welcome. This is my first full time job and I've been here for a little under six months. I have good internship experience from before this but no real open-source work to show. Leaving the company this soon would probably burn some bridges no matter how gently I did it. There's an unwritten expectation that you stay for at least two years.
The main reason I want to leave is that the work itself ended up being much more simplistic than I thought it would be when I first took the job. Simpler than what I was doing previously as an intern at another company. I feel like I'm wasting months doing really trivial work and that it's going to hurt my chances of getting more interesting work later on. My current assignment is a CRUD front-end only app using an outdated framework that I was already proficient in before I started working here. I won't be able to get a new assignment for another 4-9 months, and my next assignment isn't guaranteed to be anything more interesting. Pay is slightly below average for my area, and benefits are extremely poor by any standard. <comment><USER2> If you feel like you are no longer learning or growing then you should probably look at moving, especially if pay and benefits are below average. At least start a slow search to see if there is someplace worth moving to. And since you aren't miserable and are actively employed, you can move on your terms.

I wouldn't worry about perception, especially in software. Moving after 6 months multiple times would be bad, but moving a few times in your first four or five years isn't a big deal. I think the opposite actually applies in software, staying at someplace too long can be seen as a red flag if it's not a top notch company using cutting edge tech.

The real risk though is leaving a good company culture with good management and a good team. Places with both are probably fewer and farther between then you would imagine. You may find better pay working on cutting edge tech with awful management and egotistically, unhelpful teammates, especially at some hyper growth companies.

The answer depends on what you want and it sounds like more interesting work is important. If there is no way to get your 'simplistic' work done and do interesting stuff on your own or helping another team, then moving is probably worth it. I do wonder though if the place is so great and your coworkers so talented, why is the work so simplistic? Is it a lifestyle company or are you missing something without the experience to know?

In any event, think about what you want, take your time and do research if you choose to move, and best of luck in your career.

</comment><comment><USER3> > The company culture is great; co-workers are all extremely talented people; > Management likes me...

There's an old rule, people don't leave companies-- they leave bosses. Question for you, can you up manage-up? Can you assert to management that you're ready for more interesting, challenging work? Can you help your boss with his agenda? Can you challenge your peers to up their game?

If you can do that, then definitely stay. Incidentally, it also makes you more valuable to the company and will certainly justify a salary increase.

</comment><comment><USER4> "There's an unwritten expectation that you stay for at least two years."

Two years is a decent duration. At least view this as a job to challenge yourself on delivering projects successfully, even if they're routine CRUD apps.

It would be helpful for you on your third job to list your manager from this first job as a reference.

Generally it's never too early to leave. But if you have a string of job hopping, some people will hold this against you, and you'll have a short list of people wanting to endorse you.

</comment><comment><USER5> Just talk to them. Tell them your bored and see if they are willing to help. I bet they will come up with some solution for you.

</comment><comment><USER6> Just tell your manager that you're bored and want (or need) something more challenging. If they are a good manager they'll figure something out.

</comment><comment><USER7> Line up another job before quitting this one. As other posters have said: just don't make a habit of short-term jobs and it's easily explained.

</comment><comment><USER8> _Pay is slightly below average for my area, and benefits are extremely poor by any standard._

Frankly, none of the other stuff matters to me as much as this. Look for a job while you still have one and move on if you think you see yourself there for a while. One short stint won't matter, but two in a row might.

</comment><comment><USER9> If you are surrounded by talented people, in a positive work environment, you are doing better than the vast majority of the workforce. Most people hate their jobs and are surrounded by dicks.

A good work environment is a huge benefit that you won't realise you miss until you give it up. I would take "slightly below average" pay for a positive workplace any day.

Like others have said, talk to your manager. Don't just say "I'm bored and want exciting work". Ask if you can have more of a challenge. Ask if you can shadow one of your talented co-workers to learn more. Ask what other problems is your manager trying to solve. Take some initiative, look at the business more holistically, and add value by improving some part of the workflow or tooling.

</comment><comment><USER10> Use your free time to hunt out opportunities for improvement. What are the issues that the company is facing? Are there any other areas that you can continue to grow and develop? It's not about waiting for your manager to assign you something - it's about finding ways that you can make the company better, which can lead to more interesting assignments. Ones where the management team hadn't even considered in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER11> If the task is trivial at job, you can always go home at the end of the day and push some code to open source, learn new stuffs.

</comment><comment><USER12> Get the assignment done quickly and so you can get a new one. You're leaving because one assignment you feel is shit?

</comment><comment><USER13> If you carry this attitude through a series of future jobs, you're going to demonstrate that you're a pretty awful employee. Not all work is exciting, and new hires are often going to get the worst of it until they prove themselves. If you can't suck it up for a bit and show some loyalty, then there's another candidate who can.

But realistically, you're very early in your career and can afford to burn some bridges and make some selfish decisions. Doing this once or twice isn't going to really stand out as a problem, so much as you taking a little time to get your bearings in the real world.

So be sensitive to your employer's needs (don't quit during a release crunch), and be open to any counteroffers they may offer as you tell them your plans, but do what you need to.</comment>


Daring Fireball – Money Machine? - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/us/2010/02/20/daring-fireball-money-machine/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNextWeb+%28The+Next+Web%29&utm_content=Google+Reader <comment><USER2> Love or hate Gruber, it's hard to argue with his approach to advertising. A single Deck ad and weekly, NPR-style "brought to you by" posts give a distilled exposure to his advertisers completely unlike any ad-chocked site, placements that I'd imagine must command significantly more than banners that have to compete for attention with a wall of ads. The added benefit being that it doesn't look like a chaotic mess.

I wouldn't be surprised if a single ad on DF is only slightly cheaper than the entire wall of ads on a lot of similarly-ranked sites.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I think we're going back to this for online "television."

Some forward looking company is going to sponsor an entire run of premium content (something by Joss Whedon?) on a YouTube channel and even the major networks aren't going to be able to ignore it.

If done correctly (not intrusive), it even mitigates the need for torrents. Just stream it legally.

<comment><USER4> _Some forward looking company is going to sponsor an entire run of premium content (something by Joss Whedon?) on a YouTube channel and even the major networks aren't going to be able to ignore it._

Wasn't this already done by Joss, with Dr. Horrible?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think for a blog of that size it's not that monetized. I mean, if he would, he could make much more money. I remember steva pavlina making 30,000/month from his website in 2006, which had less than 1 third of Gruber's subscribers.</comment>


Save Domain Privacy: Respect Our Privacy. Don't Expose WHOIS Data - <AUTHOR> https://www.respectourprivacy.com/?next=email <comment><AUTHOR> You can submit a public (?) comment here: [https://www.icann.org/public- comments/2013-whois-accuracy-sp...](https://www.icann.org/public- comments/2013-whois-accuracy-spec-review-2015-05-14-en) using the "submit a comment" link on the left.

If you want to leave a message call the washington office and navigate the phone menu to reach the ICANN contact in charge of this issue. (I'm being intentionally vague because that is a person's voicemail after all)</comment>


Ask HN: Whats the best way to securely share a passport scan with a third party? - <AUTHOR> Businesses quite regularly ask me to mail them my passport. There must be a better solution. <comment><USER2> Firefox Send might be an option. [https://send.firefox.com/](https://send.firefox.com/) Let's you set link lifetime, number of clicks/downloads allowed, etc.

It wasn't around when I needed to send my passport scan the last time but it's more comfortable than email.</comment>


HP Envy Design [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cgcq2tO3Lo4#!

<comment><USER2> I think it's ironic that it's called the "envy". :)</comment>