Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential - <AUTHOR> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0060.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0060.html <comment><USER3> Great. DRM. The best example of shooting yourself in the foot ever.

Give customers encrypted content and the keys, try to prevent them from freely using the two together, undermine copyright fair use and first sale doctrines as you go along.

Intended effect - No Piracy

Actual effect - Paying customers get crippled products, pirates carry on regardless

It's crazy. And the more they try to lock it down the worse their products become and the better piracy looks in comparison. Pirates don't only beat the legit industry on price, they beat them on quality and availability. How can the industry allow this to stand? Let alone continue down the same path with their fingers in their ears shouting LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!?!

<comment><USER4> Let me tell you how things work in the real world.

When the people with money say "we want this", you don't argue. It doesn't matter if it's technically infeasible. It doesn't matter if it won't have the intended effect. When the people with money want something, YOU GIVE IT TO THEM. And let them deal with the consequences. Otherwise, you won't get the business, and life can otherwise be made very, very difficult for you.

The people who run Hollywood have lots of money to play with. The people who run the Web companies want a piece of that action. Hollywood says "no can do unless we have reasonable assurance that due diligence has been done to prevent piracy -- that means DRM." DRM isn't really about being effective -- it's about providing a nominal barrier to piracy that will dissuade casual pirates outright, and in the case of serious pirates, provides something that can be "broken" so the studios can go after the person who broke it with civil and criminal copyright infringement claims. Now you know why the DMCA anticircumvention provisions exist: so the copyright industry can do with the law what DRM alone couldn't do.

So the Web either gets DRM, or Hollywood makes content available on proprietary platforms that provide it.

Money shapes reality in this world.

<comment><USER5> Let me tell you something about the state of the real world: The content Hollywood produces is already fully available on the Web. They try to fight that, but they lose. So the w3c is in no position where it is necessary to accommodate them to get their content. Besides, for the w3c, where is the business incentive, where is the money involved?

<comment><USER6> > The content Hollywood produces is already fully available on the Web.

For people willing to pirate, it, yes. However, it's far less convenient to pirate movies and get them to your big screen TV than it was to use napster and listen to songs on your mp3 player. On the flip side, Netflix (i.e. content with DRM) accounts for roughly 1/3 of nightly internet traffic in the US. DRM facilitates consumer access to restricted content.

> Besides, for the w3c, where is the business incentive, where is the money > involved?

The w3c is primarily an industry group. The players pushing DRM in HTML5 are Google, Netflix and Microsoft, all of whom have a business interest in being able to stream content via browsers.

<comment><USER7> > For people willing to pirate, it, yes.

What good is protection against piracy from people not willing to pirate?

And no, pirated content is far more convenient than DRMed content. DRM can only reduce the conveninence, not increase.

<comment><USER6> > What good is protection against piracy from people not willing to pirate?

It's about business. Protection that works for 99.5% of the population is good enough for the old content industries. Netflix couldn't exist in its current form without DRM -- Netflix does not succeed because of novel technologies, but rather because of successful content licensing.

To be clear I'm not a fan of DRM, especially not when it's baked into the HTML standard.

> And no, pirated content is far more convenient than DRMed content.

I didn't say that - you're arguing against a position I didn't state.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I suppose that the title assertion is to be expected. DRM only works if you don't know how it works.

<comment>

I'm not sure I see anything wrong with DRM _per se_ (this could be my fever talking), there are probably good uses I'm too dim to think about, but I do think it's unnecessary as part of the HTML specification.

There's no industry or company that has switched to DRM-free content, that I know of, that has failed or suffered because of it:

* Music is largely available DRM-free now, thanks to Amazon's MP3 store (at the least, I'm sure there are others)

* For games, Steam makes it easy to avoid SecuROM Hell

* Despite DRM, all of Netflix's original series House of Cards was available on The Pirate Bay within hours of release. This doesn't seem to hurt Netflix's wish to create more content, or police it more heavy-handedly. (Maybe they would if they could)

For that matter, I think in the modern case every single time a business went DRM free it turned out OK. Isn't that right? In all modern cases, maybe after 2006-ish, DRM-free businesses were accompanied with an easy way to get the content online, and sales did not seem to suffer because at the end of the day piracy can appear (or be) shady and people (rightfully) don't trust shady websites, even The Pirate Bay with all of its popups.

I wish we had better numbers. I would like to see a real analysis on all the reasons people don't pirate and instead buy on Steam. I wish there was a good way to convince media businesses at large.

But I guess this is all water under the bridge, and I'm preaching to the choir.

<comment><USER9> Steam can't be considered DRM free in many cases, for example because they don't let you backing up installers / packages, so if the service closes down you lose your collection. The only completely DRM-free gaming distributor is GOG. Humble Bundle and Desura are mixed.

You are right in general though. Going DRM free not only won't hurt any publisher, it will only gain respect from customers and will improve the quality of their products in a sense of improved usability, because any DRM means a crippled product (i.e. limited platforms availability, inability to make backups and etc. and etc.).

The problem is, that most legacy publishers are rarely customer focused and think that DRM helps their profits. And unprincipled distributors like Netflix are ready to oblige. But the irony is, those publishers only hurt themselves by continuing using DRM. It's mostly innovative publishers, or self published studios (and crowdfunded projects) that have common sense and avoid using DRM. Luckily some distributors are also principled enough to reject DRMed products from publishers. But such are a minority still.

<comment><USER10> And GOG refuses to add GNU/Linux support. Considering that many GOG games run in DOSEmu anyway and some come with native Linux support this is not really understandable.

<comment><USER11> Shipping binary software for Linux is like playing a never-ending game of Space Invaders.

GOG's position is totally understandable.

<comment><USER9> No, it's not. Their position is (at least from their last status update): "we are trying to come up with a long term support methodology, and didn't find one yet". It takes them more than a year to design it. It doesn't sound reasonable to me.

<comment><USER12> Shipping binaries on Linux is nearly impossible on a long term support basis.

FatELF would of addressed at least some of these problems, but was largely rejected by the larger community of people not shipping proprietary products on Linux: [https://icculus.org/fatelf/](https://icculus.org/fatelf/)

<comment><USER13> Might Docker containers be a valid solution to this? Shipping old games is a sorta-kinda-similar problem to shipping frozen versions of web-apps.

<comment><USER9> That can work probably, since Docker claims that it doesn't impose big overhead, so it can be suitable for gaming.

<comment><USER14> You would probably find there are performance penalties in areas Docker don't really bother benchmarking or even talking about since they don't align to the design goals. I've only seen some fairly rudimentary demonstrations of VNC and X over the Network for isolating GUI apps in Docker.

<comment><USER15> Docker author here. I really doubt performance would be a problem. Namespaced linux processes access devices the same way every other process does: by getting a file descriptor to it and making syscalls against that. What we need to figure out is a portable way for a docker container to declare "I need access to the following devices". I would love to work with anyone interested to add that to the docker APIs for 1.0. I think long-term stable binary delivery is an important thing to do and I would like to help.

Ping me at firstname.lastname@example.com about this anytime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is all so ridiculous, rtmp for instance is as secure a DRM as its ever gonna get and that never stopped me from downloading a stream. Even things like HDMI/HDCP is broken beyond repair. And all of this should justify damaging the w3c reputation forever, what are they thinking?!

This whole concept of DRM is just idiotic, its enough if one guy breaks the DRM and releases it. Why should I even bother booting a propertary OS (windows) and buying a stream everytime I want to watch something if I can just download a release and watch it, and its not like they can do anything against that either.

Why should I bother and buy HDCP capable new hardware, bother with proprietary NSA-compliant US software I much rather buy the DVD, trash it and just download it in a open and free format (I don't even bother with ripping (and breaking CSS) anymore).

<comment><USER17> I don't care how it gets done, but if we need this to finally kill off flash than I am for it. This problem is solved technically so let's just get it done. Yes, every DRM will eventually be broken, but at least it satisfies the executives enough, so what's the problem?

I don't understand why purists on the email list end up holding up something that will ultimately be a positive thing from a number of perspectives. Security, battery life, and script-able/touch friendly controls.

<comment><USER18> We want to kill Flash because it's proprietary and closed source (just like HTML DRM). Replacing Flash, which at least works on Linux, Windows, and Mac, with platform-specific DRM, is a huge step _backward_ for the web.

<comment><USER17> Not really. I want to get rid of Flash because of security, battery life/performance and because it is not touch friendly.

<comment><USER19> Security, battery life and touch-friendliness aren't necessarily the most renown features of a DRM binary blob.

Communicating with the blob in an open-source project will be particularly fun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This should really be at the top of every HTML DRM discussion:

HTML DRM will not give you plugin-free or standardized playback. It will simply replace Flash/Silverlight with multiple custom and proprietary DRM black boxes that will likely have even worse cross-platform compatibility than the existing solutions. In other words, giving in to HTML DRM will only make the situation _worse_.

Some vendors will keep pushing for it, but at the very least we should not officially sanction what they are doing.

<comment><USER21> But that's the solution you would want, a plugin. That way the DRM is not part of every browser being made, it's an add-on that individuals can decline to install. Content providers want this and they will eventually get it, one way or another. If they don't get their plugin then they'll go with their deep pockets to demand laws that require all browsers to have this tech by default, without your choice. Which would lead to browsers either complying or removing the media elements.

<comment><USER10> What you are saying is just ridiculous. Adding DRM to HTML5 will destroy the open web and not preserve it.

First of all the DRM proposal does NOT talk about plugins. The DRM support won't be plugins. Microsoft already implements the spec in their latest IE and it doesn't work with plugins at all. They ship Microsoft's DRM technology as the one and only available DRM. Which is perfectly fine according to the spec.

So do you understand? This moves DRM into the browser and not into a plugin. The plugin thing was what we had with Flash and Silverlight. Those things were plugins which are not part of the browser (well except Google decided to make Flash part of Chrome).

There could be no law to force browser vendors to ship DRM. It would not be legally possible. It is silly to think so. And if it gets proposed we can fight it then. We don't have to bend over backwards now to take the DRM bullshit that vile companies like Google are proposing.

If content providers want DRM then they can develop their own crappy DRM plugins and applications. But they should under no circumstances be allowed to ruin the open web.

<comment><USER21> That's the initial proposal that I was aware of so if it's changed since then I suppose I'm no longer up to date. That's fine.

But it is not ridiculous thought for this to plugin based, especially if your only example is Microsoft. I suppose Apple and Google will build it into their browsers since they support this. I suppose it's ridiculous that I said it but it's the solution you support by your very own words? If the content providers make their own crappy plugins the browser needs a way to communicate to that crappy plugin, which is exactly what I've always understood this proposal to be and exactly what I stated.

You don't think that an industry with the backing that the entertainment industry can't get this done? It's silly to think that? Where do you think the DMCA came from in the first place?

Now, I'm only talking about DRM for video and audio elements. If you're talking about DRM across the board for every aspect of what makes a web page, then I'm with you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A key paragraph:

link: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- restrictedmedia/2...](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0066.html)

Well, as I say, the actual requirements that lead to the proposal of EME would be a start. This is how it looks to those who don't agree that EME is a good fit with the Open Web:

\- 'big content' has certain requirements relating to preventing users copying data streams

\- they won't make those requirements public (as you've said, the agreements are confidential)

\- their licensees propose a technical solution that is unacceptable to many others because it necessitates the use of non-user-modifiable client components

\- all proposed alternatives (e.g. FOSS DRM, server-side watermarking, client- side watermarking, no DRM at all) are shot down as being either too expensive or inadequate to the (secret) requirements

In a normal software project, I'd take an apparently insoluble conflict (the requirement for non-user-modifiable client components) to mean that we have done a poor job of determining requirements.

Hence my request for either a real user to talk to (e.g. an MPAA rep) or the actual requirements docs, which you've told me are confidential.

And _that_ sets off my spidey-senses ... something is not quite right here.

<comment><USER23> Well, my question is does HTML even need to encompass everything it does. It seems to me that we have an ever expanding monster. HTML does not have to be everything for everyone.

<comment><USER21> I thought that was more-or-less what was being discussed. My understanding was that the media element being accessed would not play the stream unless a specified DRM component was available, most often due to a plugin installed to the browser. It wasn't that they wanted DRM in the open web, they wanted the open web to have the ability to communicate with a third-party DRM. A third- party solution that an individual can decline to install and not participate.

<comment><USER3> >> A third-party solution that an individual can decline to install and not participate.

A third party solution that they can't get hold of because the 'official' one only runs on windows and intel, and the ps4.

<comment><USER21> So? If they don't provide the content you wish to see in a way that's convenient for you but is convenient for the mass of their market I fail to see the problem. If you want to see the content bad enough then you accept the requirements. Otherwise, it says more for you to not participate by not giving money. As more people do this, things will change.

<comment><USER3> So we shouldn't encourage its addition to open standards.

<comment><USER21> If it's in the standards to explain how to implement it and make use of it but it's implemented as a third-party item that's up to the individual to decide whether to install or not, what difference does it make? We're eventually going to get that anyway so why not know how it works upfront?

Plus, from what I've read Chrome should start losing market share immediately because it already has a form of EME implemented. All these people in an uproar over the W3C's decision should be switching to something else to show their concern.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Email the W3C. Tell them what you think of this bullshit (in reasonably polite manners).

I've done it. I've gotten a non-canned response.

But clearly they need more people at the gates bitching. This needs to be stopped.

<comment><AUTHOR> To their credit, the W3C are handling the level of interest in this very well indeed. Especially as many (myself included) have only passing familiarity with W3C process & protocol.

But yeah, the more voices making clear, well-reasoned objections to this, the better. Especially if that might actually result in it going to a vote.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's worth mentioning that the CEO of the W3C, Jeff Jaffe, is trying to rectify that:

[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- restrictedmedia/2...](http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public- restrictedmedia/2014Jan/0067.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> ... but the more I think about it, the more it's scary that things have progressed so far _without_ the requirements being public.

<comment><USER25> There are versions that are public and I doubt the "secret" studio requirements are much different: [http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/](http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/) [http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agrmt_090605.pdf](http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_Adopter_Agrmt_090605.pdf) (see Exhibit E on p. 90)

In reality these requirements are not set in stone; they are a business negotiation. The first version of iTMS did not meet the record labels' DRM "requirements", but Jobs convinced them that he'd make them enough money to make up for any piracy that iTMS allowed. Likewise Windows XP did not meet Blu-ray's "bag of hurt" robustness requirements but they made an exception because no one was running Vista and Hollywood presumably cared more about their movies being playable on computers than about the piracy that XP would allow. Of course, this doesn't help free software people who aren't willing to negotiate and would be starting from a very weak position even if they were.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why do you say that Free Software people aren't willing to negotiate? We are _very_ willing to; it's just that every suggestion we've made has been shot down. I think it's very clear who is unwilling to negotiate here.

It's true, though, that there's one point on which we aren't willing to negotiate: any W3C-endorsed standard must be implementable by anyone who chooses, without paying royalties or licensing patents.

EME falls foul of this requirement, because the CDMs with which it is intended to operate themselves fall foul.

<comment><USER25> Free software people aren't willing to negotiate about the right to read and modify code but non-modifiable code is the only way that DRM can work.

<comment><USER26> Can you even name any other class of software that _cannot work_ unless people are somehow forbidden to modify or even _read_ the code? It sounds like this is a problem with DRM, not with the free software movement.

<comment><USER27> As a class, just about any program that depends on security through obscurity has this trait.

<comment><USER28> There is no 'Security through obscurity'. At best, you will have the illusion of security, wich is worse than no security at all.

<comment><USER27> This seems a bit like saying that there is no such thing as debugging because applications still have bugs afterward. I agree with the overall thrust that the security through obscurity is unreliable, but it is something, and it has even been effective to a limited degree on many occasions. (For example, many video game companies have employed defeatable security-through-obscurity successfully, because they only need to hold off the crackers for a couple of weeks.)

<comment><USER26> Can you name any software that relies on security through obscurity -- and I assume you mean obscurity from the user of the software, since nothing else seems relevant here -- that is not just a specific kind of DRM?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Can't we just fork the w3? Start using Firefox and forget about these people. Oh I'm sorry your browser is a little slower, but at least it's not Google made.

<comment><USER30> Fork the W3C? This is pretty much happened with HTML. The W3C membership voted against chartering a group to work on progressive improvements to HTML (v. XHTML2), initially in the form of Web Forms 2.0, and so the WHATWG was born.

The big problem is copyright on all the specs is owned by the W3C. Oh, you want to spec CSS? Well, then you have to do it from scratch. Yes, HTML is now at a point where it is better specified than ever, and more interoperable than ever, but it's been a long, hard journey there. Consider the spec has been worked on for over a decade now. Respecifying, from scratch, large parts of the web platform is an incredibly large undertaking, especially ensuring the spec defines something compatible with almost all web content when browsers frequently disagree in edge-cases with up-until-now unspecified behaviour.

<comment><USER31> are you serious?! copyright instead of left on the standards for the "open" web? wtf

<comment><USER32> The background on this issue: [http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/doclicense-20100323/](http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/doclicense-20100323/) and rationale: [http://www.w3.org/2010/01/licfaq.html#consequences](http://www.w3.org/2010/01/licfaq.html#consequences)

<comment><USER31> thanks very much. am i right in that the main reason for this is that forking is undesired? how is that helpful to an open system?

<comment><USER30> The view is that forking of specs leads to a multitude of specs, thereby making interoperability harder, and ultimately making the system less open.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Maybe instead of getting everyone to adopt Silverlight, we could just make the web more like Silverlight. Like more closed and stuff, because movies!

<comment><USER34> Silverlight has nothing to do with DRM. It's a web content runtime similar to flash. Sure, some codecs exposed through the runtime on a windows machine supported DRM. But silverlight itself has as much to do with DRM as http that was used to transport that content.

<comment><USER35> > Silverlight has nothing to do with DRM

You are technically correct ("The best kind of correct"). However, the only places where Silverlight still enjoys any use is, as far as I can tell, in streaming services to PC and Mac (e.g. Netflix) - and in those places, the only reason they preferred Silverlight to Flash or HTML5 video is .. DRM.

So practically, Silverlight is on life support maintained by DRM. If e.g. Netflix decides to drop DRM, you can bet they will stop using Silverlight and switch to something more portable (e.g. Flash or HTML5 video).

Statistically, Silverlight use has everything to do with DRM.

(weak analogy: Guns don't have anything to do with causing bodily damage. They just shoot projectiles at high speeds. In this thread, we are discussing personal safety)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Why is W3C involved in this?

Not only does this create a lack of openness and transparency in the core of the web, but "big content" creators get to pass on the costs of DRM that nobody else benefits from, including to people who are not consuming their content.

Meanwhile, browser vendors will become uncompetitive - since nobody else can compete against a closed standard - and they become even more motivated to work against openness to maintain their existing oligarchy.

Could not be worse for the web.

</comment><comment><USER37> Compliance rules for Microsoft Playready: [http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/](http://www.microsoft.com/playready/licensing/compliance/)

The encryption part of DRM systems is effectively the same as client-side SSL certificates with a secret SSL certificate. How well it's kept secret is defined in the compliance documents. This secret, plus a secure decoding and output path, are the engineering core of DRM systems.

Studios require "industry standard DRM" for movies and TV shows, with lesser requirements for SD. This effectively means "DRM backed by some entity with lots of money that we can sue if things go wrong". Studios approve each individual device that you serve to, usually with compliance targets at some particular future date for various existing loopholes.

Flash (Adobe Access) is somewhat different, and has an obfuscated method for generating the equivalent of a client cert, thus on laptops it's only rated for SD by most (all?) studios. Apparently studios don't care too much about people copying SD content.

Studios would theoretically approve watermarking DRM systems, but there are two major barriers: having a large (ahem, suable) company offering it, and some way to serve individualized media through a CDN. Neither seem likely. So nobody loses too much sleep about whether studios would actually approve watermarking.

</comment><comment><USER38> Sigh. Look, I'm okay with DRM, as long as it works on all my devices. EME won't, under linux, I guarantee the DRM Vendors won't bother releasing Linux binaries. That annoys me.

<comment><USER39> > I'm okay with DRM

It seems really defeatist to say this. You are a consumer. You have the ultimate vote on everything, with your wallet, with the only exceptions really being what you need to survive and whatever your government takes.

And I don't think netflix is on par with eating.

My problem is I have no idea what to do about the w3c. I'd really like to know what alternative network protocols for document rendering there are, because they are destroying the platform they are supposed to advance, community backlash be damned, they got bought off.

I'm definitely looking into ways to get qml into browsers, though. I think qtquick apps as remote resources would be amazing, because they would be actual apps, not documents with scripts running on them.

<comment><USER38> I'll be honest, I can say that I don't mind it as I rarely consume media that we're discussing. If I do, it's one show rented on my Apple TV, and that's it, maybe once every six months.

<comment><USER40> Well, this very push for DRM on the web is to change exactly that. It's to force _you_ to use DRM-only content.

So - yeah.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _> So, the DRM vendors have solved the problem of creating solutions that meet studio requirements and what we are trying to do with EME is provide a clean API to integrate these solutions with the HTML Media Element._

Which reads as: studios have nonsensical requirements, which are implemented and soon broken. And "we" (i.e. W3C) need to oblige this insanity for the sake of <...>.

Put your own reason, but I bet it won't be good.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just posted to the list, trying to explain that EME is not a requirement, it is an implementation.

<comment><USER9> I understand. My point is, it's an implementation of an absurd requirement which simply should be ignored, rather than obliged as in providing an implementation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I guess, the "another backdoor" proposal will go very well in Europe, where most citizens are just static about americas view on privacy and respect for constitutional rights. Way to go, maybe the W3C will finally get Europe and the rest of the "free" world to create their own web!

</comment><comment><USER42> HTML-DRM, proudly building "solutions" to problems nobody has, by following requirements nobody knows about, to create a landscape of content nobody can play.

Way to go W3C, keep up the "good" work.

</comment><comment><USER43> Why should DRM be part of a standard? Aren't plug-ins sufficient?

<comment><USER30> EME essentially defines a wrapper around a module, which can quite easily be a plugin, that implements the DRM. You can view it as a means to require smaller plugins than NPAPI, PPAPI, etc.

<comment><USER43> So, why have that discussion inside a standards discussion, especially if it brings in confidentiality requirements? Let the publishers talk among themselves and write their plug-ins.

<comment><AUTHOR> In my more paranoid moments, I worry that the answer is: this work is explicitly intended to break the Open Web as we know it.

This is why I'm so keen to get all the requirements out in the open and start discussing them transparently.

<comment><USER44> Personally, even in my least paranoid moments, I think that's a certainty. Why let things be open when you can charge people for the key? See also: turnpikes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> The only benefit I can see from standardizing something is that browser makers who want to claim to be compliant actually have to support it, so you won't end up in the flash/silverlight situation where some platforms don't support it.

But if a plugin framework is standardized, why settle for only DRM? Why not fix the whole crapfest that is plugin applications entirely? A standardized interface to a fast sandboxed virtual machine with good hardware support would be excellent. Currently there is javascript, ActiveX, flash, java applets, Silverlight, NaCl, WebGL and a number of others, each having their own benefits and drawbacks.

If I want to write a web based multi-threadced GPU accelerated webcam-using application that works on any compliant browser on any platform, what do I do? Isn't that what the next kind of web standards should be addressing?

<comment><USER10> > The only benefit I can see from standardizing something is that browser > makers who want to claim to be compliant actually have to support it, so you > won't end up in the flash/silverlight situation where some platforms don't > support it.

Please read the spec. Your assumption is wrong! The EME just defines an API for JavaScript to access an unspecified CDM (the DRM module) in the browser. It does not specify how the DRM should work (it would be by definition impossible). It does not specify how a browser should acquire or handle the CDM.

Therefore EME will not only ruin the open Web. But it will be less portable than Flash. At least Flash somehow works on Linux.

<comment><USER45> You misunderstood me, I think if there should be standardization of _some kind_ of platform indepndent "plugin" it should address what flash, applets, ActiveX and Silverlight does but in a standardized way.

<comment><USER10> It is - by definition - not possible to have an open standard or libre implementation for DRM. You could simply implement it to dump the stream instead of displaying it.

If you mean the features besides DRM then we don't need a plugin because HTML5 and JavaScript are perfectly fine for replacing those plugins and they can be openly implemented and distributed.

<comment><USER45> I mean a standard way of distributing binary executables where anything the plugin author wants can be done (within a sandbox). For example the decoding and display of protected data. Much like flash, but with some form of standardized bytecode vm. I understand that the implementation if the actual DRM will probably be closed, but the plugin standard that hosts the DRM code should not have to be.

Apart from allowing closed binary applications it should of course offer some other benefit over javascript, such as offering good hardware support (true multithreading with shared data, access to all peripherals, and so on). Javascript even with WebGL+WebWorkers+similar frameworks isn't it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Here are some thoughts by Cory Doctorow on web DRM. Spoiler: he's not a fan.

[http://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/post/72759474218/w...](http://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/post/72759474218/we- are-huxleying-ourselves-into-the-full-orwell)

</comment><comment><USER47> Looks like the W3C may have been the inspiration for Games of Thrones...

Seriously, if there are men and women of honor in this organization, they should stand up against any form of standardization for DRM. DRM can be a proprietary extension for the people who want it.

</comment><comment><USER48> Hey Guys, can somebody create a simple guide, FAQ or something similar for non-tech people to understand what is going on with HTML and DRM? It will help to spread the word.

<comment><USER49> [https://hsivonen.fi/eme/](https://hsivonen.fi/eme/) explains what EME _is_. Granted, it might not explain "what is going on".

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> From the mailing list: "[with EME] ... the publisher will have the possibility of deciding which platforms may access their content."

That was from one of the proponents of EME, touting this as a _good thing_. The response from another list regular was excellent:

"In non-web-terms this is the publishers deciding on what brands of TV you're allowed to play their content."

That's where EME will take the Open Web. We need to oppose it, strongly, urgently.

</comment><comment><USER50> I download movies and TV shows using Bittorrent and index sites like TBP because of DRM. Often these DRM systems are not available for Linux, or if they are, they require installing some big blob of binary code. It is easier and more secure for me to use bittorrent.

I would happily use the legal services, if not for this DRM. Those services sometimes are even free (e.g. BBC iPlayer). I would happily pay for a subscription service (I pay subscriptions to a number of different of online sites, mostly journalism or data-organistion - I've no problem with that).

The industry standardising proprietary DRM in W3 will just ensure that I continue to support the distributed, end-user provided services which are DRM- free.

</comment><comment><USER51> Since many are using Steam as an example of DRM - the important difference is that Steam is a free product, but is not open-source (though it can be used to distribute open-source). It is produced by a company as a means of distributing their products.

It is not even a valid comparison to the blinkard pig ignorance of the secret DRM requirements in HTML, which is an open standard.

I'd just like to know what dipshit at the W3 signed off on this.

</comment><comment><USER52> What's the problem? Don't support companies that distribute any DRM content. Standardizing DRM and propogating DRM aren't the same thing.

<comment><USER53> It sure helps propagating it, once you have a standard all the vendors can use.

<comment><AUTHOR> But all this standardises is the interop between the browser and the non-user- modifiable client component, the CDM.

<comment><USER9> Any standard makes it less messy and gives them more excuses to continue pushing it instead of admitting that it should be dropped. It's absurd to promote standards for unethical practices.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Perhaps I did a poor job of explaining things in my previous post. I was just trying to say that EME being standardised won't actually help standardise CDMs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Can't we just boycott this entirely?

</comment><comment><USER17> If our end result is to see Netflix using HTML5 video on Desktop browsers, how do we get there from a technology and business point of view? Keep in mind that Netflix has content created and owned by the major studios. If any form of DRM is not the way, than what? How do we get to this end goal? Do we make streams 'free' to copy and rely more on the legal system for protection? We are all keen to slam DRM, but what is a viable alternative?

<comment><USER55> There is no reason why the free and open standards of the internet should be compromised so that a particular business can operate on it. If DRM-free HTML video makes it so that Netflix can't develop a browser based viewer, so be it. The internet is bigger, and considerably more important, than streaming movies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> why can't they just build it in NaCl and leave the open standard alone.

<comment><USER49> In that case, the site providing DRMed video and the NaCl player would have distribute an H.264 decoder (and potentially other encumbered stuff) to end users as part of a NaCl executable. It's much more convenient for a company like Netflix not to have to distribute the DRM component when companies like Microsoft and Google are willing to do it instead. Also, NaCl doesn't integrate with the HTML media elements, you'd need to implement the whole media stack in NaCl instead of just the DRM part.

Furthermore, since NaCl is sandboxed by the browser (and the browser is untrusted by Hollywood in the DRM trust model), it can't conspire with the GPU on low enough a level to hide pixels from the browser and the operating system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> HTML6 = HTML5 - <USER2>

</comment><comment><USER58> The internet was nice while it lasted.</comment>


Yet another perpetual motion machine company with 60M in funding - <AUTHOR> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/7127 <comment><USER2> ___The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics, a 1771‑page work that he's self-published on his Web site. It claims to offer explanations with no "spookiness or weirdness" for quantum phenomena like entanglement, as well as some extraordinary predictions: that under certain conditions electrons acquire antigravity properties, which Mills calls "the fifth force," and that the mysterious dark matter permeating the universe consists of large hydrino agglomerations._ __

Link:<http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/book.shtml>

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like an E8 on the cover. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_%28mathematics%29>

And here is something of a summary of his theory: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrino>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is there a step-by-step guide by a former person like this on how they obtain funding?

I (and a few co-founders) could set up gas->electric vehicle conversion centers around the country and rake in the dough for this amount of money. How can someone like this get sixty million!?

<comment><USER4> These guys are not good at doing what they say, but they are VERY good at faking it.

Is it then any surprise that people who are very good at faking it can raise a lot of money?

Why do you think business guys wear suits, it's a costume, for theater.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> To be picky, snake oil/crank rather than perpetual motion per se by the sound of it.

<comment><USER6> Surely that would be snake hydrogen, if we are being picky. Isn't he trying to solve the "oil problem"? ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I thought is was interesting that the calorific contribution from oxidising the metal of the experimental chamber was estimated at 1% of produced energy. A decimal place can be, either here ... or here.

So many people want to believe that this can be true. However, like consistent 12% annual returns, and flying cars, it seems more likely that 'BlackLight Power' is more of a vehicle to fund Randall Mills retirement, than a real possibility of a revolutionary source of near-free energy.

Obviously, if it does turn out to be true, the scientific world may have to take his grand-unified theory a little bit more seriously.

</comment><comment><USER8> So, a distinguished but elderly scientist says it's impossible, eh? Where do I sign up?! ;)

<comment><USER9> This is actually more like "the entire physics community speaking in unison" which is _slightly_ more formidable especially when they use _actual math_ rather than just making stuff up a la Lord Kelvin.

<comment><USER10> I'm reserving judgement--if it doesn't get a lot of publicity and garner a large following of believers, it might still be true ([http://thinkexist.com/quotation/when-however- the_lay_public_...](http://thinkexist.com/quotation/when-however- the_lay_public_rallies_round_an_idea/168206.html))

<comment><USER11> Hint: "The other would use a batch operation, in which some catalyst is successively retrieved, recycled, and reinserted for a new cycle."

You don't need to recycle catalyst's. One off bursts of energy are easy to fudge so it seems like something interesting is happening when it's not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I feel bad for all those employees that are going to lose their jobs when the runway is over.

</comment><comment><USER13> Turns out that Bernie Madoff _did_ invest some of his fund!

</comment><comment><USER14> I liked the Steorn guys better. I mean -- full page ads challenging scientists to disprove them! That took some chutzpah.

</comment><comment><USER15> Can someone with a physics background explain his theory, and whether his theory has been tested experimentally yet?

</comment><comment><USER9> Hey, at least their story isn't as silly and they didn't get as much funding as the Catholic Church.

<comment><USER16> Yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ugh. Hopefully they're as entertaining as the Steorn idiots, those investors should get SOMETHING for that money.</comment>


Haskell Web Development: A Freely Available Book - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/haskell-web-development-a-freely-available-book#/ <comment><USER2> John Resig (of JQuery fame) got a $7500 advance[1] for a Javascript book. I think it's reasonable to assume that a Javascript book would be 100x (or even 1000x) more popular than a Haskell book. To this day, I don't believe he's made much beyond that advance. I doubt he's reached $20k since 2007.

If the author can crowdsource $20k, more power to her. On the other hand, maybe the monetary threshold needs a reality check. EDIT ADD: I looked again and noticed that the $20k is a "flexible goal" so presumably, the author will write the book even without reaching that amount; therefore, the author already understands market forces at work that might prevent a $20k payout.

(Of course it's possible that the Haskell book market can charge a premium because of a uniquely enthusiastic audience . E.g., doctors pay $500 for a book that shows surgical procedures and the volume of sales is only in the hundreds.)

In the economics of books, the big money is fiction. (50 Shades, Harry Potter, etc). To a lesser extent, you have some non-fiction titles making a decent amount of money (Chicken Soup for the Soul, Eat Pray Love, etc). Way down on the totem pole are the trade publications like computer books. The economics on that level basically dictate that you slave away writing "Java for Dummies" for less than minimum wage. You then use it as a _business calling card_ and let it open doors to speaking engagements at conferences and attract consulting gigs.

[1]>[http://ejohn.org/blog/programming-book- profits/](http://ejohn.org/blog/programming-book-profits/)

<comment><USER3> JS might be 100x as popular as Haskell, but it doesn't follow that a single JS book will be 100x as popular as a single Haskell book, because there are also 100x as many JS books.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For anyone interested, I found the author's Patreon page here: [https://www.patreon.com/user.php?v=queertypes&ty=h](https://www.patreon.com/user.php?v=queertypes&ty=h)

Cost of living is listed as $5k/mo on this page, which contrasts with the $6.6k/mo listed on the IndieGogo campaign.

The author is a self-described anti-capitalist but this campaign looks an awful lot like free-market economics at work. Rather than simply writing the book for free and accepting donations, the author has simply stated a price ($20k) for a product (an open source book).

I also found a blog post here [https://blog.cppcabrera.com/posts/53-announcing-queer- types....](https://blog.cppcabrera.com/posts/53-announcing-queer-types.html) where the author goes into more personal detail about the project. Apparently the $20k would cover in excess of 3 months living, whatever that means. There was even mention of releasing additional books if funding reached $60k+. Sounds pretty far-fetched.

<comment><USER5> And the author doesn't even have to write the book for free. They could perfectly use a distribution platform focused on self-publishing (I mentioned GitBook and Leanpub in a different comment). A good strategy would be to start writing the book and make it available in pre-order/beta for whatever amount ($20 maybe). It would probably take longer than 3 months to write since the author would have to work on the side, but so what? I'm not aware of a programming focused author who can actually cover their living expenses simply by writing.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. I don't have a problem with the campaign and hope it goes well, it just seems as if the author is a bit out of touch. The 12 hour workshop (with a relatively unknown person) for $5k and a number of other little things really add to that general feeling of malaise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nothing wrong with writing a book, but frankly,what Haskell really could use is a richer ecosystem, better tooling ( _ahem_ cabal) and perhaps a sense of its niche(s). I like Haskell, but there's absolutely no reason why you ought to expect people to start using it when you've got much richer, usable ecosystems available out of the box. History keeps repeating itself. What makes or breaks a language isn't just the language itself. A language needs a supporting ecosystem to actually make it useful. Of course, it's a bit of a Catch-22: you need people to populate the ecosystem with code. So why don't we start with a leiningen for Haskell? Time and again, the forums reinforce that the basic tools are what keep them from treating Haskell seriously.

<comment><USER7> I agree about the need for better tooling, but lately I have been finding "stack" to be a better experience. Try it if you haven't done so already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> For those interested in learning Haskell, I've found this book (currently in progress) excellent:

[http://haskellbook.com/](http://haskellbook.com/)

<comment><USER9> Thank you :)

Might be worth noting that while it's "currently in progress", it's also 912 pages of "in progress" in the current release. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't think it's fair to state that the author's cost of living is irrelevant. The author is simply stating how much he/she needs in order to open source the content. The amount IMHO is immaterial. If you want to donate, then do so. If a sufficient amount of people find the campaign compelling and donate in excess of $20k, then evidently he/she's expected to provide at least that much value to people. If the campaign fails, then clearly the funding goal was too high.

To put it another way, people who donate are paying a price based on perceived value.

Perhaps someone will offer to write (and make freely available) a similar book for a smaller sum. If not, there is only one offer on the table and the market will decide whether it is reasonable or not.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm still waiting for the internet RFCs to be coded in Haskell. It seems like Haskell is the perfect language to write a protocol specification in, yet, mysteriously, no implementations that parallel the specs can be found.

<comment><USER11> Sounds like a terrible idea.

Haskell is written for the Haskell compiler to understand.

Specifications and designs should be written in a spoken language of choice and maths. That's where all the high-level modelling and problem domain specification should go.

Programs, on the other hand, should be written with the greatest amount of mechanical sympathy for the target platform as is necessary to achieve your engineering goals. That means we should prefer to write directly in the language understood by the platform, usually some form of assember, but where this isn't practical we write in something a little bit more complex but staying as close to that lower bound of complexity as is possible.

Before people start piling on and saying, "It's not the 80's anymore you dummy, we have spare cycles and plenty of memory," think about why I have a laptop with so much power under the hood and yet it still takes almost a minute to load up a spreadsheet... long enough that I get to stare, blankly, at a splash logo while my multi-core super-computer chugs along on the code designed in such a frame of mind.

Engineering is applied maths. Specifications are blueprints not implementations.

<comment><USER12> > Programs, on the other hand, should be written with the greatest amount of > mechanical sympathy for the target platform as is necessary to achieve your > engineering goals. That means we should prefer to write directly in the > language understood by the platform, usually some form of assember, but > where this isn't practical we write in something a little bit more complex > but staying as close to that lower bound of complexity as is possible.

This, of course, depends on what your engineering goals are. If maintainability, extensibility, portability, amenability to cheap labor, etc. are considered as engineering goals then the opposite approach makes more sense: write all software as a handful of Prolog clauses and let the search algorithm do all the hard work; gradually move to lower levels if performance is unacceptable.

The fact that you're waiting a minute for your spreadsheet to load shows that the performance is acceptable: you've accepted it. If it were unacceptable, you would be spending resources (money, or time to learn/transition- to/improve) on a faster alternative like sc.

<comment><USER11> > If maintainability, extensibility, portability, amenability to cheap labor, > etc. are considered as engineering goals

Those don't sound like goals they sound like principles.

A goal is I want to create a web server that implements the HTTP 1.1 specification that can process a stream of N bytes per second over X simultaneous connections. There are metrics, tolerances, and limits to consider.

A well engineered program that considers the data first and foremost can be easier to maintain since there are fewer abstractions to consider and reason through. It can be easier to debug since the program execution and memory layout are explicitly maintained. Performance is much easier to reason about for the same reasons. It is actually easier to refactor this kind of code in my experience.

We have to get out this idea that our job as programmers is to write code. It's really about solving engineering problems with computers -- real processors with caches, memory channels, interrupts, and the whole nine yards.

 _update_ : To wit, for those that know me, I actually write a lot of Python code. And Common Lisp. Doesn't change a thing; you can write a Python program that is ignorant of the underlying platform the interpreter was compiled for at your own risk... "write once, run everywhere," is a nice idea but a fiction in reality... a cleverly disguised, hand-wavey fiction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13>
        I want to work full-time on this book for 3 months. $20,000 covers
        my cost of living for that long.

Is the cost of living really that high in Austin, TX?

<comment><USER14> Is an $80,000/year salary "that high"?

<comment><USER15> 6k+ a month is a pretty high cost of living. It is a good salary for Texas, but if that's your cost of living that's pretty insane.

<comment><USER16> Personally, I think it's a reasonable amount given that you have to pay taxes on it, you have to get health insurance for the 3 months that you are working on it (not cheap), and the position is not extendible after 3 months.

In other words, you have to consider this as a 3 month contract as an independent contractor with no chance of extension. Personally, that would be pretty far into my discounted rate ;-)

Still, if successful, it has the upside of giving the author chances at a good reputation and follow on contracts. I'm very interested to see how successful this is. I'm sceptical that it can be completed in 3 months, but wish the author the very best of luck!

<comment><USER15> I think it is very fair PAY, but they specifically said cost of living.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> There's also Developing Web Applications with Haskell and Yesod by Michael Snoyman which is available from O'Reilly in dead tree format or for free in HTML format: [http://www.yesodweb.com/book](http://www.yesodweb.com/book)

It's a pretty good introduction to Haskell web development for people who are already familiar with both web development and Haskell.

</comment><comment><USER18> Because web development in brainfuck was already written?

</comment><comment><USER19> On a separate topic from the fundraising goal, are there many examples of haskell driven web applications out there? Any big properties?

</comment><comment><USER5> I would love to read that book, but is a funding campaign the best way to get there? Can she work on it during her spare time, like most authors do, and deliver in 6 or even 9 months instead of 3?

$20,000 to write a book is an enormous amount. When you work with actual publishers you don't get that much, the upfront royalties usually stay in the 4 digit range.

Maybe it would make more sense to use a platform like GitBook or LeanPup.

</comment><comment><USER20> Author cost of living = $6667/month? Author has high rent, wife, 3 children, only eats the organic and gluten free, car repayments, college debt... maybe shouldn't be writing book now.

If author wants to make same money as work for corporate, no problem, but should say this directly, not say the dubious "cost of living".

<comment><USER20> Why am I getting downvote? Somebody please explain me how $6667 is cost of living. I don't understand.</comment></comment>


Expanding Chromebooks for all learners - <AUTHOR> https://blog.google/topics/education/expanding-chromebooks-all-learners/ <comment><AUTHOR> Disclosure: I am an engineer at Clever</comment>


EPA docs don't show any scientific evidence for Scott Pruitt's climate claims - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/epa-docs-dont-show-any-scientific-evidence-for-scott-pruitts-climate-claims/ <comment><USER2> Well, there's this:

[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate- wi...](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with- temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the- shakun-et-al-paper/?cn-reloaded=1)

Which, like anything these days, must be carefully scrutinized before reaching any conclusions.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is anybody shocked?</comment>


Palantir, One of Silicon Valley's Oldest Startups, Files to Go Public - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/palantir-one-of-silicon-valleys-oldest-startups-files-to-go-public-11594092807 <comment><AUTHOR> What weird timing but I guess they know what they're doing?

<comment><USER2> Making their contracts untouchable, a la Boeing, Coke, etc etc - because every big index fund is going to hold them.</comment></comment>


People Just Do Nothing: The Dutch Way to Relax - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/shortcuts/2019/jul/22/people-just-do-nothing-is-the-dutch-concept-of-niksen-the-best-way-to-relax <comment><USER2> i don't think 'niksen' with the aim of 'maximising your productivity' is really 'niksen'. niksen = really doing nothing for no reason, with no aim or purpose. a bit like a dutch variation on the taoist wu wei ... ah if only.</comment>


UTorrent Plus Goes on Pre-Sale for $24.95 - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/utorrent-plus-goes-on-pre-sale-for-2495-111129/ <comment><USER2> _Plus will enable users to convert videos and transfer files to external devices. It also comes with built in anti-virus, remote file-transfers and a built in media player. Today BitTorrent Inc. announced that Plus will be released before the holidays and the client has been put on pre-sale for $24.95 a year._

None of these features are like "oh that would be handy" in fact all of them are "oh I already have a free tool that probably does that better".

I would expect people who torrent are slightly more savy than the bulk of internet users and have already found tools for these things if they have the need.

I am not trying to knock them for trying to find a business model for uTorrent as when I used it in the past it was a great experience. But this offering seems a bit weak.

</comment><comment><USER3> I had filled in the pre-order form and was just going to click the final order button when I discovered that it is only valid for the PC/Windows version. I have both PC and Mac but uTorrent is running on my mac. Why not support both platforms with the pre-order?

</comment><comment><USER4> This is tragic.</comment>


Google Geocoding moves Mountain View to Ukraine (atm) - <AUTHOR> https://maps.google.com/maps?q=1600+Amphitheatre+Pkwy,+Mountain+View,+Santa+Clara,+California+94043&hl=de&sll=37.422081,-122.084576&sspn=0.010421,0.01016&geocode=FeW71QIdfMoMAg&hnear=1600+Amphitheatre+Pkwy,+Mountain+View,+California+94043&t=m&z=17 or does Google just copy iOS6 Maps? :P <comment><USER2> if you spell Amphitheater in US English all is well.

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you! :)

i stumbled across the issue right here: <http://quickmaps.me/tryit.php> (fixed atm) [https://www.google.com/maps?daddr=1600+Amphitheatre+Parkway+...](https://www.google.com/maps?daddr=1600+Amphitheatre+Parkway++Mountain+View,+CA+94043&hl=de&mra=mdsmb&disamb=1&t=m&z=2) (here you can still find it)</comment></comment>


Rosette: Solver-aided programming language - <AUTHOR> https://emina.github.io/rosette/ <comment><AUTHOR> NB: Rosette 3.0 has been released: [https://github.com/emina/rosette/blob/master/NOTES.md](https://github.com/emina/rosette/blob/master/NOTES.md)

Also, the 2017 Clojure/West talk "Synthesis and Verification for All" [1] presented by UW Prof Emina Torlak (Rosette's creator) is one of the best talks I've seen in a while.

Synthesis and Verification for All, Emina Torlak [video] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDyuMIb_E0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDyuMIb_E0)</comment>


Xkeyscorerules100.txt - <AUTHOR> http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/xkeyscorerules100.txt <comment><USER2> Related to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7983124](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7983124)

Additionally, /. has a pretty good summary of what this is [1]. -- _" If you search the web for communications security information, or read online tech publications like Linux Journal or BoingBoing, you might be a terrorist. The German publication Das Erste disclosed a crumb of alleged XKeyScore configuration, with the vague suggestion of more source code to come, showing that Tor directory servers and their users, and as usual the interested and their neighbor's dogs due to overcapture, were flagged for closer monitoring. Linux Journal, whose domain is part of a listed selector, has a few choice words on their coveted award. Would it be irresponsible not to speculate further?"_

[1] [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/07/03/1846215/nsa- considers...](http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/07/03/1846215/nsa-considers- linux-journal-readers-tor-and-linux-users-extremists)

<comment><USER3> Linux Journal seems out of place. They must have had an article about Tails?

<comment><USER4> Yes they did[1], and a link to that article was published on an 'extremist' forum, triggering the inclusion of the domain in the filter.

[1][http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/linux-distro-tales- you-c...](http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/linux-distro-tales-you-can- never-be-too-paranoid)

<comment><USER5> So if the link to the NYT article is published on the extremist forum, and you job is to search for the extremists, you'd search for the NYT readers instead of the readers of the forum?

Your explanation has no sense, sorry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> /* _These variables define terms and websites relating to the TAILs (The Amnesic Incognito Live System) software program, a comsec mechanism advocated by extremists on extremist forums._ */

That's an interesting definition. It might cover legitimate extremists, but a quick look at Wikipedia tells me that TAILs has also been used by some pretty respectable Pulitzer Prize winners.

These comments provide an interesting and ultimately disheartening insight to how the people designing these surveillance systems view privacy software (and, by extension, privacy?).

<comment><USER7> That doesn't make sense to me. It's a definition that relates to the people they're looking for. That it's explicitly _more_ specific than "all Tails users" really doesn't seem disheartening to me.

That Tails is used by people other than extremists doesn't invalidate the comment, by someone interested in "comsec mechanisms used by extremists", that it is, in addition to anything else it may be, a "comsec mechanism advocated by extremists in extremist forums".

It's not like "legitimate extremists" have some totally parallel universe of software that's only used by them. It's fundamental to most of these tools that they'll be used by different people in different ways, and that some of those people will be by some standard or another "bad guys".

<comment><USER6> The description is not exclusive, I'm not arguing that. Your last point makes a lot of sense; most people/groups who do nasty things do it using off-the- shelf components. My issue is with the description painting TAILs in broad strokes as comsec for extremists. Yes, they've got National Security in the name, so they're looking at the software from a national security perspective. There is a wide gap, however, between describing software and its dangerous potential and describing software only in context of its dangerous potential.

If an analyst who hasn't heard of TAILs reads that description, it would sound to them like the program is something that's passed around extremist forums in much the same way malware toolkits are disseminated in warez forums, rather than what it is, which is a Debian fork that routes things through Tor. I say this because that was my first impression, which seemed off, leading me to google, then to wikipedia, and then back here in a huff.

Now, some examples (in order of ascending silliness) of why describing something in the context of one use case is harmful when many use cases exist:

* A lot of people use nmap to explore their home networks or as part of their jobs, potentially in the computer security industry. A lot of crackers also use nmap to case out potential targets. Calling nmap a "network scanning utility advocated by computer hackers" makes illegalizing nmap sound a lot more attractive than it actually would be, even if the statement is true.

* In the real world, certain products are systematically abused for less-than-kosher purposes. Still, we never refer to canned air as a household inhalant without mentioning its dusting use-case first. Potassium nitrate is fertilizer first, rocket fuel second, and only tangentially mentioned as an oxidizer for explosives. Other oxidizers, even the ones that are illegal for consumer sale, are written about the same way.

* _Reductio ad absurdum:_ There's a lot of general purpose software everyone uses. I wouldn't be wrong if I said "Microsoft Word is a text management tool used by terrorist groups to hatch evil plots" or "SMS is a communications technology used by insurgents to detonate bombs" or, extending the idiom, "The Quran is a book used by militant Islamist groups to justify killing and brutalizing civilians." These descriptions are all, however, deeply misleading.

<comment><USER7> _I say this because that was my first impression, which seemed off, leading me to google, then to wikipedia, and then back here in a huff._

I'm not sure I understand why you think an NSA analyst (who, inexplicably, is editing an XKEYSCORE rule file regarding Tor and Tails while being completely ignorant about Tor and Tails) is incapable of doing this same kind of information-gathering.

I'm not going to act like I think the NSA only hires the best and the brightest, but your example presumes the existence of an analyst that's all of: grossly undereducated for his duties, too mentally incompetent to be aware of it, and so far on the literal-minded end of the autism spectrum that they could be replaced by a shell script.

I believe any such analyst, if they existed, would have been promoted to management before they could cause any serious harm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't have a good reason to believe that this is real, but if it is the most surprising part to me is the "mapreduce" rule definition in there. As far as I know the only group with a C++ mapreduce implementation called "mapreduce" that also uses protocol buffers (the "proto:" block is protocol buffers) is Google. This seems to say to me that the NSA is using a Google implementation of map reduce. That can't possibly be right, can it?

<comment><USER9> They're not using the Google implementation; it looks like they rolled their own.

<comment><USER8> Your profile says you work at Google... are you saying that the code snippet here is inconsistent with Google's mapreduce?

<comment><USER10> I used to work at Google - this looks absolutely nothing like a Google MapReduce specification or code would look like.

<comment><USER11> Not a Google employee - but the linked file looks more like a simplified DSL for analysts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> In other news: the NSA developed a DSL with embedded C++. Is this the most horrific revelation yet?

<comment><USER13> Would I be wrong to gather that they also built an in house map reduce implementation? What year is this code from? Most of the other documents have been from 2007-2009, when did Google first implement map reduce?

<comment><USER5> Google's paper from 2004:

[http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co...](http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//archive/mapreduce- osdi04.pdf)

"We wrote the first version of the MapReduce library in February of 2003"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's a nice bit in here that automatically collates a list of Tor bridge nodes from snooped e-mails. The full list of bridge nodes isn't public, and one of the ways the Tor project attempted to prevent someone from building a complete list was by requiring people to use a valid GMail address to request them, effectively piggy-backing on Google's account verification to stop people from using a swathe of fake accounts to request nodes. Unfortunately, that failed to take account of the fact that the NSA had completely compromised Google's internal network.

<comment><USER15> Actually it was Britain's GCHQ that tapped Google's datacenter links and shared the data with the NSA. I only mention this to remind peeople that it's more than just one country and agency that's doing this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16>
        // START_DEFINITION
        /*
        The fingerprint identifies sessions visiting the Tor Project website from
        non-fvey countries.
        */
        fingerprint('anonymizer/tor/torpoject_visit')=http_host('www.torproject.org')
        and not(xff_cc('US' OR 'GB' OR 'CA' OR 'AU' OR 'NZ'));
        // END_DEFINITION

I was surprised to see that they actually tried to exclude Five Eyes countries. The cynic in me wonders if there is "bug" that neuters the restriction.

<comment><USER15> I'm wondering if "FVEY" meant something before it was rendered as "five eyes"?

<comment><USER17> The "Five Eyes" term has been in use since 2006. Strangely enough the original Wikipedia document archived on the Wayback Machine seems to be unavailable, however we do know it pointed to "USAUK_Community" whose relationship was extended to include other allies which is now known as the "Five Eyes".

Before 2007 the amount of searches for "FVEY" was near zero. The relationship between these five nations wasn't named publicly until 2006 or so, before that the relationship was there - just under another name.

However there are documents dated to 2001 available on mors.org which have FVEY references: [http://www.mors.org/UserFiles/file/82nd- Symposium/Form%20712...](http://www.mors.org/UserFiles/file/82nd- Symposium/Form%20712%20A.pdf)

These are public so you can assume internal naming was used well before then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> From the filename, I thought this was some kind of X window config file for key remapping.

</comment><comment><USER19> OK, I am going to play a devil's advocate.

\- The job of three-letters agencies is to find out all various enemies of the state. That includes terrorists, but also various gangsters, officials of sort-of-enemy states (like Russia). That's why they exist.

\- Following US nation interests has higher priority than rights of citizens, especially in other countries.

\- People, that US have a reason to spy on, probably will use Tor/Tails, or at least try to find something about it. It makes sense for NSA to filter those people and focus their spying on them specially.

\- Not all Tor interested folks will be evil, but the percentage there will be much higher than in just random internet. So it makes sense to focus on them. Just like it makes sense for a local police to be in a neighbourhood, that's known for a higher criminality.

So I understand why NSA does this, and why do they single out Tor-interested folks.

<comment><USER20> >The job of three-letters agencies is to find out all various enemies of the state.

Within the confines of the law and US constitution.

If all you care about is rooting out enemies of the state, then you're left with organizations like the SS or Stasi.

<comment><USER19> Does the US constitution matter with respect to non-US entities though?

Why should US-based agency care about rights of German citizens, for example?

<comment><USER20> While I think it _should_ apply to non-US citizens, the fact that it technically doesn't is irrelevant as long as they're still willfully violating the rights of US citizens too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Presumably reading hacker news also puts you on one of their lists.

Just remember should there ever be a problem between us, we know everything about you.

</comment><comment><USER22> The file is dissected here: [http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/07/reading- xkeyscore-rules-so...](http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/07/reading-xkeyscore- rules-source.html)

<comment><USER23> lol, nobody cares. _flails arms in hysteria_

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Does anyone have any context or information as to what this is?

<comment><USER5> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7983124](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7983124)

The article commented has the whole context.

For us programmers it's interesting, among other bigger issues, to see that the rules contain the pieces of code in C++.

<comment><USER7> _The article commented has the whole context._

It really doesn't. In spite of repeatedly claiming things like that people searching for Tor are "monitored" or users are "tracked", it's completely vague about what that those terms actually _mean_ and provides zero examples.

<comment><USER5> Do we read the same article? It actually has 5 pages and it attempts to explain the different sections of the file.

[http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/NSA-targets-the- priv...](http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/NSA-targets-the-privacy- conscious,nsa230.html)

[http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/nsa230_page-2.html](http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/nsa230_page-2.html)

[http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/nsa230_page-3.html](http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/aktuell/nsa230_page-3.html)

...

Maybe you've read only the first page and missed the remaining four?

<comment><USER7> Yes, I read it, and I stand by what I said. The article explains a set of rules used to filter a set of information out of another set, but it does not support claims about what is done with that set of information.

There is a lot of insinuation, but no example of any individual user of Tor or reader of Linux Journal, etc. being monitored or tracked simply for doing so.

<comment><USER25> It makes more sense to me that they actually use these in AND statements. For example, uses TOR and searches for JIHAD could be traffic that would be interesting. If I had to guess, the Linux Journal stuff was just something a geek put in there during testing.

<comment><USER26> That's what I thought—these rules obviously aren't the entire pipeline, and the results obtained from them may or may not be interesting in and of themselves.

That said, using Tails probably _does_ increase my XKeyScore rating. Is there anything published as to the scale of the rating? Something along the lines of "Once you get a rating of (say) 500, we're gonna come and beat down your door, wife and dog, and not necessarily in that order".

<comment><USER7> There's no indication that there is such a rating exists, or that any such decisions are made based on automated rules. It's a tool for selecting some traffic out of all traffic, not for replacing human analysis or decision- making.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKEYSCORE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XKEYSCORE)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Here are details for all of the IPs in that doc:

      $ curl -s http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/xkeyscorerules100.txt | grep -Eo "([0-9]+\.?){4}" | xargs -I% curl -s http://ipinfo.io/%
      {
        "ip": "18.104.22.168",
        "hostname": "No Hostname",
        "city": null,
        "region": null,
        "country": "DE",
        "loc": "51.0000,9.0000",
        "org": "AS50472 Chaos Computer Club e.V."
      }{
        "ip": "126.96.36.199",
        "hostname": "tor.dizum.com",
        "city": null,
        "region": null,
        "country": "NL",
        "loc": "52.5000,5.7500",
        "org": "AS3265 XS4ALL Internet BV"
      }{
        "ip": "220.127.116.11",
        "hostname": "No Hostname",
        "city": null,
        "region": null,
        "country": "AT",
        "loc": "47.3333,13.3333",
        "org": "AS3248 Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH"
      }{
        "ip": "18.104.22.168",
        "hostname": "No Hostname",
        "city": null,
        "region": null,
        "country": "SE",
        "loc": "62.0000,15.0000",
        "org": "AS2119 Telenor Norge AS"
      }{
        "ip": "22.214.171.124",
        "hostname": "No Hostname",
        "city": null,
        "region": null,
        "country": "DE",
        "loc": "51.0000,9.0000",
        "org": "AS24900 QSC AG"
      }{
        "ip": "220.127.116.11",
        "hostname": "belegost.csail.mit.edu",
        "city": "Cambridge",
        "region": "Massachusetts",
        "country": "US",
        "loc": "42.3646,-71.1028",
        "org": "AS3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology",
        "postal": "02139"
      }{
        "ip": "220.127.116.11",
        "hostname": "No Hostname",
        "city": "Aptos",
        "region": "California",
        "country": "US",
        "loc": "37.0082,-121.8777",
        "org": "AS40231 Ethr.Net LLC",
        "postal": "95003"
      }{
        "ip": "22.214.171.124",
        "hostname": "No Hostname",
        "city": "San Francisco",
        "region": "California",
        "country": "US",
        "loc": "37.7749,-122.4194",
        "org": "AS40475 Applied Operations, LLC",
        "postal": "94159"
      }{
        "ip": "220.127.116.11",
        "hostname": "moria.csail.mit.edu",
        "city": "Cambridge",
        "region": "Massachusetts",
        "country": "US",
        "loc": "42.3646,-71.1028",
        "org": "AS3 Massachusetts Institute of Technology",
        "postal": "02139"
      }

</comment><comment><USER28> The problem I have with this selector source code is that it is incredibly complex to execute.

How is the NSA able to do this in realtime for all their interception points?!

<comment><USER29> XKeyScore runs nearline, not in-line - and it's distributed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I believe this "source code" is made up, invented for the masses. In fact, the more and more I see of these surveillance reports and reveals, the more I believe this is all purposeful deception, and that while it may be true they're doing all these things, they aren't leaks, but announcements.

On a board where most of us should be familiar with the concept of not trusting user input, I think we should all take a step backward and treat these "leaks" as just that: input from an untrusted source. This could all be a fabrication we're buying into.

<comment><USER28> Poor enough you use a throwaway, but I see what you're trying to tell.

I personally believe the NDR/Spiegel to be reputable, trustworthy media. It may be that we have another Hitler's diary scandal there, but the other Snowden/NSA material they have published so far has held up examinations, the NSA iirc even acknowledging some of the docs as actually valid.

<comment><USER30> I'm not disputing that the NSA stuff is real - of course they're doing it, it's what the agency is expected to do.

I'm disputing whether these are leaks or announcements. The media might not even know they're part of the plan. Is it that farfetched for the NSA to say "Hey, we want to make this information public for some reason, and we're going to do so by using a whistleblower. You're going to release all these documents to a bunch of media sources and live abroad for a while and be hailed as a hero"? There's a long history of leaking information, factual or otherwise, for a number of purposes. There's potentially no end to the rabbit hole. Maybe Snowden doesn't even know he's part of the plan.

It's my opinion that the NSA, some group, or some individual, is letting us know they're watching closely. Maybe they're acclimating us to the idea of being spied on, or worse, distracting us from or preparing us for something else. I think the big picture has yet to be revealed.

<comment><USER31> Something worth considering is the conditions necessary for having both subjective and objective expectation of privacy. If nobody expects to be able to avoid the NSA, nobody can expect to have subjective expectation of privacy.

NSA will certainly know everybody's reaction to the Snowden leaks.

I figure the absolute worst case scenario imaginable is that USGOV is producing a list of sysadmins and privacy conscious individuals for extermination. Most "coding" seems to be happening now several layers up from linux systems. If the Government wanted, they could kill everyone who knew how to actually use a computer. Then they could "Teach low income Americans to program" and then just conveniently forget to teach them the full stack. Note, I don't think this is happening, but it isn't unimaginable.

In addition, the narrative has been very pro CIA since the very beginning. There have been a lot of people making the clear distinction between machine intelligence and human intelligence, which is definately a CIA line.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> So the score may not be IPv6 compatible?

</comment><comment><USER33> It probably would have been a lot smarter to post this somewhere inside the continental US.

</comment><comment><USER15> What language is this?

<comment><USER5> Obviously the custom language (which uses $ like _Bash_ or _Perl_ ) but which allows the programmer to include the pieces of C++. Hints: _static std::string_ and _boost_!

 _The_ Boost, for which Google writes:

[http://google- styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.x...](http://google- styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml)

"Cons: Some Boost libraries encourage coding practices which can hamper readability, such as metaprogramming and other advanced template techniques, and an excessively "functional" style of programming.

Decision: In order to maintain a high level of readability for all contributors who might read and maintain code, we only allow an approved subset of Boost features."</comment></comment>


Show HN: DoutekiDNS, dynamic dns service built on node.js and AWS. - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ericlewis/DoutekiDNS

<comment><USER2> This looks useful, thanks. It looks like the $6 a year mentioned on Github is solely for Route 53 costs (0.50/domain/month).

<comment><AUTHOR> that's right! I'd love all the help I can get too.</comment></comment>


Hit 'Em Where It Hurts: The solution to the higher-ed adjunct crisis  - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/01/adjuncts_in_american_universities_u_s_news_should_penalize_colleges_for.html <comment><USER2> This article links to a heart-wrenching piece about a Dusquesne adjunct professor who lived in poverty and died of a heart attack [1].

I was struck by it, and subsequently found a Slate article which elucidates and provides more context around the incident. I can only describe it as very solid journalism. It certainly kept my attention, and is worth a read for anyone who found this topic interesting. [2]

[1] [http://www.post-gazette.com/Op-Ed/2013/09/18/Death-of-an- adj...](http://www.post-gazette.com/Op-Ed/2013/09/18/Death-of-an- adjunct/stories/201309180224)

[2] [http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/education/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/education/2013/11/death_of_duquesne_adjunct_margaret_mary_vojtko_what_really_happened_to_her.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> The original concept of the adjunct professor has strong grounding, and is actually very valuable. I remember learning from adjuncts as an undergrad, and often, they were much more down to earth, current on the subject area, and practical with their advice then tenured professors. Tenured professors were often out of touch with the current state of the practice, and more focused on the theory. Adjuncts were often much better leads for internship referrals and job opportunities as well.

I now work full time in the technology sector, and teach at most one class per semester for a well-known state university. This is generally how adjunct teaching is supposed to work. I get paid a flat rate, no benefits. In essence, it is very much like an after hours consulting position. I don't need/want health benefits, union representation, or any of the other things requested in this article. I treat it like an after hours consulting gig, as it was intended.

The humanities, however, are an entirely different story. Too many unemployed PhD's with little job prospects outside academia are crowding the field, driving down salaries and saturating tenure positions.

<comment><USER4> > _[Adjuncts] were much more down to earth, current on the subject area, and > practical with their advice then tenured professors._

That's not surprising at all. Adjuncts tend to be younger ( = more recently educated) and more importantly, perpetually in the job market. The last factor kinda forces you to be down to earth and practical. They are better leads for internship referrals because they've probably been interns themselves at some point in the last 10 years, whereas the tenured professor has worked exclusively for the university for the last 10 to 40 years.

> _Tenured professors were often out of touch with the current state of the > practice, and more focused on the theory._

On the one hand, this gives credence to the argument that tenure makes these people lazy. On the other hand, this is exactly what tenure is for in the first place. Tenure gives people freedom to delve deep into a specific area of abstract theory without having to worry about how much $$$ their research will be worth in the next 5, 10, 25 years. Tenured professors might be years behind the game in a field in general, but they can also be decades ahead in the tiny theoretical niche that is their specialty. We as a society subsidize their interests because we want better theory in the long term.

Of course there are also adjuncts with a good theoretical background, as well as tenured professors with an excellent grasp of the latest trends and job prospects. But overall, I think the division of labor makes sense. The problem is that one of these groups are too easily abused, but that's a problem with any social division of labor in any field.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I agree with all the problems of adjuncts - extremely low pay, no benefits, no input into university decisions, etc.

But I disagree with the primary reasoning in the article: "when you have an adjunct professor instead of a full-timer, you are getting a substandard education"

Students actually learn more from non-tenured faculty than tenured or tenure track faculty: [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/09/study-finds- st...](http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/09/study-finds-students- learn-more-non-tenure-track-instructors)

Partly that's due to things like adjuncts may not have research obligations and can focus more on teaching, and also of course those adjuncts who get worse student ratings are not re-hired. Universities should give more job security and more pay to instructors whose main job is teaching instead of research.

<comment><USER6> I agree. I am an adjunct and (in my opinion, and understandably) dedicate more time to my teaching than full-time professors that also have research requirements. You could argue the opposite point-- that Universities that make use of qualified adjuncts should be rewarded due to inexpensively and efficiently providing quality education. The biggest point should be that adjuncts need to fight for better pay.

I'm actually quite shocked that article was written by an adjunct. Seems like it'd make more sense if it was written by someone with a vested interest on the opposing side.

<comment><USER7> I believe that many universities would employ this author as a "lecturer".

<comment><USER6> You're right, to point. It depends on which school. I teach at two Universities. At one I'm a lecturer and at one I'm an adjunct. Same exact duties at each.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's an interesting point. However she needs to be clear that the measure that matters isn't student to adjunct, or anything like that. The thing that matters is % of student hours taught by graduate students, vs adjuncts, vs tenure(-track) faculty.

Tenured faculty often teach many sessions, however they may only be teaching 8 graduate students while the 175 student intro class is taught by an adjunct.

</comment><comment><USER9> It would be useful for someone to write a good, long piece tying together the growth of a managerial class and the decline in the power of the faculty; the cheap money that is pumping them full of ridiculous capital improvement campaigns; the reduction of the discourse around the proper way to order a University, college, or community college eduction to one that mutates the "market of ideas" to "the market" and worships at the weird altar of efficiency.

<comment><USER10> Someone already did: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Faculty-Benjamin- Ginsberg/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Faculty-Benjamin- Ginsberg/dp/0199975434)

<comment><USER9> Noted. I'm looking forward to it. My dad (a retired professor of Anthropology) has no more reliable trigger for a sputtering rage than talking about University administration.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Woa. She almost makes an amazing point in this article. She wants U.S News & WR to track adjuncts and penalize those that use too many adjuncts. This almost hits the mark.

How about the rankings are published along side the adjunct usage of each college, and we draw our own conclusions about the correlation/causality of adjunct usage and education quality. Who knows? Maybe education is better with more adjuncts. This seems like a good way to find out.

<comment><USER12> Moving from the headline figure to some more solid data-reporting, with less emphasis on the black-magic ranking and more emphasis on how to use the information to make a decision, would be a good change to the US News rankings across the board. Currently they trumpet the headline rankings anywhere they can, and then very quietly give out some of the component data (some of which you have to subscribe to get). Unfortunately, what's good for the profits of US News & World Report is not necessarily in line with what would best educate the public.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This really wouldn't help at places where the national rankings are highly unlikely to be factored into decision making (such as most community colleges). But it's at these places where adjuncts make up the majority of faculty.

</comment><comment><USER14> Articles like this make me wonder why software workers don't have a union. But then I remember the time I tried to contact SEIU to organize about 1000 people, and walked away wondering why I ever thought that was a good idea.

<comment><USER15> What convinced you that this wasn't a good idea? Details?

<comment><USER14> Basically, I listened to their organizing procedure, then I made a game theory matrix and determined that the only way for me to win was not to play.

Had I cooperated, I probably would have been fired within a week, and homeless the month after. That was actually the equilibrium point. This was _mostly_ because the union could not protect the anonymity of anyone supporting the organization effort. Then I asked what would happen when I got fired. When I heard the answer, I just started looking for better jobs at other companies.

I won't repeat what they said exactly. You couldn't possibly believe it as hearsay. What you need to do is contact a professional organizer, and get them to explain how things work to you.

<comment><USER15> I've actually got some familiarity with labor law.

Organizers _do_ tend to be something of sacrificial lambs, however.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What would really hit universities where it hurts is if people stopped going into academic fields where their only career option is to be an adjunct professor working for peanuts. A PhD in English Literature may be a reasonable choice for someone who lives off a trust fund, but if you need to earn enough money to support yourself, it's not a very viable option.

<comment><USER17> The shift to adjuncts is not confined to the Humanities. My local community college in the boondocks of the Northeastern US has just as many in the sciences. It's an oversupply of graduates combined with declining state funding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Unfortunately the problem is as much with tenure as it is the lack of tenure. Once you have a class of tenured people who are making decisions, "Aprois moi le Deluge" becomes the governing principle.

</comment><comment><USER19> Haven't these people ever heard of trade unions? This is exactly the sort of exploitative employment situation that calls out for unionization.

<comment><USER20> Did you read the article at all? It mentions unions constantly.</comment></comment>


Such container - <AUTHOR> http://doger.io/ <comment><USER2> Interesting stuff on his main blog too. [http://www.pocketnix.org](http://www.pocketnix.org)

Also "As may be apparent by the theme of this site and its currently broken CSS for articles , I am an avid console user, most of my machines don't have X11 installed" might explain the site presentation.

</comment><comment><USER3> Kind of odd that "What is a container?" comes near the bottom of the page. But 100 bonus points for never mentioning Docker.

</comment><comment><USER4> D+ for the presentation but the content gets an A.

It really is a nice overview of the options without being overly prescriptive about what option to pick.

<comment><USER5> Disagree. Reminds me of the old, cute (and still useful) internet (geocities, web rings etc).

<comment><USER6> Doge is just a currently popular meme thing though. Although I stay away from stuff like this, I am pretty sure it is already 'over'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like this, I thought containers were just some stupid fad of the day. But this explains what they are and makes me thinks ahhhh! Of couse they will still be overused and so on :)

</comment><comment><USER8> Feels nice being on a computer that doesn't have Comic Sans. I just see the default sans-serif font for my system. Fonts aside, this is a nice resource. A number of good articles that I read to understand how containers work are collected here. I'll have to ask the author to include GNU Guix in the implementations list once our next release is out the door.

</comment><comment><USER9> Guys, you know you can change the font right?

in chrome, right click on page->inspect element-> uncheck font-family.

this is pretty good, I've always thought that docker is solving an education problem but fixing the education part is a better thing that 'just use docker' since not understanding a system can be very problematic in future.

</comment><comment><USER10> [https://twitter.com/rmoriz/status/481005981317734400](https://twitter.com/rmoriz/status/481005981317734400)

</comment><comment><USER11> Can there please be a 100% doge version of this page :( I was really hoping for an ironic doge treatment of typical startupy tools and their unnecessary websites

</comment><comment><USER12> Doge jokes? Is it 2013 again?

</comment><comment><USER13> I hate to admit that I mindlessly upvote doge-related submissions and comments. Very shaem

<comment><USER14> I would have almost upvoted this submission, but as it is often the case, the title on HN is complete meaningless garbage.

A much better title would be "Such container - an attempt to document the ins and outs of containers on Linux.". This way I would instantly know what the article is about... I wish there would be some way to add a tldr to the title.

This is really the one thing I hate about HN nowadays. Usually at least a third of the submissiond have completely meaningless titled. For example currently there are "Jitterdämmerung" and "A letter from Transnistria" on the front page. How am I supposed to know what those are about without clicking on them?

(Sorry for the rant...)

<comment><USER15> Perhaps the mods have been asleep lately? Glad that I am not the only who has noticed how clickbait-ish, or nondescript, some titles are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a subject I really want to know about. But the presentation of this this page is (no better word for it) obnoxious. I wonder why the author did it. Annoyingly the 'reader' feature of Safari doesn't work on this page.

<comment><USER17> I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I really can't see past Comic Sans to read the actual content.

<comment><USER18> Some websites seem to use Comic Sans _in particular_ so that folks just looking for form would go away: [http://www.libressl.org/](http://www.libressl.org/) (OpenBSD's OpenSSL fork) ;)

 _edit_ oh no, it seems LibreSSL changed the font! :( But I quite remember it being different (or perhaps it was another website related to the OpenBSD foundation)

<comment><USER19> They use it in their papers: [http://www.openbsd.org/papers/libtls- fsec-2015/mgp00001.html](http://www.openbsd.org/papers/libtls- fsec-2015/mgp00001.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This would have been so much more enjoyable if the text hadn't been comic sans and some stupid meme that my grandmother still says to me wasn't shoehorned in.

<comment><USER21> oh man, just open up your console and change the body{ font-family: ... } CSS :P</comment></comment>