Record police with phone camera in Boston, get arrested - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/ <comment><USER2> When I was reading this I was wondering how is this any different than a TV station showing up with a film crew? They're recording audio the same as the guy with his cell phone. In the end, it's all about intimidation by the Boston Police.

<comment><USER3> There is typically distinctions made between mere citizens and Official Journalists, something I don't get. Look at discussions about bloggers and their rights to withhold information, or express political views, or failing to disclose financial incentives regarding matters they blog about. There seems to be a desire to neatly and authoritatively define what a "blogger" is[0], and to figure out what special rules apply. I rarely see anyone insist that US citizens have these basic rights, no matter whether you call what they do journalism, blogging, or whatever.

I'd like to think that would be true in this case as well, but I bet the same duality applies; some people get to be in a special class called "journalists" or "reporters", and so get more rights and privileges than Joe Smoe doing basically the same thing.

([0] The best is when the MSM talk about "bloggers" as if this was some well- defined group, with official leaders and common interests.)

<comment><USER4> This distinction is true when it is in regards to so-called 'shield laws,' which allow journalists to protect their sources. Without these laws, journalists can (and have) be held on obstruction of justice charges or worse. For the laws to work, though, they have to differentiate between journalists (as in those reporting news) and 'citizen' witnesses who simply don't want to cooperate in an investigation.

When it comes to recording news events, as in this article, any audio or video recorded in a public venue (and that is not sold commercially, if I remember my media law class accurately) is perfectly legal, regardless of who records it. Someone shooting video through your living room window from the middle of the street is, theoretically, legal, as it is in view from a public space. If that person steps on to your lawn and shoots the same video, however, that is invasion of privacy and probably trespassing as well.

While these videos should be completely legal, the laws governing this type of activity are usually state and local. It sounds like the law on the books in Boston is too broad and needs to be challenged.

Of course, IANL; I have a journalism degree and worked in newspapers for 5 years.

As a side note, someone should build a site for theses 'watching the watchers' videos. I'd be a fan.

<comment><USER5> So who is an official journalist?

Do you have to work for a newspaper? As fulltime staff

Does the paper have to be a public company, listed on the NYSE or can you be a journalist for a local free paper?

Perhaps it would be easier to just make FOX the official state broadcaster

<comment><USER6> I do not know why this was downmodded. The last line was somewhat snarky (I like Fox personally), but these are valid questions and form a genuine and important debate in many circles.

<comment><USER3> I was about to post much the same questions (minus the Fox sentiment).

How _does_ one decide who is a journalist, and who is not? What makes a something a publication; what makes that publication a newspaper or a news source? Is it like jazz or pornography; you know it when you hear it or see it, but can't really define it?

I can understand wanting some distinction with regards to obstruction of justice, but I also worry that bestowing special protections on select groups is prone to political manipulation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Stuff like this really annoys me–because I work in the photo industry and love to take pictures (especially in public). The privacy argument is a joke if you are in a public place. It only applies if you are in a place where you should expect privacy (i.e. in your home).

Anyone who keeps a camera with them often (or who is interested in this topic), should read the following:

[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-...](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera- laws_x.htm)

[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-...](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2006-08-11-photography- rights_x.htm)

<http://www.andrewkantor.com/> (check the PDF here)

<http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/>

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between _taking_ a picture and _publishing_ a picture.

EDITED:

Here is another great, printable sheet you can keep with you: <http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm>

<comment><USER8> >the privacy argument is a joke if you are in a public place

Surely not always a joke. If, for example, a couple is kissing in public then recording them against their will seems wrong to me. Whether it ought to be _illegal_ is another question.

OTOH it seems to me that the actions of police ought to be regarded as _public acts_ , and recording them in the public interest ought to be legal.

>Keep in mind that there is a big difference between taking a picture and publishing a picture

Yes, although the person being photographed doesn't know what the picture will be used for and so he may feel constrained nonetheless.

<comment><USER7> >> If, for example, a couple is kissing in public then recording them against their will seems wrong to me (although whether it ought to be illegal -- dunno)

(keep in mind, I'm mostly talking in the context of still photographs, not a/v)

I'm sure some parents feel the same about their children and celebrities feel the same about themselves. Unfortunately, once you step foot in a public place, you no longer have a * reasonable expectation of privacy*–regardless of who you are or what intimate act you may be participating in.

>> Yes, although the person being photographed doesn't know what the picture will be used for and so he may feel constrained nonetheless.

All the more reason for people to be educated and willing to educate others.

I've been accosted on more than one occasion simply for taking pictures in our downtown park–usually it's some hipster attempting to be impress his friends. If I'm in a good mood, I'll kindly explain my rights to him. If not, I'll just keep taking his picture while he talks to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is exactly the choice that David Brin presented in "The Transparent Society" back in 1996: <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/fftransparent.html>

Ubiquitous surveillance is inevitable. The question is whether it is going to be whether or not the citizenry will have the same power that the authorities do. Technology is not the barrier; it is a matter of fighting for our legal rights.

The contrast is stark. One path is Orwellian, whereas the other path, while eroding some comforts that we're used to, promises us benefits that will more than compensate for it.

<comment><USER10> not only are more of us intimidating each other subtly and slowly through social grooming on social sites, aren't we also complicit in this surveillance as voters?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Two-party consent means that all parties to a conversation must agree to be > recorded on a telephone or other audio device.

There should be a distinction if a party is a public servant on duty. As soon as the policeman puts on their uniform, is on duty, and is in a public space, there should be no restriction about recording of what they do.

<comment><USER12> _There should be a distinction if a party is a public servant on duty._

There should be a distinction if the party being recorded is _in public_. Courts have routinely ruled to the effect that one has "no expectation of privacy" when out in public. That the party being recorded is a public servant, engaged in (purportedly) public service just makes it all the more ... well, public.

<comment><USER13> Be careful what you wish for. If you declare anything in public to be fair game, but fail to allow for the possibilities of recording, mining and sharing data created by modern technology, you may not like the result.

For example, you probably wouldn't mind if I walked past you in the street and saw you go into a shop. You might object if I followed you around from the moment you left your home, filmed every shop you went into, what you bought, what you paid with (including any visible numbers on your cards, any PINs you typed in, what your signature looked like, etc.) and then put this on the web along with your name and address.

The idea that privacy is some sort of black-and-white concept is part of the problem.

<comment><USER12> _You might object if I followed you around from the moment you left your home..._

You're right; I might. I might also press charges for "stalking", which many jurisdictions have termed that kind of behavior, making it specifically illegal.

<comment><USER13> So where is the dividing line, then? When does incidental observation (but stored for all time in a database searchable by the public, say) become stalking?

In particular, is it possible that no individual act of recording personal data observed in public would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy (whatever we choose to call that in law) yet the combined total still has the effect of stalking? Because that is the real problem that, IMHO, the law hasn't caught up with yet. In a connected, database-driven world, you can't judge everything in isolation, because it is often the cumulative effect that is the dangerous thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here is a list of the 12 states that require 2-party consent for recording phone conversations

from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws#United_States) California Connecticut Florida Illinois Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Montana Nevada New Hampshire Pennsylvania Washington

11 blue states and 1 red state

The Boston cases clearly seem like police abuse of wiretapping laws which were originally intended to protect citizens talking on the phone (not hide evidence of physical violence against them)

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the list.

I am curious, granted the source is Wikipedia, but the article says that those states require notification, not consent. Even if these laws did apply to this kind of in-person interaction, instead of just the phone conversations they were intended for, would it be valid to argue that clearly and openly beginning the recording is notification?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sad. I'm surprised the first subject, a trained lawyer, didn't simply deny to answer the question concerning his camera. My standard response to any perceived intimidation by police these days is:

"I'm sorry Mr./Mrs/Sargent/Lt X, but I don't talk to police on material matters without counsel present."

<comment><USER16> And how does it work?

<comment><USER15> IME, extremely well, but see my previous comment on the general professionalism of Virginia police. I've had no personal experience with potentially litigious/confrontational law enforcement encounters outside of VA.

By immediately asserting your rights, the officer in question knows that they are not dealing with a person of "legal ignorance". As with communication in all social interactions, an assertive (but not aggressive) carriage, posture, positive eye contact, and tone helps a great deal.

Keep in mind that, in most contexts, when I see the triplet of a badge, an open-carry gun (the gun is key), and a police uniform, my default assumption is that of a PERSON who's sworn an oath and, consciously or unconsciously, respects SOME sort of legal authority given their avocation (though it may not necessarily be true).

FWIW, if you have any doubt, it's worth asking CLEARLY if the presumed officer in question has "sworn arrest powers in <insert municipality>". Police are allowed to lie, but they're not legally allowed to "assert police powers" such as arrest and/or detainment unless they have truly have them. In most U.S. state codes, there's a clear delineation between what constitutes a "lawful" and an "unlawful order" by law enforcement. Asserting police powers without being a sworn law enforcement officer is also usually a felony.

At worst, you may be severely inconvenienced for an "officer's safety" by being handcuffed and/or temporarily detained on-site, but you've preserved all of your rights under the law. Fighting temporary detainment is a "sticky wicket" and generally ill-advised unless you genuinely feel that your life or the lives of your family are at immediate risk (e.g. driving your pregnant wife to the hospital, etc.).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Anyone know of a reliable site that provides state-by-state information on the legality of recording the police at work?

Seems like this would be a good topic for a little cheat-sheet notecard in someone's wallet.

</comment><comment><USER18> Massachusetts law prohibits SECRETLY recording oral or telephone conversations. It's pretty clear that whipping out a camera phone, pointing it at the officers, and pressing "record" is in no way a SECRET recording.

</comment><comment><USER19> It seems to me like the _Boston Police_ and _The Powers That Be_ who they work for in Boston do not want any non-police witnesses with video evidence who could appear in court. I would assume they fear that non-police made video evidence might conflict with what the officers actually testify to in cases, and that this would give irrefutable evidence to a judge and jury as to what really happened.

Every corner store seems to have video surveillance to help deter crime I see nothing wrong with the public making videos of police officers. To me it actually seems like a very good idea.

</comment><comment><USER20> I liked the quote at the end "Had I recorded an officer saving someone's life, I almost guarantee you that they wouldn't have come up to me and say, 'Hey, you just recorded me saving that person's life. You're under arrest."

IANAL but isn't there something in the law about it having to be applied consistently?

</comment><comment><USER21> The issue here isn't the photo/video part, but the audio part which the police are trying to say is illegal surveillance.

I have to wonder if the Boston PD is trying to set precedent that such cases will be thrown out so they can start using more audio recording without warrants or what. Possibly just trying to cover their own tracks so they don't have any evidence against them.

Precedent seems to be that the audio recording needs to be hidden. Holding up a cameraphone in plain site isn't hidden.

<comment><USER22> You make an excellent point, but I don't think that's what's going on here. This reminds me more of the ATM technician who overreacted to someone taking a photograph with their phone of the machine being refilled. The man was temporarily arrested and had his phone confiscated, and was treated very rudely, when in actual fact, technical schematics are available online from the ATM's manufacturer.

It's just people being power-hungry, that's all. I understand that police are concerned about their own privacy and safety, but the major reasoning behind much of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the police (and government in general) from feeling comfortable stepping outside their bounds. People in both situations claimed the cops were being overly violent - so what evidence could anyone bring against the police now?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wonder whether police prefer this approach to accountability, or the Black Panthers approach?

</comment><comment><USER24> Who watches the watchers? Checks and balances America, checks and balance.

"Boston police spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll rejected the notion that police are abusing the law to block citizen oversight, saying the department trains officers about the wiretap law. "If an individual is inappropriately interfering with an arrest that could cause harm to an officer or another individual, an officer's primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the situation,'' she said."

<comment><USER24> Maybe my comment could have been written more clear. What I was portraying was the quote from the Boston police spokeswoman's ridiculous comment in regards to this situation--it was not relevant.

So my reply to her and the situation is "Who watches the watchers?" Meaning if the police are there to watch over us, who watches over the police i.e. "checks and balances"--a big ideal when our government was put together.

It is everyone's duty to perform and engage in checks and balance and I believe it is especially your right to record both audio and visual when in public domain.

Furthermore, they are bending this law... it was implemented as a "wiretap law".

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is there a market for a phone app that records video without audio? Cop-cam? Or maybe phone video recorders need a special "free and open society" button for this.

</comment><comment><USER25> For lots of stupid arrests for photography, go to schneier.com/blog/ and search for photography ; there was a real rash of them for several years a while back.

For lots of Boston Police stupidity, go there and search on Boston Police.

</comment><comment><USER26> Does this mean red light cameras are illegal in Boston?

<comment><USER27> No, because red light cameras do not record audio.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Sue.

</comment><comment><USER29> When I was reading this I was wondering how is this Hacker News material. This is the kind of thing I expect to find on the Reddit frontpage.

</comment><comment><USER30> Everyone seems to be siding against the police here, but I for one agree that recording people in public against their will should definitely be against the law.

It's just a really creepy thing to do and disrespectful of your fellows.

Wouldn't a better approach be to actually confront the police once the arrest has been made and let them know you saw the entire incident and considered it excessive and will be making a report after gathering their badge numbers? What are the chances that this video would only be used to file a complaint or in court, rather than showing up out of context on youtube?

<comment><USER31> What about things like the Oscar Grant case though?

<comment><USER32> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_G...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant)</comment></comment></comment>


Extraordinary 'megaflash' lightning strikes cover several hundred kilometres - <AUTHOR> https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/06/1067182 <comment><USER3> The lot next to where I live has a cell tower which gets hit now and then. It is ... way beyond.. loud. The last time it happened all my pets were in front of me within 10 seconds after, as if saying "Pardon sir, we are not programmed for this event! Please advise!".

The induced EMF in my long cables like cat-5 throughout the house and my outdoor observatory also takes out motherboards, DSL interfaces and ethernet adapters each time. These days when I hear thunder I start unplugging devices.

<comment><USER4> Lightning seems particularly tough on high frequency signal processing hardware. A lightning strike on an invisible dog fence the previous owners had left in place around our house fried, along with a couple of ethernet ports, every HDMI connector that was plugged in in one particular room at the time. Rest of the devices continued to function perfectly, but those HDMI input/outputs were cooked. Similar HDMI devices in another room were totally unaffected. My working theory is that the devices in the affected room were plugged in to multiple power sockets, giving a longer antenna loop through the sensitive components, while in the unaffected room all the devices were running off the same power strip. Would explain why ethernet - <USER2> devices in different rooms - also seems vulnerable.

Not much more evidence to go on, so it's largely superstition, but as a result I do generally try to keep my whole AV setup - game console, TV, AV receiver, etc. - plugged into a single power strip now.

I also now have a cat who is _exceptionally_ nervous whenever he hears thunder. My wife and son were home at the time and... yes, the sound of a lightning strike at point blank is not just _loud_ , it's.. like a crack in the world.

<comment><USER5> The 8-bit Guy had a video on this topic. He does a tour of his home wiring setup and talks about his previous setup was completely destroyed by lightning hitting a tree above a buried cable.

[https://youtu.be/Ev0PL892zSE?t=355](https://youtu.be/Ev0PL892zSE?t=355)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I live in the lightning capitol of North America. As an electrician, people ask me how to protect their personal property against lightning. After the usual spiel about lightning arrestors, and surge suppressors, I tell them clearly, there is no real protection against lightning. It goes wherever, unpredictably, and nothing can guarantee you or your possessions. The equipment I've described can lower your risk; that's all _anything_ can do. I should make a recording of that speech.

<comment><USER7> Does a lightning rod high up and nearby work?

<comment><USER6> Definitely. The Kennedy Space Center Assembly Building has an _excellent_ lightning rod system and it dissipates charge before a strike damages the building. A pointed, metal, grounded stick is effective. But their system is custom engineered and expensive. And, while it's worked well for them, still no guarantees.

About KSC, my inside sales rep for Square D (the best switchgear) worked there for awhile. They needed a contactor, holding up a Shuttle launch, and the nearest one was at Square D HQ in Florence, KY, and could not be delivered today, no way. The KSC rep tells him to hold on. About 30 minutes later, he calls back, "Tell Florence to deliver it to the Guard base there. An F-15 will be on the flight line waiting on it." They do have cool stuff. And the Shuttle launch? It still got delayed.

<comment><USER8> When your package absolutely positively has to be there, US Air Force.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Amazing videos of lightning recorded at 28,500 fps:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQKhIK4pvYo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQKhIK4pvYo)

It really does look a bit like this technique for generating random fractal tendrils:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion- limited_aggregation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion- limited_aggregation)

</comment><comment><USER10> I did have a quick hunt around YouTube but I couldn't find any video of the March 2019 event. How disappointing, in the age of the security camera and dashcam!

<comment><USER11> Someone local to me was struck by lightning recently, whilst they were filming the storm on their phone from their porch. The phone screen is split, their arm hurts etc, but the film was recoverable. The lightning was just discernible as just a slight lightening on one frame, apparently. And a simultaneous clap. They were fine, and apparently it was the second time they were struck, although the first time was decades ago when they were caught out cycling.

<comment><AUTHOR> > They were fine, and apparently it was the second time they were struck

we usually don't notice how insulated we are from the dangers of the elements in our modern lives. We even use "struck by lightening" in many "what are the odds" type of comparisons. But risk/luck is all about positioning and exposing yourself to it[1]. What are the chances of getting killed in a plane crash? A lot higher if you're a pilot.

Last year I spent several months in the wilderness trekking the Alps. The number of times I was scared shitless was much higher than normal. With every bad weather I had to make a decision of whether to camp under trees (and get killed by a falling branch) or by camping in a clear field (and get struck by lightening). Lying there in my tent and thanking god (which I don't even believe in) for my apparent luck. I pondered this a lot and thought about Roy Sullivan[1] constantly (and airline employees too).

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

<comment><USER12> _> The lightning hit the top of his head, set his hair on fire, traveled down, and burnt his chest and stomach. Sullivan turned to his car when something unexpected occurred — a bear approached the pond and tried to steal trout from his fishing line. Sullivan had the strength and courage to strike the bear with a tree branch. He claimed that this was the twenty-second time he hit a bear with a stick in his lifetime._

<comment><USER13> _> The lightning first hit nearby trees and was deflected into the open window of the truck. The strike knocked Sullivan unconscious and burned off his eyebrows and eyelashes, and set his hair on fire. The uncontrolled truck kept moving until it stopped near a cliff edge._

this is one lucky dude

<comment><USER12> Except for the lightning. And I guess the bears.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> On a cursory glance it'd be interesting to know if this record mega-lightning event could be related to the magnetosphere type event mentioned in another HN story: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23658114](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23658114)

They're on different dates but perhaps recording shifts in E&M balances based on global weather conditions, or perhaps affected by solar storms.

</comment><comment><USER15> Can anyone give a simple explanation of why a lightning strike would travel so far laterally, rather than hitting the ground closer to wherever it started?

<comment><USER16> Good question! I'm not entirely sure, but if we consider that: 1) Air is a decent insulator compared to earth 2) Most thunderstorms are quite close to the ground 3) The electric potential is caused by colliding masses of air.

I would have to assume a large volume of air gets a bulk charge that is large in a specific direction but not large enough for a strike to the ground. Then you get a breakdown somewhere that connects a lower potential are to a higher potential area, and because there is a bulk charge, the breakdown simply continues after this initial connection.

After that, I don't really get how it can continue for 16 seconds, other than massive amounts of charged in the atmosphere, and partially ionized leftover air from the initial blast being conductive enough to trigger more insulation breakdowns.

You can use electron beams to charge acrylic which you then trigger to discharge by various means, and it seems to behave in a similar way but on a much smaller scale. Iirc the small lightning bolts inside the acrylic sometimes continue for a surprising amount of time, even though it's tiny, and the flash also (generally) occur entirely within the insulator even it it's quite long and thin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Stay inside

The WMO reiterated the dangers of lightning, and the many lives it claims every year.

Previous extreme examples have led to major loss of life: in 1975, for example, 21 people in Zimbabwe were killed when a single flash hit the hut in which they were sheltering"

So it didn't really help them to stay inside.

<comment><USER18> I guess the difference is whether you're staying inside a hut or a modern building with a grounding system

<comment><USER19> That brick and stone house I'm in does not have any grounding as far as I know. However, I think the wet trees next to it will probably be a better conductor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wonder if these are at all related to the "sprite" phenomenon which is observed from space.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_\(lightning\))

<comment><USER21> Well, proponents of the electric universe theory have an interesting explanation. First of all: lighting is not caused by clouds rubbing together. It is a result of the protective capacitance layer in the upper atmosphere leaking. Sprites are discharges from surrounding space across the ionosphere which trickles further down CAUSING thunderstorms and electric discharge to ground, or lightening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> That sounds awesome. Do we know of any photos or videos of this event?

</comment><comment><USER23> I have always wanted to get ahold of a struck lightning rod (apparently they must be replaced after a strike) which exhibits the z-pinch.

</comment><comment><USER24> Spelling suggestion for the title: s/lightening/lightning/

<comment><USER25> Fixed now. Thanks!</comment></comment>


Uganda government bows to pressure, suspends direct social media tax - <AUTHOR> http://www.pmldaily.com/news/2018/07/government-has-bows-to-pressure-suspends-direct-social-media-tax.html <comment><USER2> Mastodon/Friendi.ca might do well to update their Swahili docs. Ugandan-hosted instances might be a great compromise for the people in this debate.</comment>


New Core i5/i7 MacBook Pros released - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/?

<comment><USER2> Nice to have i5/i7 but the NVidia GPU is somewhat terrible. An ATI 5xxx series is not only more power efficient which Apple cares about, but much more powerful. No IPS screen or USB 3.0 which you sorta want given the premium status of mbps. Jobs commented that MBP would go to a "new level" this year-- this isn't quite new level so I would guess another update in the fall. SSD upgrades also not as useful since no TRIM support. Still the sexiest laptop out there tho so what can ya do but give Steve your money?

<comment><USER3> One reason I like my nVidia chip is that the Adobe creative suite (Photoshop CS4, and I'd assume CS5) takes advantage of the GPU to take load off the CPU. I'm not a gamer though, so I don't have anything to share in that department.

Link: <http://techreport.com/discussions.x/15571>

<comment><USER2> Yeah but they could have at least done more memory on the GPU if they were gonna do a 330m. And if you are gonna stick with Nvidia why not do a NVidia 335 which has been out a while now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A brief history of 15" PB/MBP screen resolution: Oct'01-1152x768, Apr'02-1280x854, Oct'05-1440x960, Feb'06-1440x900, Apr'10-1680x1050 - finally!

<comment><USER5> But it looks like 1680x1050 is $100 more. 1440x900 is still the default configuration. The 1680x1050 screen is offered in both "Glossy" and "Antiglare", though.

(PS: Is "Antiglare" just Apple's marketing term for matte?)

<comment><USER6> I'm surprised Apple's marketing team uses the name anti-glare as it makes the default configuration seem like the glare version. Matte doesn't have that connotation.

<comment><USER7> However, implying that "anti-glare" is better makes it easier to justify charging an extra $50 (for something that used to come standard on all devices... grr).

<comment><USER8> I like how they charge $50 extra for what is essentially removing the plastic screen protector cover that causes all the "glare" in the first place.

A "matte" MacBook Pro has an exposed screen, no black border where the plastic cover is mounted, and looks almost perversely naked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I bought a new laptop recently: i5 Toshiba, 4GB, 0.5 TB. Also plays blu-rays. It cost just under $800. There is no near match with Apple's new lineup, but roughly the Apple tax is about 50% and for those of us who mostly boot Linux the price difference is just not worth it. I must say though, that for developers who live in OS X, the new i7 MBP 15" does look great.

<comment><USER10> I have a Studio XPS 16 on the way (RGBLCD @1920x1080). It was about $1500 after coupons and it blows these MacBook Pros out of the water (a lesser configured MBP runs about $2300). Apple's actions last week had me ordering the Dell Friday morning.

<comment><USER11> Arent you lucky to get a couple of hours battery life with those? That would drive me nuts.

<comment><USER10> If I can get 3-4 hours I'll be happy. It will be my new mobile workstation that I can use at the office, home and sometimes while travelling. I have a Vaio i3 14" if I need to do extended work, but the lack of resolution and smaller keyboard on the Vaio doesn't lend itself to long coding sessions.

My last hacking laptop was a Vostro 1500 with a 1680x1050 resolution. The 9 cell battery lasted about 4 hours while coding, so I carried two of them. I may do the same with the Studio XPS 16.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> mike-cardwell But will these new Macbooks play flash without overheating and making the fan spin up to max? Can't even watch a 2 minute Youtube video on mine without it going mental.

<comment><USER12> Have you tried the new 10.1 beta? <http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/> apparently it's meant to solve a few performance problems for Mac users... would be interesting to hear any feedback from a Mac user.

Edit: Forget this comment, didn't realize until now that hardware acceleration for video decoding was not coming to the Mac, just the PC. That sucks.

<comment> mike-cardwell I tried the beta about a month ago. Made no difference to the fan problem, but it did leave a string of text in the middle of every video. I can't remember what it says as I've not got my macbook to hand but it normally disappears a few seconds after a video starts in the non-beta version.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Any way to find out what "solid state drive" they've got? Is it Intel's X2? That'd make a big difference in how much I'd want to spend/how much time I'd want to spend installing my own.

<comment><USER14> All of apple's SSDs are Samsung, by a large margin the worst on the market.

<http://it.anandtech.com/show/2829/19>

<comment><USER15> Not only that. I've been a Mac user for almost 10 years now but I'm waiting for them to add TRIM support to OS X before taking the SSD plunge. Everybody using an SSD on OS X should understand that its performance will degrade more quickly than on another modern OS. It's quite disappointing to me.

<comment><USER16> For those curious as to _why_ performance will degrade quicker on OS X:

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

Just had to look that up myself. Shocking that OS X doesn't support it natively, although the article suggests there may be utilities that can replace that functionality.

<comment><USER17> Intel X-25M has TRIM support in the controller itself, and thats the way it should be I believe

<comment><USER15> Unfortunately while there are strategies to mitigate the problem in hardware, proper TRIM support is still best. You might be getting confused by the TRIM enabled firmware that was released in December '09 for that SSD? It just means that the Intel drive will obey TRIM commands from the OS. But if the OS doesn't send any commands, which OS X won't, then you're not taking advantage of TRIM. For what it's worth, if you were going to choose a drive that would degrade the least in performance without the use of TRIM, you probably chose best with the Intel X-25M. But it would still perform better over time in Linux or Windows 7.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you go to customise there are new display options on the 15" models - [http://store.apple.com/uk/learnmore/MC371B/A?group=macbookpr...](http://store.apple.com/uk/learnmore/MC371B/A?group=macbookpro_display_15)

</comment><comment><USER19> Only in 15". the 13" are c2d.

<comment><USER17> Is there really any difference between 13" MBP and 13" MB apart from unibody? (and is it worth the price difference?)

<comment><USER20> The macbook pro 13" is worth the money for the unibody alone. I own a 13MB and the white plastic case is cracking in more places then I care to mention. I got them to fix it once, and only because it was their fault. They just don't hold up build quality wise. The only negative part about the unibody is my wife doesn't like the feel of the metal, it gives her the willies, but I can't fault Apple for that one.

<comment><USER21> The regular MacBook is also unibody now and seems to be pretty close to the MBP in terms of build quality.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, the white unibody has a very nice build to it; it doesn't seem like it will crack. But only time will tell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So, I priced my MBP out to around $2500 bucks, and a somewhat similar Lenovo T510 to $1869.

I was thinking about getting a mac really just to have the option to do mac desktop application development. Would I be better off with a hackintosh setup instead?

<comment><USER24> I don't have hackintosh experience but here are my thoughts.

\- The trackpad. You won't be able to use gestures and multi-touch features. Especially if you use some software that lets you add custom multi-touch gestures, it's really nice to have a huge trackpad with gestures.

\- Battery life (and longevity) will almost certainly be significantly better on a MacBook Pro.

\- Apple's support is pretty great. If you have any hardware issues Apple will take good care of you. Sometimes you have to push for it, but I've had a 2 year old computer replaced with a new one because they couldn't fix a relatively minor WiFi issue.

\- The MacBook Pro displays are really good and viewing angles are much better than most PC displays I've seen. You can optionally bump up the resolution of the 15" MBP to 1680x1050 for $100.

\- Backlit keyboard — I thought I wouldn't really care about it, I type in Dvorak anyway so I don't need to see my QWERTY keyboard, but this is actually really nice in low-light situations.

\- I've also read that there's a lot more that makes Mac hardware fast than just the tech specs. The hardware is well tuned.

A lot of these are little things, but they add up and make for a really good experience.

<comment><USER25> "it's really nice to have a huge trackpad with gestures."

This is one of the most important usability features on my 13in. MBP. It's the first track pad I've used that I prefer to a mouse. I think it's mostly because you don't have to keep picking your finger up to scroll a long distance on the screen. Also, multi-touch gestures have become second nature, especially in Safari (3-finger swipe for forward/back is even better than keyboard shortcuts).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm assuming that they didn't put the better processor in the 13" due to thermal or battery requirements. Sad, I would really have liked that config.

<comment><USER27> I was wondering that myself. I have been holding off upgrading my 13" MB for the new line MBP. Now I'm thinking I should just bite the bullet and shell out the extra couple hundred for a 15".

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Looks like a nice upgrade.

One thing I really wish they would change is the clicking on the trackpad - instead of a heavy hinge at the top, it should be equally and easily depressable everywhere (for example, like the BB Storm2 screen). I don't know if I could use my macbook without turning on touch-to-click.

<comment><USER29> i think the hinging probably increases the overall expected lifetime as the pad, 'cause then theres fewer degrees of freedom where friction wear needs to be accounted for, but this is only personal speculation/experience

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is there any reason to be excited about the new CPUs? I'd say that the high- res display on 15" and better battery life are more interesting.

Also, any info if the graphic cards switch automagically or you have to log out?

<comment><USER31> In my experience, the i7 is ungodly fast. A linux recompile is about 20 seconds on my box.

Unfortunately, it's the i5 that has crypto acceleration. The i7 does about 80MB/s/core, and the i5 does something like 2000MB/s. But is slower otherwise.

Fucking Intel....

<comment><USER32> I can't speak for the mobile models but on the desktop, i5 vs i7 is a wash for most tasks with only a few percent in it.

<comment><USER33> How so?

<comment><USER32> Toms Hardware did a reasonable roundup: <http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5,2410.html>

On the media apps, the i5 beats the equivalently clocked i7 on most of the benches. On the productivity section, the i5 is equal to the i7 on 2 of the 5, and beaten by 10-20% on the others (those that seem to feed heavily on the hyperthreading and extra cache of the i7). Notably, though, the i5 and i7 are a wash in the Photoshop test (a key benchmark for the sort of things I do).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Not Apple's fault, but I have troubles with the naming schemes of the new Intel CPUs. Somehow if a CPU is called Core i5 or Core i7, I expect it to have 5 or 7 cores respectively. I take it that isn't the case?

<comment><USER33> These current incarnations have 2 cores. I'm a bit disappointed that Apple didn't go for the 4-core i5/i7, though.

<comment><USER31> Probably because the top-end TDP is 130W for the i7. That has a tendency to lead to low battery life.

<comment><USER35> The _mobile_ i7 quad-core is 45W. Apple doesn't make desknotes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Any idea how come the battery is so huge and so light at the same time? 78Wh for a battery that doesnt protrude from the case is a lot

<comment><USER37> When you remove the constraint that the battery has to be user-removable and user-replacable, you get to choose battery sizes and shapes that are a lot more impressive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Seems like I replied to the wrong article: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1261802>

Anyway: Very expensive. Why not go for a netbook and desktop instead? Are you really so mobile that you're willing to pay $1000 to get less hardware?

<comment><USER11> Absolutely. The netbook user experience is horrifying. My laptop does everything I need, so why do I want a desktop?

<comment><USER31> Desktops are less expensive, upgradeable, more powerful, and quieter. And you can setup a more ergonomic work area than with a laptop (unless you like a lot of peripherals hanging off your laptop, which kind of defeats the purpose).

If you must work from a coffee shop, just bring your $300 netbook and ssh into your desktop. Why bring a noisy and hot laptop that only lasts for 4 hours when you can have a silent machine that lasts for 14?

Desktops are great for power. Netbooks are great for portability. Laptops are bad at both.

<comment><USER11> My major bugbear, I guess, is that a netbook has a crummy, tiny screen. I can live fairly happily without dual head for coding, but I find netbooks' screen/keyboard/slowness unbearable.

My laptop has enough power for my day to day needs (running web browsers, dev IDE, mail, and not taking forever to compile large tex docs), and for my larger needs, well, I need a 32GB RAM server for those, so I wouldn't have a desktop that could handle them either :-). Unless I'm really caning it, it doesn't make a sound, and all I have to do to turn it into a workstation is plug in a USB hub and monitor - not exactly a chore.

In terms of portability, my macbook is light enough for me to easily carry around, and in practise I get around 5-6 hours battery life even after a year's usage. If I upgraded to a newer macbook (I have one with a removable battery), I'd get closer to 10.

I completely agree about not buying a bad laptop. I have no interest in lugging around a behemoth that gets two hours battery life, or one that trades weight for being too slow for my everyday needs. A good laptop (and I'm not _just_ talking about macs here, although I've had extremely positive experiences with mine) is powerful, light, and has good battery life. Unfortunately, you have to pay extra for that, but considering it's my only work-related expense, it seems cheap at the price. I love not being tied to my desk.

<comment><USER31> I've never noticed, as I use xmonad and don't really worry about screen real- estate. I started using a Windows 7 netbook, and you're right, the tiny screen makes things difficult. The solution is to not use Windows :)

<comment><USER11> I've never used windows on a netbook. My eyes aren't so great, so I tend to run slightly larger fonts than most people would, and the amount of information I can get on screen at once just isn't reasonable. I can't imagine trying to use Eclipse (say) on it.

In general, I just wouldn't consider a netbook suitable for doing a day's coding on - it's great for short term use, or if all I need is a couple of terminals, but it just doesn't have enough power or usability. That said, if it works for you, then great! I imagine it probably comes down to how much time you spend at your desk - if you're largely in a fixed location, then I see that having a powerful laptop just isn't worth the money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I have a fall 2008 unibody MBP that requires a complete logout to switch graphics cards. Anyone know if the ability to switch on the fly requires hardware or will it make its way back down to older owners via a software update?

<comment><USER39> It's a hardware thing, so no. Surprisingly though it isn't Nvidia's Optimus switching stuff but rather some proprietary apple concoction.

<comment><USER40> I had to fact-check this because some sites (including Ars) are incorrectly reporting that Apple does use Optimus.

Here is a link from Apple Insider discussing Apple's graphics switching: [http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/13/nvidia_says_ne...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/13/nvidia_says_new_macbook_pro_graphics_switching_isnt_optimus.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> So many say the SSDs delivered by Apple don't perform and recommend Intel SSDs.

But when you need 256GB or 500GB there's no choice, right?

<comment><USER35> SandForce is available in 200GB and 400GB and is as fast as Intel. If you want 512GB you definitely don't have many choices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I _just_ got a new MacBook about two weeks ago.

Edit: My employer paid for it, so I'll probably stick with it.

<comment><USER43> This should help you in the future: <http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/>

<comment><USER44> Except that they have been saying "Don't Buy - Updates soon" for the last three months.

<comment><USER45> If not for the iPad launch, these laptops would probably have been released in February, so saying "Updates soon" for three months is about as much as could be expected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> The Apple Care will expire this summer, I think I'll hold up until the fall to see if they introduce USB3

</comment><comment><USER47> No USB 3?! Hello, Thinkpad.

<comment><USER8> You buy your notebooks based entirely on one connector? You must have a lot of USB 3 devices your livelihood depends on.

<comment><USER47> No, I was torn between the W510 and the then-unreleased macbook pro update. Now I'm not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Is SATA 6gbps supported?

<comment><USER35> No.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Has anyone come across performance tests between nVidias older 9400M chip and their new 320M chip?

I find it interesting that the 13" models now tout a "10 hour battery", up from the old 7 hour one - I am curious to find out if it's all caused by replacing the old 9400M north/southbridge with the 320M, or if there is also a new battery behind it. A 45% increase in estimated avg. battery time is a pretty damned nice number for any laptop user.

<comment><USER50> looking at specs new battery is 63.5Wh vs older model's 60Wh

<comment><USER49> Meaning the 320M is a whole lot more power efficient than the 9400M. Thanks for the numbers.</comment></comment></comment>


Anti-Putin Politician Facing Kremlin Raid Uses Drone to Fly Hard Drives Away - <AUTHOR> https://www.newsweek.com/russia-novosibirsk-sergey-boyko-navalny-1459145 <comment><USER2> It's not the first their raid, so I believe they didn't store much data on the drives, only cloud. However, Russian police unlikely to ever return the seized stuff, so the drone just saves them money and burden of buying new hard drives.

<comment><USER3> And highly symbolic. It was a very defiant gesture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Now that's the fun part of the cyberpunk timeline I was looking for.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've always assumed high level Russian elections are rigged. Is that true? Are low level elections more fair?

<comment><USER6> Hell no. It's even crazier and more blatantly unfair since there's less monitoring and less need to save face and maintain the illusion of fairness.

<comment><USER5> But the article implies this guys movement to elect anti kremlin reps to lower positions is working?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Bravo, Sergei Boiko! I hope people donate to your Yandex Kashelyok.

<comment><USER8> [https://money.yandex.ru/to/4100110426155439](https://money.yandex.ru/to/4100110426155439)</comment></comment>


This page is served by the small web server running on a Sinclair ZX81 - <AUTHOR> http://zx81-siggi.endoftheinternet.org/index.html <comment><USER2> I love minimal web server projects.

Here are a few more.

(<http://d116.com/ace/>)

(<http://www.edcheung.com/awards/pic2k/code.htm>)

(<http://www.kyllikki.org/hardware/wwwpic2/>)

Sadly, a bunch of my links are dead now.

<comment><USER3> dont forget Spud! <http://d116.com/spud/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "busy - MEFISDOS filesystem currently in use. Please try a little bit later again ..."

Gotta love this message. It conveys the feeling that this thing is for real.

<comment><AUTHOR> I appreciate that by posting it here, it has almost no chance of standing up to the traffic... But it was too cool not to share.

<comment><USER4> It did work for me, one page at a time. Which makes sense because I don't think this server can do multithreading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there an HTTP response code for RAM pack wobble?

<comment><USER6> Ugh ... that edge card connector and the RAM's vertical orientation was horrible. I tore mine out of the original case, found a real (mechanical) keyboard, built a better power supply and added a weed-eater style battery. I could move it around (unpowered) for quite a while before it lost it's memory and there were several times I took it to the local TSUG without having to reload the program I wanted to show off.

A local jeweler designed what he called a "winky board" and sold it to thousands of TS owners. It provided an AGC for both the audio input and audio output as well as shaping circuits to eliminate noise from the signal. This little board actually made storing programs on cassettes reliable.

Ah ... memories!

EDIT: It was a Winky Board - There are references here:

\- ftp://ftp.worldofspectrum.org/pub/sinclair/technical- docs/SinclairHardwareFactSheet.txt

\- [http://forum.tlienhard.com/TS1000/www.ts1000.us/cgi- bin/yabb...](http://forum.tlienhard.com/TS1000/www.ts1000.us/cgi- bin/yabb/YaBB.pl-board=COLLECT;action=print;num=1111842714.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have a ZX-81 (that I built from the kit version) and two TS-2000's in my basement, perhaps if you clustered them, the page could survive the HN effect.

EDIT: Two of them have the 16KB RAM expansion modules if the system is memory limited.

<comment><USER7> 16KB! How luxurious, I had the standard 1KB. I saved my pocket money but by the time I could afford the expansion pack the industry (and I) had moved on.

<comment><USER8> I had a ZX-80 with upgraded ROM (to ZX-81) such that the onboard memory (1k) was insufficient to run the memory test program you got with the computer. Luckily, I had the 16kB expansion module. The worst part was that my monitor was a US TV set (most Australian TVs didn't have UHF support) but it was NTSC, so to get a usable image I had to do crazy things with the vertical hold.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> That poor Sinclair ZX81 can't handle HN load! It's probably done more work today than it has its entire lifetime.

</comment><comment><USER10> Cool. I'll have to put mine back in service. It's currently being used as a door stop ;-)

</comment><comment><USER11> Is this real? I wonder how the networking gets in/out? AFAIK, there's no port for that.

Also, does anyone have a cache? Looks like it couldn't cope with the traffic.

<comment><USER12> <http://spectrum.alioth.net/doc/index.php/Spectranet>

<comment><USER13> An interesting design choice to roll their own with a bare wiznet chip instead of a little "DIP-like" module like the WIZ811.

This design sounds very close to the arduino ethernet shield design. Wonder if they're doing TCP offload and all that in the wiznet. If you buy a $20 or whatever '811 and attach the correct wires to the correct ports and provide 3.3 volts that basically IS the $50 arduino shield so this is pretty well trodden ground.

The wiznet stuff can be advanced enough that you're kinda stretching the truth by describing it as being on the internet. All the "on the internet" stuff is being done by a microcontroller and the speccy is just talking to another SPI device.

At one point I had a SBC6120 PDP-8 "on the internet" but not really. The PDP-8 thought it was talking to a serial terminal, that's all that was done on the PDP-8 / OS-8 side to be "on the net". There are plenty of little $100 boxes that terminate an ethernet connected telnet session on one side of the box and speak plain ole RS-232 serial on the other side of the box and that was what I was using and the speccy thing sounds about the same except terminating port 80 connections. Its not like putting windows 3.0 "on the net" using all kinds of device drivers and stuff deep in the innards of the OS.

Maybe "internet accessible" is a better phrase.

Its still a cool project aside from terminology. I'm sorta on and off trying to hook a wiznet module to what amounts to a modern S100 CP/M box as my slow ongoing retro experiment. Why? Because I can.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> *was

</comment><comment><USER15> Not anymore, it isn't!

</comment><comment><USER16> I am soooooooo happy - where is the source code ! :-)

<comment><USER17> He can ship it to you as an mp3.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Google Cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://zx81-siggi.endoftheinternet.org/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER19> You can do similar things on the Arduino with an Ethernet shield. There a single IC which contains a hardware implementation of the TCP/IP stack which takes the load of the AVR itself.

</comment><comment><USER20> For anyone else that don't know what a ZX81 is: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_ZX81>

</comment><comment><USER21> I found one of these at a thrift store the other day for $4, fun to see what people are doing with it now.

</comment><comment><USER22> Oh the beautiful times I had with my ZX Spectrum and how much you could do with such little

</comment><comment><USER23> <https://endoftheinter.net/>

</comment><comment><USER24> I've been hitting refresh for ages and I still get nothing :-)

</comment><comment><USER25> yes, with a loose definition of "served". :-)

</comment><comment><USER26> And it's down...

</comment><comment><USER27> ... and it's down.

</comment><comment><USER28> not anymore!</comment>