The Toyota Witch Hunt - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/print/lifestyle/content/feb2010/bw20100225_403524.htm

<comment> old-gregg "Every man, woman, and child in the U.S. has approximately a one-in-8000 chance of perishing in a car accident every year. Over a decade, that's about one in 800. Given the millions of cars included in the Toyota recalls and the fewer than 20 alleged deaths over the past decade, the alleged fatality rate is about one death per 200,000 recalled Toyotas. Even if all the alleged deaths really are resultant from vehicle defects—highly unlikely—and even if all the worst things people are speculating about Toyotas are true, and you're driving one, and you aren't smart or calm enough to shift to neutral if the thing surges, you're still approximately 250 times likelier to die in one of these cars for reasons having nothing to do with unintended acceleration. So if you can muster the courage to get into a car and drive, the additional alleged risk of driving a Toyota is virtually negligible..."

The rest is in the C&D article referenced, I believe, by the author:

[http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/10q1/toyota_recall_scan...](http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/10q1/toyota_recall_scandal_media_circus_and_stupid_drivers- editorial)

<comment><USER2> The C&D article (and the ones it points to about their road test) is really good. Because there are more people talking about this than actually know anything. Including in this thread.

The C&D article does leave the door open to the possibility of the brakes not stopping the car. If you pump the brakes, rather than firmly putting them down once, you may lose vacuum, or overheat the brakes in a series of "slow down a little" steps. The vacuum is apparently hard to replenish when the throttle is open.

The advice about turning the car off works sometimes, but not always. Suppose you're in a rental Lexus like the one the CA state trooper died in. Would you know that to kill the engine, you have to depress the off button for 3 seconds continuously? Three seconds is a long time with the throttle wide open.

It seems the key technical mistake on Toyota's part, as pointed out in the C&D article, is to omit an interlock that kills the throttle when the brake is depressed. This is apparently standard on many other cars.

Toyota's damage control on this has been disastrous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is definitely a witch hunt. The same thing happened in my ford truck when I misplaced the mat after cleaning it. I simply turned the car off put the clutch in and coasted to a stop at the edge of the highway and fixed the mat. From the reports this sounds like the exact situation for the Toyota cars. From my perspective nothing is wrong with the cars and the whole thing is way overblown.

<comment><USER4> Many of the Toyota problems had nothing to do with the mats--they are drive by wire and the computer was slammed on the gas without the pedal being depressed. Depending on when this occurs it could be deadly even with an expert driver.

<comment><USER5> Please forward your proof of this to Toyota and the congressional committee to which Toyota swore this was not the case.

It's tempting to blame drive by wire, since electronics is black magic to most people. Keep in mind that most passenger jets in the sky are fly by wire, these days.

For you to point blank claim this to be true, when it's been flatly denied several times, seems a bit over the top, don't you think?

<comment><USER4> Complaints of out of control acceleration increased several times over after moving to DbW and some recent complaints have noted that no floor mats were in the vehicle (which makes it hard to blame on floor mats):

[http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/29/business/la-fi- toyot...](http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/29/business/la-fi-toyota- throttle29-2009nov29)

Toyota is claiming it's not the DbW system, but they also thought they had this issue fixed a long time ago. It's a hard thing to prove unless you see it yourself (unlike a broken cable like we used to have before DbW).

Even Woz thinks is the DbW software:

[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10445564-64.html?tag=mncol...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10445564-64.html?tag=mncol;txt)

<comment><USER6> _Complaints of out of control acceleration increased several times over after moving to DbW_

Complaints of out of control acceleration increased after 2000. I guess it's the millennium bug. In other words: correlation is not causation. Moreover, no numbers are presented to actually support this correlation. What about 1996-1999? 100 cases would be totally plausible.

 _Even Woz thinks is the DbW software_ With the rather important difference that it doesn't actually cause any problems, because he can just brake and make the acceleration stop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can someone explain to me why Congress gets involved in investigating things like Toyota's manufacturing defects or the way college football teams are ranked?

Does Congress have a legal mandate to investigate anything it deems to be interesting/fishy/a potential target for legislation? Has Congress always conducted these types of investigations or is it a modern phenomenon?

<comment><USER8> cynic: Congress' mandate is to investigate anything that will get votes, or campaign funds.

Wikipedia: _Investigative hearings share some of the characteristics of legislative and oversight hearings. The difference lies in Congress's stated determination to investigate, usually when there is a suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of public officials acting in their official capacity, or private citizens whose activities suggest the need for a legislative remedy. Congress's authority to investigate is broad and it has exercised this authority since the earliest days of the republic. Its most famous inquiries are benchmarks in American history: Credit Mobilier, Teapot Dome, Army- McCarthy, Watergate, and Iran-Contra. Investigative hearings often lead to legislation to address the problems uncovered. Judicial activities in the same area of Congress's investigation may precede, run simultaneously with, or follow such inquiries._

It's not a recent phenomenon at all. For example, the Crédit Mobilier hearings were in 1872.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the answer. The difference is that the scandals in the Wikipedia article all directly involve government:

Credit Mobilier: "The distribution of Crédit Mobilier stocks by Congressman Oakes Ames along with cash bribes to congressmen"

Teapot Dome: "control of U.S. Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming and at Elk Hills and Buena Vista in California, were transferred from the U.S. Navy Department to the Department of the Interior"

And Army-McCarthy, Watergate and Iran-Contra are all obviously directly tied to the government.

In those cases it makes sense for Congress to get involved. It's when Congress start to investigate "private citizens whose activities suggest the needs for legislative remedy" that I get concerned. That type of broad power apparently gives them free-reign to investigate anything they don't like.

It seems to me that in the past (15 or 20+ years ago) Congress didn't get involved in non-government related "scandals" like Toyota and college football, I'd be interested if anyone has examples to the contrary.

<comment><USER8> "Baseball Probe Begins Tomorrow" - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 29, 1951.

[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DDAbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=d...](http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=DDAbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=d00EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4854,4723325&dq=baseball+congress+investigative+hearing&hl=en)

There are lots of other examples if you search newspaper archives using Google News. I encourage you to go look for yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sudden acceleration complaints by year/make [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1242358...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124235858)

For model year 2009, Volkswagen had 11.5 complaints per 100k vehicles, whereas Toyota had 7.5 and BMW 5.8

</comment><comment><USER10> It's times like this I feel like someone needs to tell the American people to grow up and stop acting like scared children. They're so easily manipulated by simple fear tactics. Automobiles are incredibly dangerous simply due to the drivers behind the wheel. Design flaws are the least of your worries. We can't seem to muster the same type of concentrated rage against drunk drivers, texting drivers, or any other impairments that make automobiles less safe. We can't even make laws that make automobiles safer by design. Why aren't side air bags a requirement? or roof air bags? More frequent safety inspections? Bad tires or worn out windshield wipers are so much more dangerous than the statistical improbability of a stuck throttle. It really makes me incredibly angry how capable Americans are of ignoring big problems and focusing on the tiny ones instead. We're doomed as a country if this mindset doesn't change and I'm not sure we don't deserve it.

</comment><comment><USER11> While I agree that the media and politicians are now feasting on Toyotas failures, the fact is that Toyota really botched this. Had they taken the reports seriously earlier none of this would have happened, and lives could have been spared. Apparently they never thought this story could spiral out of control.

People seem to forget that this only happened until after Toyota had repeated recalls, each promising to fix the problem.

Is there a ghost in the machine? I don't know, Woz certainly seems to think so. Replacing floor mats and then gas pedals seems awfully like what happened with the Therac 25 radiation overdoses in the 80s.

(The Therac 25 manufacturer first added an extra hardware switch to the radiation therapy machine and claimed it was "an order of magnitude safer". When more people died, the quick emergency fix was to remove the "up" button from the VT100 console.)

</comment><comment><USER12> See the Great Seattle Windshield Pitting Epidemic: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Windshield_Pitting_Epid...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Windshield_Pitting_Epidemic)

</comment><comment><USER13> It may be a witch hunt, but I have a 2008 Prius that has had a number of issues with brakes after potholes etc -- going for about one second without having much effect.

It has happened to me once when I went over a pothole and my wife a number of times (she drives more).

I'm in Canada and my local dealer can't reproduce the problem yet, but put yourself in the position of a Toyota owner who is no longer confident in being safe and who would get less than half the purchase price for a car with < 70,000 KM on it.

The Honda dealer doesn't want Toyotas as tradeins; they can't sell them.

Can you feel the anger?

I don't want to have to buy another car; I want to work on my startup. But I don't want to worry about my family's safety or buying some used car.

Toyota should be forced to buy back their crap products at some reasonable percentage, since these problems remind me of "heisenbugs" in code...

<comment><USER13> Or to put it more succinctly: just because there are stupid and/or dishonest people complaining about bugs in a product does NOT mean there are no bugs in said product or that all claims are baseless.

I would bet any sample of 3000 complaints about the Ford Pinto or any product had at least some stupid and some dishonest ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> _If Congress really wanted to get at the truth, they should have called disinterested third-party engineers to study and get their opinion on this case. Nobody believes Toyota, even if the final facts prove it's correct. Everyone believes the witnesses, even when the engineering evidence often disproves their testimony. It is impossible to come to a scientifically valid conclusion under those two circumstances, which is why many individuals involved in this issue have described the proceedings as "witch hunts."_

Actual American political debate hardly happens anymore. What we have now is theater. The mentality of the LCD American voter is simply abysmal. You can see it from the low or sloppy intellectual content of the "product" which is presented to them by politicians, journalists, and other media workers.

<comment><USER15> "the LCD American voter..."

Heh, that works on two levels--not just "lowest common denominator" but also the American voter who watches too much TV news on their LCD HDTV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I had the exact same reaction when I saw this.."congress? why is congress getting involved in this?"

If people are upset with how their Toyota cars are operating, then no one stands to lose more than the Toyota company itself in lost revenue. So what additional incentive or pressure could congress apply here except increased publicity? Let's see...we lose a billion dollars, or get chewed out by some old guys for a few hours, which sounds worse?

It seems really silly to watch politicians chastise a CEO and talk down to him. Good engineering (especially on a massive scale like that) is really hard. If they think they can do better then no one is stopping them (members of congress) from starting their own car company to try and compete. Otherwise, I'm not sure why they feel qualified to criticize.

Something else that bugged me is the quote from one of the witnesses which said 'Shame on you Toyota for being so greedy'. So...you're saying they intentionally pissed off all their customers as some sort of plan to make more money? I'm so confused by this mentality people have that greed in corporations is a bad thing. Yes, you could argue they sacrificed long term quality for a short term savings, but this is hardly greedy, it's just bad business practice that leaves you with LESS money.

This may be unrealistic, but I really wanted to see the Toyota CEO reply to congress with some sort of statement like, "We won't be appearing at any hearings. We are a private company and don't answer to government. We only answer to our customers. So if any of our customers have questions here is a toll free hotline. Members of congress, if you are a Toyota customer, feel free to call as well, but you're role in government won't be taken into account in how we respond."

</comment><comment><USER17> Perfect time to buy a Toyota, also I'd evaluate Toyota stock.

<comment><USER18> It would be very difficult to evaluate Toyota stock. This kind of media events can warp public opinion about a company for a long time. I think it would be very hard to put number to this. I would bet that even if tomorrow the government comes out and says "oops, my bad, everything is fine" you wouldn't see a sudden reversal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Any comments on this article? This auto professor is able to reproduce the problem.

[http://www.leftlanenews.com/report-toyota-electronics- design...](http://www.leftlanenews.com/report-toyota-electronics-design-flaw- causes-sudden-acceleration-video.html)

This is what the article says about the prof:

      Instead, we were treated to Dr. David Gilbert of Southern Illinois University, also a guest of Mr. Kane's, who claimed to have found how Toyota's electronic system could totally malfunction, creating a runaway car—and claimed he'd found the error in less than four hours. Spoiler alert: Dr. Gilbert was assigned this work by Kane's safety advocacy firm, with at least partial funding by trial lawyers.

      Here, too, is a problem: Dr. Gilbert said he relayed the results of that test and his concerns directly to Toyota. In short order Toyota looked into Dr. Gilbert's claims and found them not to be valid in terms of creating unintended acceleration. Then, to the company's surprise, it watched his appearance with Brian Ross on ABC News this past Monday night, Feb. 22.

      According to Toyota, it now appears that Dr. Gilbert had done something completely different in order to get a Toyota Avalon to accelerate under its own power. Toyota offered to evaluate Dr. Gilbert's Avalon, with ABC in attendance, and see what he did electronically to cause it to accelerate.

      Additionally, Toyota is fairly adamant that Gilbert's "test evaluation" on ABC News was not the original "discovery" he relayed to them on Feb. 16.

<comment><USER20> The professor apparently hooked up an "external bypass device" to a brand new Toyota Avalon, and then complains that the computer should sense the artificial short he introduced into the system and disable the acceleration system. Hardly the most reliable test.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I believe two things related to this:

1\. to a certain degree, the US is punishing Japan due to their recent actions in the bond markets. This is a very important problem for a very small amount of people, but it makes great headlines. Do you think the US government is genuinely interested in resolving this properly from an engineering perspective?

2\. that 100% "drive by wire" systems should not be allowed...there should be a big red "holy shit" kill switch on the dash of modern cars that kills power to everything except steering and brakes

So, imho, its a very serious problem, that affects very few people (in the big scheme of things), and there is a very simple solution, for going forward technology at least, if not existing models. But do you guys get the feeling that this is what the conversation is actually about? Something seems a bit odd to me.

But then I'm one of those conspiracy theorists that think when you're running 15% budget deficits and have real (as measured using historical methods) unemployment of 20%, and many bond issues are taken down 50% by the federal reserve (literally printing money to buy your own debt), that you will start to observe unusual things happening in the marketplace. The adherents of Occam's Razor would imply that that I am simply crazy, becasue the simplest answer is __always __the correct answer. So I guess thats it.

</comment><comment><USER14> The Mythbusters tried to slam a car into reverse at speed. What they discovered, is that there are safety mechanisms to prevent this from happening in automatics.

<http://mythbustersresults.com/episode84>

<comment><USER22> Not just automatics... my manual (2004 Honda) has an interlock that blocks the shifter from moving into reverse if I'm moving forward at > 10mph.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Thank god! I have heard only from people who buy into the witch hunt (and an excellent name for it, that is). I am really very glad to see I'm not the only person who realizes most of it is ridiculous and overblown. Hell, even if the gas pedal corroded AND the floor mat held it down, has not one of these drivers even though to reach down and PULL the goddamn thing up?

I pray people realize this is folly... I don't know what we're gonna do if stupidity brings down the pillar of the auto industry, through no fault of it's own.

<comment><USER24> I don't disagree that this has been overblown, but in fairness it would be fairly difficult to reach down and pull the gas pedal up while the engine is raging and the vehicle is undergoing significant forward acceleration, while the driver is presumably trying to avoid colliding into other vehicles and objects.

Of course, they should just shift it to neutral and let it redline.

<comment><USER23> Yes to the second part

as for the first part, doesn't have to be your hand. Depending on the vehicle, you might be able to get your toe under the pedal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This whole Toyota debacle makes me wonder if competing car companies buy cars made by other manufacturers and poke at them in the hopes of having something just like this happen.

<comment><USER26> The risk of being caught doing that is grounds for bankruptcy and life sentences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> "As noted before, brakes always win out over engines, even at full throttle; that has been tested and proved many times in the past 20 years, including recent Car and Driver tests on Toyotas."

This is not necessarily true. It's entirely dependent on the brakes involved and the engine involved; any given vehicle could go either way. I personally have witnessed steel brake rotors melted and dripping off the vehicle; the brakes had locked up at highway speed and the driver had continued driving, reporting afterwards that the vehicle seemed a little sluggish but not excessively so, so he hadn't stopped. For that vehicle: the brakes lost. For other vehicles, perhaps ones with dinky engines and big fat brakes: the brakes may win. It's certainly not the sort of thing where one can say "brakes always win".

Car and Driver's article ( [http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_u...](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration- tech_dept) ) seems to assume that Toyotas don't cut the engine power when the brakes are applied, but their own tests belie that. I would guess that Toyota's software cuts the power LESS than the competition's software does. But if you're stopping from 70mph with and without the throttle at full, and you notice a minimal difference - as C&D did - I can guarantee you that the throttle is being reduced when the brakes are applied. Maybe not to zero, but reduced.

<comment><USER28> Absolutely. I used to own a V-8 Ford pickup; if you happened to hit the brakes and the gas at the same time the power of the engine would completely overwhelm the brakes and the truck would (start to or continue to) move. If you accidently left the parking brake on, you couldn't discern a difference while driving it. Coming from a state where many people own pickup trucks, I was taught that the engine will overpower the brakes, every time. Now I own a small car with exceptional brakes that I'm sure would stop in that situation, but that's just the exception that proves the rule - it depends on how big your engine is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I bet there is a mechanical/electrical issue that is blown way out of proportion, and human error in some of these issues.

Once I accidentally slammed on the gas thinking it was the brake. (I got confused switching from a manual transmission to an automatic.) It was scary...the car jumped a curb and my driver's ed teacher was furious. He slammed his brake and it stopped the car.

<comment><USER30> that's how I failed my first driver's test.

Was reversing into a spot, and hit gas instead of brakes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> finally got around to creating a HN account. IMHO "unintended acceleration" is the penis panic of the west.

</comment><comment><USER23> By the way, just in case it ever helps anyone:

If you are in a car moving along and you have to kill the engine, or the engine dies, get on the brakes as fast as you can and don't let go. You can ease up on the brakes almost to the point of letting go of the pedal, but don't come off all the way.

The reason is the brakes will maintain the power-assist vacuum from the engine, even when the engine is later switched off, until they are released completely. The 'power-assist' strength will remain for tens of seconds, at least. I've tried this many times before. I can't guarantee it works on modern cars, but it sure did work on my '86 Toyota with standard hydraulic vacuum- assist brakes.

<comment><USER28> I can't see why that would be necessary.

The vacuum _assist_ is just that - an assist. The brakes still work if you don't have it, you just have to put some extra force on the pedal. It isn't even that much force; I've driven older vehicles that don't have any assist at all and it's not _that_ much harder to push the pedal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I hold the conspiracy theory that these issues are being so aggressively sought out in an attempt to bring Toyota's image down to the level of American auto manufacturers.

<comment><USER33> I wholeheartedly agree. The sheer number of failures that have to occur, the low level of action on the drivers' parts required to overcome the problem (put it in neutral! Use your brakes! Use your _parking_ brakes!), the speed and intensity of the government's response, and the fact that GM is so unpopular combine to make the entire debacle suspect.

<comment><USER34> I haven't driven any newer Toyotas, but do they not let you turn off the ignition while in motion/gear?

<comment><USER20> The newer Toyotas all have push button start. Apparently, it's not very intuitive, unless you have a lot of experience building PCs with ATX power supplies, that you need to hold down the start button for 3-4 seconds to turn off the engine when it is in drive.

It's almost like Microsoft designed these cars: "What? I push Start to shut down the car/computer?"

<comment><USER35> I really don't understand the push button start fad. Unless it's coupled to an RFID key or some such, it's _less_ convenient than just turning the key.

<comment><USER20> It is coupled with RFID chips in your key. I actually find it very convenient on my Hyundai. I can walk up to the car door and open it, it unlocks automatically because the RFID key is in my pocket. I can sit down and start the car and take off without ever removing my keys from my pocket.

It's also very convenient for opening the trunk without a key as well. It has proximity sensors by the driver and passenger doors, as well as the trunk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wow. A wonderful article.

The real question is, just how in-control is the computer. And how much has to go wrong such that uncontrollable acceleration happens and nothing can override that acceleration such that no matter what you do the computer makes the car go into "drive" and accelerate to the max, without responding to other parts of the system like the breaks and such.

<comment><USER23> The accelerator pedal would have to be immovable, frozen in place.

The ignition switch would have to lock or otherwise malfunction

The shift lever or clutch or automatic shift lever would have to malfunction

The brakes would have to overheat (does not really happen much in a production car). It is not 100% true that brakes will always overpower the engine, but the cases in which they don't are the ones with massive 700hp engines with big 'ol turbos and stock drum brakes, and in that situation it's the owner's responsibility.

There would also have to be no runaway truck exits.

If you were creative and knew something about cars, you could pull one of many fuses from the fuse box. On cars I've serviced, the computer fuse is always in the driver kick panel, so just rip off that panel and start yanking fuses while watching the road.

It should be noted that the e-brake on fwd cars is not your _best choice_ (though still a decent choice); while a locked up wheel provides drag, it does not apply as much drag as a rolling wheel with maximum braking (which can easily be obtained cause of ABS). Also at extreme speeds you run the risk of a spin, which puts you possibly at risk for a roll.

<comment><USER4> > The accelerator pedal would have to be immovable, frozen in place.

In recent Toyota vehicles the pedal isn't connected to the throttle--it's drive by wire. In theory the computer could continue accelerating regardless of the gas pedal's position.

<comment><USER5> I've designed systems like this. You use redundant potentiometers to sense throttle position. If they don't match within 5%, you power down.

You also toggle bits in your code. One in the main loop, another in any interrupt service routine that you are dependent upon. These bits then go to a GPIO so that the GPIO toggles. If the ISR freezes or the main loop freezes, the GPIO quits toggling. You then have an hardware, RC-Diode type circuit, that stays high if it's input toggles, but goes low, if it's input goes low and stays low, or goes high and stays high. The output of this circuit drives a relay, so that if the CPU quits toggling the GPIO, the relay clicks off. The output of that relay is a dead-man's switch that powers down the vehicle. The end result is a hardware fail-safe if the CPU misbehaves. There are other tests to confirm that the relay isn't frozen, that the RC-Diode circuit isn't frozen, etc.

So, in theory, if a high-school sophomore designed the vehicle, you might have a problem. Otherwise, I think you don't give the engineers that design these systems enough credit.

<comment><USER4> ... And yet there are out of control cars without the pedal being stuck.

"Well, I have many models of Prius that got recalled, but I have a new model that didn't get recalled. This new model has an accelerator that goes wild, but only under certain conditions of cruise control. And I can repeat it over and over and over again--safely."

"This is software. It's not a bad accelerator pedal. It's very scary, but luckily for me, I can hit the brakes," he said.

\-- Steve Wozniak

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10445564-64.html>

<comment><USER5> This is more believable to me, as the "set-point" for cruise control is not dependent upon throttle position, but instead, is remembered by the computer. There's nothing to check against to insure believability.

More suspect, in my opinion, is that in a cruise control, you have a feedback system, based on car speed. The car speed is almost certainly redundantly sensed, so that's no worries, but the feedback loop itself could potentially go oscillatory if there were other variables introduced that hadn't been designed for. Those variables could be pretty subtle. For example, maybe the gear motor that you use to mechanically control the engine gets sourced from another distributor, and they give you a better one, that has more torque. Perhaps that throws off the stability analysis that you had done. Tons of things could change somewhere between the 500K's car and 1M's car you produced, lots of different vendors and permutations could come into play that could throw off the stability of a cruise control, I would think.

EDIT: They're probably using feedback in the control motors as well (servos), so that's a non-realistic example, but it illustrates the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> jeez, the tone of that article is absolutely absurd.</comment>


BP Oil Spill = Amount of Barrels China Saved Banning Plastic Bags - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/22/china-plastic-bags-ban-success

<comment><USER2> Pointless comparison. And the amount of water I saved by turning the tap off while I brushed my teeth was the same as the amount they used to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed!

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks. i appreciate the reply.</comment></comment>


European Parliament Says Snowden Should Be Welcomed in Europe - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2015/10/29/european-parliament-says-snowden-should-be-welcomed-in-europe/ <comment><USER2> Reminder: the last time European authorities thought Snowden was in Europe, this happened: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident)

Illegal, Insulting for a friendly country and 100% rumour-based, it nevertheless happened and we all know what would have followed if Snowden was actually on that plane.

So, yeah, talk is really cheap.

</comment><comment><USER3> Talk is cheap. Looking forward to a EU country that will step up to the plate and do something rather than just talk.

<comment><USER4> Are you aware that the European Parliament has nothing to do with individual member countries' governments?

<comment><USER5> Does it have any authority, then?

<comment><USER6> Both yes and no. It can issue a directive but individual EU countries could still elect to ignore it. Very few do, and it happens rarely, but they can ignore EU directives.

It's as if states in the US could ignore federal law. The difference is that in US the federal government could actually send federal agents to arrest the governor and bring him for trial for breaking federal law, but in EU nothing would happen. The EU parliament _might_ try to put sanctions on a country for not following a directive, but then again, other countries would need to agree to it. So if the issue is a hot one, not much can be done.

<comment><USER7> The European Parliament can't issue directive on its own (it needs to be introduced by the European Commission, and also approved for by repressentatives of the governments).

If an directive has been issued, it can't be ignored by the member states. If they do, they can be forced to do follow it by a European court as they act against the European treaties they signed.

The European parliament can't issue sanctions against anybody, because that's not in their power as defined in the EU treaties.

What the EU parliament can do in this case (and what do actually did here) is issue a sternly worded letter. They can also try to bring the EU Commission or the member states to do something.

<comment><USER8> This is not quite true. The EU can issue fines. The fines are enforceable in each member's courts because of the treaties they signed up to as part of the EU.

But you're right in this case the EU can't do anything about Snowden. It's really just a motion calling on EU national governments.

<comment><USER7> For the mentioned directives you are right, the way to force them on non- compliant member states is through fines (but those are enforced in the ECJ). However, it's well established that they have a direct effect on individuals even when member states refuse to comply (see for example Francovich v Italy). Also, in many cases the EU can issue _regulations_. Those are directly valid in all member states without them needing to do anything.

<comment><USER9> AIUI, either the Council (of ministers, i.e. the various appointed government representatives) or the Commission ( the technocratic bureaucracy which may have regulatory power delegated to them in some area of competence by the Council) can issue a regulation. The parliament, however, cannot.

Power in 'the EU' is wielded largely by the CoM and the Commission, the parliament is just a side show. The EU is a fundamentally technocratic, not democratic, institution, This is by design.

 _edit : fat fingers_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Snowden should be welcomed in the USA, too.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's about time. Unfortunately it's not really up to the Europarliament. It's a nice signal, but it doesn't mean that Snowden will get asylum; that's still up to the individual countries.

</comment><comment><USER12> If I've learned anything from the "war" on drugs: don't trust politicians and governments. They'll lie relentlessly; even in the face of evidence.

<comment><USER13> _If I 've learned anything from the "war" on drugs: don't trust politicians and governments. They'll lie relentlessly; even in the face of evidence._

If I've learned anything from being a human: don't trust humans. They'll lie relentlessly; even in the face of evidence.

<comment><USER14> Not so. Politicians lie far more often than the average person. It is easy to see why: a politician's job is to get re-elected, and the best way to do that is to please their campaign donors while simultaneously lying through their teeth to tell the voters what they want to hear.

<comment><USER13> I'd love to see data on that. Maybe their lies are just more public. They're all humans, after all.

<comment><USER12> I would love do see any data/evidence from you.

> Maybe their lies are just more public. They're all humans, after all.

...your evidence is _your_ previous, unproven argument.

<comment><USER13> I don't have evidence either way, that why there's a "maybe" there.

Politicians lie, humans lie, and politicians are humans. Unless there's some strong evidence, claiming that politicians lie more than the average human makes no sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For anyone who doesn't know, as a non-binding resolution this means any/all of the member states can ignore it without consequence.

</comment><comment><USER16> Here's the split of votes per country: [http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-follow-up-to-the- european-p...](http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-follow-up-to-the-european- parliament-resolution-of-12-march-2014-on-the-electronic-mass- surveillance-25.html#/##vote-tabs-list-4)

<comment><USER17> Are you sure that's the right link?

When I click on the "View text on the Parliament site" link ( [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&re...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2015-1092&language=EN) ), I get to a page with a very wordy sort of proposal about a whole lot of privacy-related matters, but it doesn't mention Snowden anywhere?

This seems to be the right text, though (which does mention Snowden): [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0388+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN)

Ugh, that site is such a maze.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I doubt Snowden would be foolish enough to set foot anywhere in Europe, no matter what they say. I'd be willing to bet the CIA has people all over Europe that would be smacking their lips, not to mention the US would probably have extradition leverage that it doesn't have with Russia.

</comment><comment><USER19> This smacks of cheap anti Americanism

<comment><USER20> As an American, I can say without a doubt that the anti-Americanism we're generating throughout the world is not cheap to generate.

Be a bully, get treated like a bully.

<comment><USER19> Well not that America does herself any favors - however there is a strain of european anti americanism. But of course they love Le McDonald's and Le Coke Cola ;-)

Back when I worked for the .coop registry we found this as some of the European coop considered the internet a Capatiist/CIA plot.

There is also the older and dieing out British Tory's who blame you for the loss of empire.

<comment><USER21> > Well not that America does herself any favors - however there is a strain of > european anti americanism.

There are plenty of reasons for this.

> But of course they love Le McDonald's and Le Coke Cola.

I personally don't buy either product because they both taste gross to me, but even if I did, how would that be relevant to US foreign policy or treatment of whistleblowers?

<comment><USER19> I wasn't talking about post 9/11 issues but the post ww2 settlement and the rise of the USA as a super power.

And I could think of EU country that treat whistle blowers badly or behave badly in pursuit of foreign policy</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple Lawsuit over iPhone - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AB633rlUkg <comment><USER2> I couldn't watch much of the video because of the jump cuts every 3 seconds. Why?</comment>


Helicopter Blows Trapped Deer Off Icy Lake - <AUTHOR> http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/german-police-helicopter-rescues-trapped-deer-from-frozen-lake-a-872184.html

<comment><USER2> There's a joke to be made there about the helicopter crew being non German, given how many rules they broke to get the problem solved.</comment>


Flash, Silverlight just Stop-Gaps - <AUTHOR> http://www.atalasoft.com/cs/blogs/jake/archive/2009/07/06/flash-silverlight-just-stop-gaps.aspx

<comment><USER2> caveat: I have done no deep research on HTML 5, but I work with AS3 and JS daily.

The whole web space is just client/server distributed computing environment with relatively thin clients and high powered, cluster back ends. AS3 or JS is just as much a programming language as C or Java, particularly AS3. They're converging to the new JS standard anyway. I looked at the w3 HTML5 page and it still looks like HTML is the view component. My understanding of UI work is that it's general best to break it up into the view for displaying stuff, the model of what is in the view and the controller that mediates user action and model changes and keeps the view in synch. So that is one problem to address and if HTML5 is also trying to be a proper programming language, it shouldn't. Programming is about managing what data is in ram and how to manipulate that data, coordinate communications with other computers and signal changes to low level view components. Maybe AS3 and JS will merge, maybe HTML5 will give some scripting language as well but if it's not one of the EcmaScript varients, why are they reinventing that wheel? We need a solid view component and we need a good engine to render it in. The flash VM is a pretty good choice with a solid API, maybe it will standardize to something else in the future but it's what we have now. There's only so much that a typical view component can do, they're usually easy to swap out if your code is designed properly (or easy- ish typically). I think the flash VM is a stable, well supported environment and I'm quite skeptical that HTML5 will replace it anytime soon.

<comment><USER3> I don't think AS3 and JS will merge anymore, the ES4 proposal was ditched in favour of continued evolution of ES3.1.

As an aside, I'm not sure what the article was talking about with those examples that are "not possible" in Flash, as I see nothing that couldn't be done. If it's just because they were transformed with CSS3, there's nothing stopping a CSS3 parser being written in AS3.

<comment><USER2> Yeah exactly, AS3 is turing complete? I know the ES4 was ditched cause of the typical corporate nonsense but I think eventually one language will emerge that has a lot of AS3's features - dynamic typing, objects for local state, lambda pointers, nice display list...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would have commented there, but comments seem disabled....

<em>"The point here is that we can't allow such a fundamental piece to the future of the Internet rely on plugins."</em>

He doesn't establish this conclusion. Recent Google examples (Gears, O3D) show that it's useful to be able to add features to browsers without requiring a complete browser change. Using common cross-browser functionality seems a benefit.

(I can't tell what "FUD" he sees in my blogpost, either. I spent time reading, but wish he had backed up his claims.)</comment>


Google groups is down - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/

<comment><USER2> appears google accounts is also effected. trying to login i see:

"Sorry, there seems to be a problem. The service you're looking for is temporarily unavailable. We're working hard to restore your access as soon as possible. Please try again in a few hours. Thanks for your patience."

</comment><comment><USER3> only google apps is down here.. if you have a regular google account everything seems to work fine..</comment>


ISAs (income sharing agreements) can land you into deep shit - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@sadiyasabera96/how-isas-income-sharing-agreements-can-land-you-into-deep-shit-97b059e01f77 <comment><AUTHOR> Practices like income sharing set up the possibility of an actual human stock exchange. With income sharing, financers stand to make money from and assert further control over human experience. Effectively this is a debt for equity swap and It'll not be a very fun bubble when it pops.</comment>


Machine Learning: A Love Story - <AUTHOR> http://www.hilarymason.com/academics/machine-learning-a-love-story/ <comment><USER2> I thought this was great. I just started really digging into these topics (statistics, classification, probability, etc) relatively recently, and it's amazing how young and fragmented the field as a whole still is. So it was great to get some perspective from someone who's been around it for a while anid can provide some color on the field from a broad perspective.

</comment><comment><USER3> Watched the talk a few months back. Just amazingly accessible to everyone. Worth watching even if you only have a passing interest in ML. Highly recommended!

</comment><comment><USER4> Are the slides posted somewhere?

<comment><USER5> [http://strangeloop2010.com/system/talks/presentations/000/01...](http://strangeloop2010.com/system/talks/presentations/000/014/442/Mason_MachineLearning.pdf)

<comment><USER6> I'm happy to e-mail the PPT with notes and image attribution URLs, too. Ping me at firstname.lastname@example.com!</comment></comment></comment>


State Department Makes Statement on Google Operations in China - <AUTHOR> http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135105.htm <comment><USER2> It is very interesting that the State Department is playing second fiddle to Google here. Intuitively I feel this has pretty far reaching consequences.

\- Apparently Google has uncovered a chinese attempt to infiltrate a number of American companies[1]. The fact that this is being uncovered by Google and not the government is very interesting. And potentially very embarrasing for the state.

\- America hasn't engaged China in relation to human rights, probably due to global politics which tends to tie you up in consensus, conventions and diplomacy. Google has done so in a very clear and public way.

\- The state department is taking Googles lead. Hilary Clinton is playing catch-up. She even says so in the statement: _"We have been briefed by Google"_

This indicates an enormous shift in power.

[1] - The American government might have been aware of this or even uncovered it themselves, which I personally doubt.

<comment><USER3> How would the Govt. know a company's servers have been hacked into unless the company discloses it?

<comment><USER4> With a tap into any of various of the major network pipes, the central difficulty would involve sifting through the vast mounds of data that result.

 _I_ can often tell when somebody has had their servers hacked, and I just watch my own servers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This whole situation definitely feels like the start of something much larger than just Google pulling out of China.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, might be a good time to get out of US dollars. They're going to be painful to hold, if China decides to make the US uncomfortable.

<comment><USER7> I voted this up, even though I think it's wrong, because it is a valid point. I don't think it's going to happen though, because it would screw up their own economy as badly as the US. Maybe if things weren't already so tight everywhere right now, but probably not even then.

<comment><USER8> ...for now. There will come a time when dumping their dollars will no longer disadvantage China, and will indeed be to their advantage; but they need a somewhat larger middle class first. Give it ten or twenty years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The thing that will ultimately undermine the chokehold put by repressive regimes on their oppressed citizens will not be Google as a company nor the U.S. government as a countervailing political force nor the U.N. as a supervening agency nor human rights advocates as a principled opposition - though all these forces are helpful and necessary, they are not in themselves sufficient.

It will instead be the sheer wearing force of progressive technological advances that make it harder and harder with each passing day for such regimes ultimately to suppress the free flow of information and the spur toward freedom promoted thereby.

With its dramatic action, Google has demonstrated that any given company wielding sufficient power relating to the free flow of information has the capacity to make a big difference in moving to help liberate countries such as China. That company has to show some guts, which Google has done. And it needs to have some core principles, which is really at the heart of being able to act with courage and conviction as Google has done. But none of this would be enough, even if it is backed vocally or _sub silentio_ by the force of the U.S. government, the U.N., and rights advocates. Repressive regimes like China's have gone for decades on their oppressive path in spite of vigorous opposition from the west (remember the long stretch when the U.S. would not even _recognize_ the existence of the Chinese government) and have scarcely changed their worst policies over that time.

The change, then, ultimately has to come from within and it is there that the free flow of information makes all the difference. Knowledge _is_ power, and that is precisely why oppressive regimes always seek to suppress free speech and to control thought through massive propaganda mechanisms.

It is the technological juggernaut that is progressively, albeit slowly, undermining the thought-control historically imposed by the Chinese government upon its citizens, and that government will be fighting a losing battle on this front as it becomes virtually impossible, in an exploding information age, ultimately to choke off the free flow of information so desperately needed by oppressed peoples.

In this sense, Google's action serves as a proxy for the technology forces that are having this salutary effect. But none of this happens in a vacuum. It takes real people to make real and difficult decisions to bring about the change. And it takes courage to stand up to authoritarian forces. Bravo to Google for taking a tremendous step in the right direction. I hope they stick with it to its logical outcome. It will not be easy.

<comment><USER10> "Google has demonstrated that any given company wielding sufficient power relating to the free flow of information has the capacity to make a big difference in moving to help liberate countries such as China"

How so? Has China moved yet, in reaction? It seems very unlikely to me that they would, and Google is not even the most popular search engine in China.

As for unstoppable technological progress, there are lots of examples of political regimes keeping their countries in the dark ages.

<comment><USER7> I'm curious about your _"lots of examples of political regimes keeping their countries in the dark ages."_

The only one I can think of that actually worked was Japan's repudiation of the gun, and that was broken open from the outside eventually. The Soviets tried to control communications technology, even requiring copy machines to be licensed, but it didn't work very well.

<comment><USER10> In Europe for example Rumania comes to mind. Dark ages not to be taken too literally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The State Department is being a bit hypocritical here. If China must give an explanation for its alleged cyberattacks/hacking attempts on gmail, then the U.S. government should also give an explanation for its NSA-sponsored eavesdropping/hacking/snooping of other countries' citizens' email, phone conversations, and other communications.

<comment><USER12> I should point out that the State Department does not wiretap Chinese citizens phones so that they know which little old lady to beat to death. That is China's job.

Returning you now to your regularly scheduled moral relativism.

<comment><USER13> How do you know that's true?

<comment><USER14> Because the CIA isn't part of the State Department?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting. I would have expected the government to respond with something completely bland along the lines of "Google is a private company that makes its own decisions about international operations... Our law-enforcement authorities, including FBI Counterintelligence, are always vigilant against computer crime, but we cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."

ISTM that nationalist elements within China would love to paint Western businesses that they disapprove of as arms of the CIA, and that if the US is too vocal in support of Google, then they give fodder to those nationalists (and risk damaging US commercial interests in China). I assume that the State Department considered this factor and decided that _nevertheless_ , they had to speak up for an open international Internet.

</comment><comment><USER16> <http://www.csoonline.com/article/print/329164>

This is an old article but compares the actions against the Barbary Pirates (US Navy used force to ensure Free Trade) with what US _could_ do with Internet 'piracy' - and no thats not copying CDs.

</comment><comment><USER17> This feels like a dumb question, but my first reaction to this was wondering how the Secretary of State could be relevant to this or why she is going to make a statement? I don't see what role her words have here or how they could change anything. Can someone enlighten me?

</comment><comment><USER18> Chinese attacks in Cyberspace.

Wow, straight out of a William Gibson novel.

<comment><USER19> Have you read Halting State?

<comment> brown9-2 For those of us that have not... I'm guessing this post counts as a recommendation?

<comment><USER19> Yes indeed. Very good book.

What's amusing is that it was intended to be set a decade or two in the future, but most of the "futuristic" plot twists have already happened.

<comment><USER20> Seriously? I found Accelerando (same author) to be incredibly forced, written in the style of a Wired magazine puff piece.

<comment><USER21> 1) Charles Stross (cstross) reads and comments here on HN, so be nice :)

2) That was the whole point of Accelerando.

That said, I really liked Halting State and Saturn's Children, but not Accelerando as much (it was too crazy for me).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> You are working for Google and you have evil motives. You have access to Gmail's data, search logs and Google Documents (among other things). With this information it's pretty damn easy to hack anyone that uses Google products - - as users and companies hold a lot of sensitive data in emails and Google documents - - especially on Google Apps.

This could have been done from Google offices in China, but why not in other countries?

</comment><comment><USER23> _We have been briefed by Google on these allegations_

The pertinent question is "when?". Google reported the attacks began in mid- December. NYT reported at least some against the 34 other companies occurred last week. Drummond said the Chinese government had been briefed before yesterday's statement. I have trouble believing The State Department hasn't been involved until now.

</comment><comment><USER24> Ugh. The State Department uses sIFR.

<comment><USER25> Ironic given the attacks were via a 3rd party, proprietary, monopoly-market share, monoculture, bloated, insecure, not-very-good program for reading ISO standard files (Adobe Reader). Though Google said many of the attacks were via standard keyloggers.

Similar to the recent, "don't internet bank via Windows" warnings, it appears that anyone involved with human rights should shift follow the same advice for all their online correspondence. But that tech/security element seems to be lost because of the geopolitical drama.</comment></comment>


1985 Playboy interview with Steve Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.txtpost.com/playboy-interview-steven-jobs/

<comment><USER2> I like how he foresaw the potential of the internet before many people even knew about it, and certainly before it became publicly accessible...

> Jobs: This will change: Computers will be essential in most homes.

> Playboy: What will change?

> Jobs: The most compelling reason for most people to buy a computer for the > home will be to link it into a nationwide communications network. We're just > in the beginning stages of what will be a truly remarkable breakthrough for > most people‐‑as remarkable as the telephone.</comment>


Could Inner Zombie be Controlling your Brain? - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26742742/

<comment><USER2> Sensationalist (and quite lame) title. This is an article about how a large part of our behaviour is driven by subconscious thought - nothing new there except for the title.

<comment><USER3> IMO the author has provided a nice metaphor, and explanation of, "subconscious thought". Can you to come up with a better metaphor that's also as concrete? It's tougher than it seems. And I'm not so sure the idea is as widely accepted as you presume. Having taught intro neuroscience to undergraduates, they are not generally aware of these findings.

I agree the title is lame - but then it was written by someone at MS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I agree that the article is marred by the asinine "zombie" schtick and generally dumbed-down.

But if you're interested in research on unconscious mental processes, there's a lot of it here: at least 4 or 5 experiments that I hadn't seen cited before. I'm still hoping someone will write a good book about all this.

<comment><USER2> Try "Blink" and "Predictably Irrational" if you haven't read them yet. Blink is a bit light on practical things you can do about it, but not too bad. PI is quite good.

<comment><USER4> Thanks, I'll have to thumb through PI next time I'm in a bookstore. Gladwell I find too glib.

<comment><USER2> Agree, me too. It was singularly lacking in any practical advice, too.. I spent most of the book waiting for him to start explaining ways to hone one's subconscious, and was disappointed to find that he didn't bother with that part.

PI is a bit more practical and provides some actual techniques you can use to tap into that subconscious brain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Crappy MSN articles made for bored soccer moms. Keep HN pure and away from the border tabloid sources.

<comment><USER3> Except Carl Zimmer is a well-known and well-respected science writer.

<http://carlzimmer.com/bio.html>

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

Keep HN news pure and away from troll comments.

P.s. Are you a sockpuppet? This is the second comment from you, in the five days since your account was created, with community-based concerns expressed in an anti-community sentiment.

<comment><USER3> Then there's this:

 _Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or egregiously offtopic, you can flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.)_

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

<comment><USER5> I'll flag next time. The title and source aren't anything to be proud of. Sentences such as "Their research raised the disturbing possibility that much of what we think and do is thought and done by an unconscious part of the brain — an inner zombie." sound asinine and misinforming. Really its disturbing huh? Shit im be controlled by an inner zombie like in the movies!

He would be better off just using the term subconcious or maybe working off the verbiage the researchers actually used. Maybe something along the lines of hidden levels of awareness and automatism. This way you wouldnt be trying to hook the reader as if they were a moron. Then again this is MSN. And if you read anything off the front page of MSN you realize that articles like this are dwarfed by tabloids and sensationalist crap.

Let him take on the difficult task of defining subconscious to a layman without the zombies.

Also don't forget to read some of the related articles such as "Eight organisms that make you go 'eww'" .

Give me a fucking break.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My concern is the article's conclusion geared towards a sort of dichotomy - the "me" part of the brain vs. the "zombie"/unconscious part of the brain. This seems contrived and artificial, reminiscent of the discredited "Cartesian theater" models. However, subtracting the conclusion of the article, and just taking the data at face value, is interesting. I think it is consistent with the Daniel Dennet "multiple drafts" model of consciousness, where the brain is effectively a "multi-threaded application", where sometimes thread A is "observed" (conscious) or thread B is "observed" (conscious) but A and B are both still there, whether we are aware of them or not. So basically the "zombies" in the brain are all that there is - it is a multi-threaded application, where each "thread" is a "zombie" to use that terminology. Sometimes this zombie or that interacts with the environmental stimuli to the point of "awareness" but there is no "awareness" per ce, just a lot of unaware threads running around which create the illusion of "self", etc. As far as I understand it anyway. :-)</comment>


Timeline of NSA Domestic Spying - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline <comment><USER2> I love how it starts with this, which is so crystal clear but has obviously been violated on every conceivable level from your local police to the NSA.

 _The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,_

 _against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated,_

 _and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,_

 _and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._

So what part of "persons" "effects" "unreasonable" and "particular" has every level of government decided to purposely not understand?

<comment><USER3> Definitely "unreasonable", when you're a crazy paranoid government full of weapons nothing seems unreasonable.

<comment><USER4> Basically whatever 5 justices of the Supreme Court decide is "reasonable."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The EFF is doing some great work. I just made my annual donation, a bit early this year. Will likely make another one.

[https://supporters.eff.org/donate/](https://supporters.eff.org/donate/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> One thing that in hindsight may be related that's not on the timeline is the DoJ losing its lawsuit against Google in January 2006.

"Google Resists U.S. Subpoena of Search Data" ([http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/20google.html?p...](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/20google.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0))

"Judge tells DoJ 'No' on search queries" ([http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/judge-tells-doj-no- on...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/judge-tells-doj-no-on-search- queries.html))

According to the slides ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism_slide_5.jpg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prism_slide_5.jpg)), the PRISM timeline begins the next year on 9/11/2007, and Google is added on January 14, 2009, almost 3 years to the day after the the DoJ ruling and only a few days before Obama takes office.

In a Q&A after a talk at Stanford in 2006, Marissa Mayer is asked, "How much information does Google share with the Federal Government?"

Here is her answer: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYKFWqVVzg#t=1819](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soYKFWqVVzg#t=1819)

<comment><USER6> ~30:15 for those with devices that dont skip to the linked time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why does nobody remember the story of 1998 when NSA and Microsoft were caught at including backdoors into Windows?

CNN article (1998) [ [http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9807/27/security.idg/](http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9807/27/security.idg/) ]

Heise article (1999) [ [http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5263/1.html](http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5263/1.html) ]

<comment><USER8> Because those of us that remember also remember it was basically a hoax.

Here is a rundown of 'incident' happened -

Researcher finds variable named _NSAKEY ... ...

That's it. From there we go to the la la land of conspiracy theories based entirely on the name of a variable.

But I'm just some guy on the internet. There's also this - [http://www.schneier.com/crypto- gram-9909.html#NSAKeyinMicros...](http://www.schneier.com/crypto- gram-9909.html#NSAKeyinMicrosoftCryptoAPI)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> How is 1978 to 2000 blank? Were all the cool kids who added random NSA filter bait to their usenet and email sigs in the 90's just watching too much x-files?

Maybe this is why I lack the same level of outrage as the kids do over Snowden's disclosures: I've pretty much always assumed the NSA has always had pretty much everything (along with the Russians and the Chinese and I guess the Time Warner Corporation and now Google).

<comment><USER10> In the cold war, US needed to maintain a image of being free'er than the oppressive international communism. They also suspected evey shrubbery to have a spy in them.

As such, I think covert activities had a natural upper limit on how much activity it could do without upsetting things. Incidents could be hushed (and at a very more effective manner than doay), but too much, and you get a Watergate scandal. As a result, 80s and 90s US didnt have that many scandals in the same league as wikileaks and Snowden's disclosures.

<comment><USER11> There was more solid delineation of turf between the FBI and CIA/NSA for some decades as well: the former was responsible for domestic intelligence and the latter for foreign operations. Hence most of the domestic abuses you read about in that period, like COINTELPRO, came from the FBI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wow. An amazingly thorough timeline that, while unfortunately reads in a weird format, is definitely chilling the more you read. You can easily see how post-9/11 had changed pretty much everything. It all happened so fast after that.

</comment><comment><USER13> This would be more useful if it didn't omit certain key developments in order to further the EFF agenda: for example, missing is the October 2011 ruling in which the FISA court declared some aspects of the NSA's programs unconstitutional. In November 2011 it allowed the programs to continue after required changes were made.

In other words, it omits events where the FISA court was actually doing it's job of regulating the NSA. As the timeline stands, it's hard to take seriously.

</comment><comment><USER2> Incredible summary of information.

Not crazy about the random left/right text but okay I can deal with it.

Was the report that Bush ignored, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike US", a product of the NSA? Should it be on that timeline?

Someone should make this horizontal, I am sure someone will.

</comment><comment><USER14> I believe I read somewhere that Edward Snowden tried to express his concern over the extent of domestic surveillance to his boss at the NSA, and in response his boss revoked his access to key systems.

I can no longer find anything that indicates that. I also do not see it listed in this timeline.

Does anyone know if Snowden went to his boss at the NSA before leaking to the Guardian?

Also, I heard that Snowden posted a rant to a blog post about his concerns under his internet handle. I cannot find that anymore either.

</comment><comment><USER15> July 14, 2004 "Secret Surveillance Court, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Signs First Order" \- The day collecting bulk internet metadata continues without interruption.

Finally, a reference to easily point out the ignorance in those who try to politicize NSA spying. Both sides suck when it comes to this issue - deal with it.

</comment><comment><USER16> For those of you asking why some related item is excluded:

 _All of the evidence found in this timeline can also be found in the Summary of Evidence we submitted to the court in Jewel v. National Security Agency (NSA)_

There is clearly more information that simply cannot be admitted as evidence in a legal case.

</comment><comment><USER17> I wonder what the current state of domestic spying would look like if the 9/11 attacks had never happened or had been thwarted.

<comment><USER18> The war on drugs or the war on (child)pornography would have been stepped up instead. But terror is so much more effective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Took me a moment: scroll to the bottom if you want to read chronologically.

<comment><USER20> There is an "Oldest First" button that resorts the timeline.

<comment><USER19> I completely missed this. Thanks.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: building a dictionary to be beautiful and fast - <AUTHOR> http://www.cleandictionary.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> We are looking for feedback.</comment>


Voodle, the One-Minute Video App for Business - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2020/06/29/voodle-wants-companies-to-ditch-boring-group-calls-for-1-minute-videos/ <comment><USER2> Cool!</comment>


Facebook says it isn't building a Windows 8 app - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/30/facebook-says-it-isnt-building-a-windows-8-app-directs-us-to-microsoft/

<comment><USER2> On Windows Phone 7, the Facebook app is made by Microsoft. It will probably be the same for Windows 8...

Facebook probably requires a larger user base before investing on a platform.

<comment><USER3> Although I generally prefer third-party app providers, for something like this, and given the "quality" of the Android app, I think this is a good thing.

I mean, Microsoft obviously have a bigger investment in providing a smooth, deeply integrated app that is consistent with the platform's look and feel.

And given the low-quality apps Facebook has put out there in the past, I also think they have a higher bar as far as quality is concerned.

Also, I think Windows 8 - not WP8 or Windows 8 RT necessarily, but the whole family, including the desktop/laptop market - will end up having a significant user base.

<comment><USER2> _Also, I think Windows 8 - not WP8 or Windows 8 RT necessarily, but the whole family, including the desktop/laptop market - will end up having a significant user base._

I agree. You can design one app for three major platforms.

<comment><USER4> You can share significant amounts of code and design, but WP8 will necessarily require departures from the W8 app in UI design. For example WP8 uses panorama and pivot controls, which are not available in identical form in W8 (although analogs do exist).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Microsoft has already announced at the Windows Phone 8 roll out event this week that MS is building the Facebook app.

</comment><comment><USER6> > We only build the iOS and Android FB apps. You should check in with > Microsoft on anything related to Windows 8.

Maybe I'm just reading a bit too much into the particular phrasing (esp. the definite article used), but this sounds more like "not my department" than "we don't do that." Though "not my department" is admittedly an odd thing to hear from a "manager of corporate communications"... unless it was bubbled up the chain of communication, without editorial reinterpretation, from somewhere in the mobile apps department.

</comment><comment><USER7> Well, they did slid in bed with Apple as first-class citizen service in iOS 6. Then again, so did Twitter.

I wonder how different were those two deals.

<comment><USER8> The difference is iOS has been sold on hundreds of millions of phones. Windows Phone 8 has sold zero.

<comment><USER9> This article is talking about Windows 8, not Windows Phone 8.

And Windows Phone has had OS level integration with Facebook from day one (i.e. the launch of Windows Phone 7).

<comment><USER10> And Windows 8 has sold 4 million copies as of the last figures I saw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just like they don't have an official Windows 7 app...

<comment><USER12> Considering the app store in question was introduced with Windows 8. . .

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> That seems foolish, if true.

<comment><USER14> Uh, really?

Not developing for a completely unproven platform, where most users are served perfectly fine by the existing web app, isn't "foolish," it's a good use of resources.

<comment><USER15> I don't know how you can call Windows an "unproven platform". Even what was considered a disaster, Vista, sold more copies in the first few months than OSX had sold in its entire lifespan (at that point). So internet opinions of Windows 8 aside, it's going to sell a lot of copies, and all of those people will have a tile labeled "Store" staring them in the face every time they get back on their computers or launch a different app.

<comment><USER14> Yes, Windows 8 will ship on millions of desktops and laptops. And almost no one using those devices would prefer a full-screen Metro app to the website. This isn't like Instagram or something where a native app _is_ the service; the vast majority of people using Facebook are going to be doing it through the browser.

So you're right, Windows 8 will sell a lot of copies for PC usage, and maybe a few people will find apps they want to use in the store, but primarily, those people are going to prefer browser apps to Metro apps, guaranteed - store apps offer no advantage, in this case.

Now, Windows 8 on tablets? If that takes off, I'm sure Facebook will start to target it. Until it does, though, I think we'd all rather them spend their resources on the platforms that they know are important to the vast majority of their users.

<comment><USER15> I agree with most of your premises but not your conclusion. I would just say a couple of things:

1) Microsoft is intentionally blurring the line between tablets and PCs. Usage patterns will be different between one extreme -- something like the surface -- and the other extreme -- a tower PC / monitor combo. But between those extremes there's a lot of middle ground; convertible tablets, laptops with touch screens, all-in-one desktops with touch screens. I don't think it's so easy to say that most people will fall into a traditional desktop usage pattern because a lot of those people won't be using a traditional desktop computer.

2) When you're dealing with a user base the size of Windows, even a small percentage of users using the Windows Store still adds up to a lot of people in absolute numbers; competitive with what the other tablet platforms will have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just like they didn't have an ipad app and said they never would.

give it a few months...</comment>


Who Owns Your Steps? - <AUTHOR> http://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemlee/who-owns-your-steps

<comment><USER2> It's really a question of end-user control: Do you control your data? Is its license free-as-in-speech (i.e., can you use it however you want)? Is it technically free (i.e., can the data be easily integrated with other platforms and applications)?</comment>


Vocabulary of Coffee Bars - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/10/opinion/sunday/ben-schott-java-jive-coffee-vocabulary.html?smid=tw-share

<comment><AUTHOR> My favorite: "need cups?"</comment>


The first free image service which allows images up to 900MP (30,000 x 30,000px) - <AUTHOR> http://micr.io/ <comment><USER2> I 100% understand why the zoom is on that top header image but holy hell, that is god damn annoying. I had very little interest in checking out that service just based on that poor experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I've heard that more. I guess I still have to optimize that (the demo part of it is cool, the scrolljacking isn't). Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate it.</comment></comment>


Most developers are morons, and the rest are assholes - <AUTHOR> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/08/16/specs <comment><USER2> Why do people even post this stuff?

When I clicked on this I guessed that this was going to be on of the best click-whore titles I'd seen for a while sitting over the top of an article that was far more reasonable and intelligent. Turns out not - the title is a fair representation of the article.

In it the author confesses that in the past he's been both a moron and an arsehole and having read the article I have no problem believing this. Sadly the rest of the piece is somewhat more questionable.

I'm not going to bother talking about the contents of the article - it's too obviously wrong to warrant the attention (yes these people exist but they're not the majority or representative) - but I'd like to ask this question.

If you're a developer who feels that everyone you've worked with is either an arsehole or a moron, what does it really say? Do you believe that this is the way the entire industry is (in which case do you really want to be working in it)? Or have you been particularly unlucky (in which case, really, what are the chances and shouldn't you look at your job selection)? Or is there perhaps something in your own attitude?

(P.S. And yes specs matter in many cases but this article says little useful about why).

<comment><USER3>
      Why do people even post this stuff?

If I had to venture a guess: venting. The article is not trying to be rational, reasonable or show any sense of perspective. Given other articles by the same author, I'm inclined to say this one simply was never meant to be posted to HN or other fora. Should he not have posted it at all? I'm unsure: it's his blog and he has a right to vent. Perhaps some readers know the context and think it is pretty funny. In any case, I don't expect he was being serious.

The real question is: why does anyone bother to submit or, equally bad, upvote this? And then your question fully applies. My guess is it is being upvoted by people that do not actually have experience working in teams on 'specced' software. It's upvoted by people that imagine this is how it must be to implement a spec with a team.

<comment><USER2> Yes sorry, I meant submit rather than post. I get why someone would vent (though personally I see it as one of those rants which might have been better done as "write the entry, feel better, don't actually post").

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> We had one of these asshole developers ... one who would - exactly as the article says - follow the spec exactly, and when point to the spec when things went wrong. He had no sympathy, because he was just doing as he was told.

We fixed him though. After one of his long rants about the spec, we told him that he was going to be tasked with writing the next spec.

All of a sudden, he had the other asshole developers pointing to his spec

It actually humbled him, and turned him into a good developer.

</comment><comment><USER5> I knew if I waited around long enough that specs would come back in style! Back in the day we use to make fun of folks who "rolled up their selves and started writing code" — then web 2.0 happened and beta logos decorated every site. Of course I tend to do client focused work, so specs have a double value (although too many folks will say they read them when they haven't).

</comment><comment><USER6> Morons drive the creation of assholes. You need to be able to use the spec to push morons to stop being morons.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand how people get to a point like this. Sure finding good devs is hard, but there are millions of us. You've always got choices (even in 2004) - and if you're not surrounded by good people then it's your own fault!

<comment><USER8> You know in a sense you are right, we have become a society of victims and blame layers. It is infections and you do have choices the problem is there are few great optimist left so many never see the choices due to constraints in their perception and apathy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What if you're never given a spec.

<comment><USER4> Communicate, communicate, communicate. The first thing you need to do is talk to your manager / boss / leader and explain why a spec is important for you and for him. Explain that if we have a spec then _he_ wont have to deal with angry calls that the system doesn't do X,Y,Z. Explain that without a spec you'll be forced to assume.

If you're the manager, then it's your job to explain to the customer why a spec is important.

You've just gotta communicate my friend :) Managers, Team leaders and Clients (in my experience) are usually very good if you only communicate :)

I listened to a really good audio book recently and it talked about "The importance of communication, either the conversations you're not having, or not having well" ..

Chances are you as a developer are more than skilled enough to write the software, and your manager is more than capable of managing - but there's just a lack of (good) communication :) hope that helps

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> (2004)

</comment><comment><USER11> Please do not editorialize titles.

<comment><USER12> It's not editorialising --- it's the first sentence from the article, and it gives us a better idea of the article content than the article's own title gives us.

<comment><USER11> It's an article about specifications and how people get in trouble with them - "why specs matter" is totally clear, "Most developers are morons, and the rest are assholes" isn't.

<comment><USER12> "Why specs matter" is clear about the ultimate point the article tries to make, but entirely fails to communicate the tone of writing it uses.

"Most developers are morons, and the rest are assholes" tells you what the article is like to read. I expect some people will dismiss the article without following the link to read it based on that alone. That's good! (Other people will find themselves compelled to click...) But it doesn't communicate that the article is ultimately about specs, it's true.

The submitter has chosen to emphasise a different aspect of the article than did the author. That's not editorialising. It's presenting the article differently for the different context of HN (as opposed to the context of Mark Pilgrim's blog).

Editorialising would be if the submitted title was "Specs are useless because no-one reads them properly" or "Mark Pilgrim is a moron and an asshole". Both of them have an element of truth, but it is a stretch to get there from the article itself.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Over 5L med travellers visit India - <AUTHOR> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Over-5L-medical-travellers-visit-India/articleshow/6648149.cms <comment><USER2> 5L means 5 Lakh. The Indian system of counting large numbers is distinct from that familiar to most people in the West with thousands, millions, etc. In India you'll see lakh (100,000) and crore (10,000,000) used everywhere.

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

<comment><USER3> Also, after the first comma, the rest go after 2 digits. I've been in India for 10 years and I'm still tripped by that.

A lakh is 1,00,000 A crore is 1,00,00,000

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Assembly line eye surgeries in India - <http://126.96.36.199/?q=node/view/1829>

I've read elsewhere that many medical students intern at Aravind Eye hospital simply because they can see and treat more cases of a rare disease in one week than they could in years in the developing world.

India has the potential to become the Medical tourist capital of the world. And as with everything else here, there are hospitals which treat the ultra- wealthy at international standard with the latest technology, and absolute hell-holes catering to the poorest destitutes. They may even be neighbours.

The entire system is very screwed up by the pathetically low number of doctors (per capita) we produce every year on the one hand, the vanishingly small number of openings for MDs, and the ridiculously small pay for a doctor without an MD degree. A friend of mine has been trying without success for 4 years to get an MD position.

Medical tourists are good and bad. Good because of the forex inflow. Bad because they take away meager domestic capacity.

<comment><USER5> For anyone confused about doctors without MD degrees, note that in India the first medical degree is the MBBS, equivalent to the US 'MD'. The Indian 'MD' is a hospital-based postgraduate degree.

You can make more in a call centre than as a doctor who is 'just MBBS'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How many medical tourists are people with no connection to the host country purely there to find cheap care? My impression is that medical tourism is more talked about in America than practiced.

The subtext to healthcare discussions in the US always seems to be that no matter how bad things are in America, healthcare elsewhere _must_ be a disaster. Also, Americans either have health insurance or they tend not to be in a position to pay at all, even if the procedure is significantly less expensive than at home.

</comment><comment><USER7> interesting. is it time to develop efficient medical apps?

<comment><USER8> There were many medical apps developed back in the 80s, but ... doctors&co. don't wont to loose their lifestyle to some stupid computers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Unfortunately, the article fails to list the _origin_ of these travelers. I suspect most are from the developing countries in the area.

[One exception may be the "baby production industry". India provides inexpensive surrogacy services. Some call this an "industry"...]

<comment><USER8> Most patients are from US and West Europe.

<comment><USER10> Where did you get that from?</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there a site to interact with potential future customers? - <AUTHOR>

Lets say you have an idea for an app/site whatever but no idea if there will be anyone willing to pay and use it. Is there any online platform where we can interact with potential future customers and get their opinions ? <comment><USER2> You find out where your specific target market hangs out online and ask there. What you're asking is for all people from all niches to gather in one place for the sole purpose of being questioned. Even if it existed, people don't know what they want.</comment>


Ask HN: webmetrics/pingdom alternative for global response times? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for a BETTER self-serve version of webmetrics.com -- kind of like a global pingdom for response times.
I'd like to know what my response times and transfer times are for my website throughout the world. Like a pingdom that runs end-to-end load testing every 5 minutes in 10 or 20 more locations all day.
Webmetrics does this, but I am pretty dissatisfied with the information design and interaction design. <comment><USER2> Our self-service load testing tool Test Perspective may fit your requirements. We use a global network to do measurements. Check out [http://www.keynote.com/products/web_performance/load_testing...](http://www.keynote.com/products/web_performance/load_testing/load- testing-tools.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Watchmouse might do what you are asking for.

</comment><comment><USER4> Check out our startup -- <http://www.yottaa.com>

We are cranking up our intervals and locations every day. And it's free! Would love to know if it solves your problem and if not, what you would need from it.</comment>