Google's Chrome leaves another hackathon unscathed - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/03/26/googles-chrome-leaves-another-hackathon-unscathed/

<comment><USER3> How do you write this graf:

 _But given Google's high profile and the fact that the Pwn2Own competitors failed to hack Chrome two years running, we imagine that Chrome has to be gaining a sort of "sword-in-the-stone"-type reputation among security researchers._

almost immediately after writing this one?

 _Naysayers will also point out that Google patched 11 flaws in its browser just before the competition began. But Apple patched 19 bugs in Safari the same week, and that didn't prevent Apple hacker Charlie Miller from doing evil things to it for the third year in a row._

<comment><USER4> The second (in order) sentence is referring to finding flaws, not flaws existing (which the first sentence was referring to). The sword exists - <USER2> able to wield it and manipulate it freely is the treasure.

Also, the article does not explain the severity of the flaws - all 11 could have been simple bug fixes for all we know without research.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Horribly bad article. Completely fails to note that this year, just like last year, nobody even _attempted_ to hack Chrome. Where they too scared to try? Hardly. More like, they weren't going to waste their time on a browser with the smallest market share.

The headline might as well have been "Links leaves another hackathon unscathed." It's just as accurate.

What about Flock? Camino? Opera?

<comment><USER6> The article addresses the market share argument:

 _And that's not just because [Chrome] has small market share (5.6% according to Net Applications) Apple's Safari's market share is actually smaller, around 4.5%, and yet has fallen every year at Pwn2Own._

<comment><USER3> That conflates Safari's market share with Apple's, since Safari is also the primary attack vector for OS X.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I tend to think that Google Chrome wasn't so much meant to be a super-secure browser for today but a pseudo OS for tomorrow...</comment>


Suicide increasing among American workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p1115-Suicide-american-workers.html <comment><USER2> I know we're collectively no fans of anecdata but I get a strong feeling that attitudes to typical work are changing, that jobs are making more people miserable. I get asked a lot by people seeking to do something different; I guess they're bombarded by successful side hustle stories and never by "I love my 9-5 day job, it's so rewarding" stories.

<comment><USER3> >I know we're collectively no fans of anecdata but I get a strong feeling that attitudes to typical work are changing, that jobs are making more people miserable

I tend to agree. My parents have completely different stories about their experiences with work 40 years ago. Much less stress, better pay, more mentorship, less competition, and lower demands generally. I'm sure part of that's nostalgia, but nearly everyone I talk to seems to be miserable at their job anymore. There are rarely people who say they enjoy their job and want to do that exact thing until they retire.

<comment><USER4> Older family friend made $30/hr in the 60-70s with pension and benefits working in a meat packing plant with a high school education. Same job today pays $15/hr with no benefits thanks to illegal immigration. There's a reason people like the Koch brothers spend millions in support of illegal immigration, they wanted to drive down the labor cost for jobs like the above.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0)

Offshoring and illegal immigration has killed low skill jobs and given billion dollar multinational corporations the ability to demand whatever they want from workers because they have unlimited labor supply.

This doesn't just effect low skill labor either, it forces more people to go to college and take on debt which then drives down the wages of high skill work as well. It's a scam and the american people should be angry

<comment><USER5> The root cause is the destruction of unions and worker's rights. It has nothing to do with legal or illegal immigration.

<comment><USER6> For a limited number of positions, if you have a bigger pool of people to hire from, the wages will automatically go down. This is simple economics.

While the union effect might also be playing a role, it's curious that you rush to deny the big obvious factor while propping up a relatively minor reasoning factor as a primary one.

<comment><USER7> Probably because it seems doubtful that ten million people (the estimated number of illegal aliens in the US), tanked wages for everyone in a country of 330 million.

It's curious you immediately point to illegal immigration as the big obvious factor with no citations to support your claims.

The fact is wages have been stagnating since the seventies and most people attribute that to the weakening of unions, offshoring, and automation before illegal immigration.

The US is producing twice as much today as it was in 1984 with a third less workers. That seems like it'd have a much bigger impact to me. And painting immigrants as the reason American's qualities of life has dropped off seems disingenuous, simplistic, and prejudiced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with the pay discrepancy between CEOs, investors and us wage slaves.

<comment><USER9> Interestingly the states with the lowest suicide rates (Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, New York, and other relatively wealthy blue states) also have some of the highest income inequality [1]. Another counterintuitive thing about suicide in the US is that demographics that tend to earn less (e.g. young people, Blacks) tens to commit suicide at lower rates than wealthy demographics (Whites, Asians, older people).

Pointing to income inequality as cause of a high suicide rate does not seem particularly convincing.

1\. [https://www.zippia.com/advice/states-highest-lowest- income-i...](https://www.zippia.com/advice/states-highest-lowest-income- inequality/)

<comment><USER10> If the point you're trying to make is that suicide isn't correlated with low income, you shouldn't look at broad demographics, you should look for studies about suicide that focus on financial status. Like this study, which found that low income was correlated with high suicides on a group of a million people after adjusting for other factors:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463019/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463019/)

<comment><USER11> Low income is not inequality. Also, if you even bother to look at your google search result, it says "socioeconomic positions" proxied by insurance premium.

<comment><USER10> > Low income is not inequality

I never said the word inequality, and I don't understand why you're bringing it up in a discussion about suicide risk factors.

> if you even bother to look ... proxied by insurance premium

I did look, and that's why I saw this:

"Medicaid recipients had the highest suicide hazard ratio (2.28; 95% CI, 1.87–2.77)."

Medicaid is about low income or low assets

<comment><USER12> > I never said the word inequality, and I don't understand why you're bringing > it up in a discussion about suicide risk factors.

Then why did you respond to a comment that mentioned inequality to begin with.

<comment><USER10> Why did I respond to a comment that drew conclusions using the wrong statistics? It's pretty simple. I was teaching someone a small lesson about drawing conclusions from the wrong statistics, and backing myself up with a link to a study to show them what statistics you should use to draw such conclusions. As the HN Guidelines say, "Eschew flamebait [...] unless you have something genuinely new to say" \- I don't have anything genuinely new to say about inequality and suicide, and I don't see you or the other person who responded to me saying anything genuinely new either.

Also "Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle" \- please stop making my comment (about drawing conclusions from the wrong dataset) about your own political interests, unless you have something genuinely new to say, in which case I'm all ears.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whoa, Men kill themselves many times more than women. I thought this number would be closer.

<comment><USER14> It's simple, generally it's more common in men that they don't ask for help, don't reconcile with their own true feelings, don't allow for their own full self expression, don't hug, don't cry, don't share emotions with naked confidentiality, and macho culture preys on any signs of weakness, to their own detriment. This carries on to the kinds of hobbies, interests and all that puts men further away from a simple emotional comfort than women. It took me two decades before it didn't feel awkward hugging my brother in earnest, and I consider myself a very sensitive person, so take that for what you will. Maybe it just takes longer for boys to become emotionally mature men. It varies culturally a lot for men and women by city and country, of course.

<comment><USER15> This isn't why. This is what feminism tells men, that their problems stem from them not being able to handle and process their emotions correctly. That's propaganda. The real reason is more along of the lines of their being less of a safety net for men, less people willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and no attraction from women for men in the bottom 10%.

<comment><USER16> >This is what feminism tells men, that their problems stem from them not being able to handle and process their emotions correctly.

What "feminism" would probably say is that masculine culture doesn't allow men to display emotions as openly as women, especially when those emotions betray a sense of physical or emotional vulnerability.

The common term for this is "toxic masculinity," which is often confused by persons like yourself to mean that masculinity itself is toxic, whereas it really means that masculinity _can be_ toxic, and can manifest in negative ways, such as an inability to express one's emotions for fear of being seen as weak, effeminate or possibly gay.

This isn't propaganda, it's an obvious and self-evident sociological and cultural phenomenon, a flaw in society, not in men themselves.

>and no attraction from women for men in the bottom 10%.

Oh. I see you've fallen down the rabbithole.

It's unfortunate that the lunatic fringe of redpillers and incels seem to taken over and undermined any legitimate credibility the mens' rights movement might have. Women aren't evil, and feminists aren't entirely wrong, and no, aren't driving men to mass suicide because they don't find them attractive.

<comment><USER17> >>The common term for this is "toxic masculinity," which is often confused by persons like yourself to mean that masculinity itself is toxic, whereas it really means that masculinity can be toxic, and can manifest in negative ways

And what modern feminists like yourself struggle with is that men are inately predisposed more toward certain personality traits than women. You want to talk about obviousness and self evidence? Look at evolutionary pressure. Look at our closest related primates (and most mammals) and how much more agressive males tend to be, and how with, for example, gorillas, few males will mate with many females, while less dominant males go mateless. Yet you do not even consider the possibility that humans are hard wired towards certain average behaviors, that men are almost certainly predisposed towards agression, that females may very well be attracted to dominance (hell, it's all over our culture if you look with an open mind).

Instead, you deny biology, hand waving away all discrepancies and differences with words like "toxic masculinity" and "patriarchy." You deny the pain and loneliness that unnatractive men experience daily because of factors beyond their control - height, build, facial structure, social difficulty.

You cannot fix society by ignoring biology, and you are only alienating these men, who are human beings like you and me, by slandering them as incels for having the same desires for companionship and affirmation unfulfilled while simultaneously blaming them for the problems in society.

Pride, agression, drives for achievement and competition, these natural, "toxic" masculine traits BUILT the modern world. Yes, there was plenty of bad along the way, but one cannot ignore all of the good that has resulted from these drives, and in truth, modern society cannot exist without them. Nor should it.

<comment><USER16> >And what modern feminists like yourself struggle with is that men are inately predisposed more toward certain personality traits than women.

Yes, but what traits society allows men to express while still being considered "proper men" differs depending on culture, and mediates whatever biological imperatives might exist. Ancient cultures considered sex between men to be a perfectly reasonable thing for a masculine man to do, since the concepts of "hetero" and "homo" sexuality didn't really exist at the time. Men in Elizabethan times were far more free to express emotions than now - consider that many of Shakespeare's sonnets, including the famous Sonnet 18 ("Shall I compare thee to a summer's day...") were addressed _to a man._

>Yet you do not even consider the possibility that humans are hard wired towards certain average behaviors, that men are almost certainly predisposed towards agression, that females may very well be attracted to dominance (hell, it's all over our culture if you look with an open mind).

Also, innate predisposition doesn't justify all expressions of those dispositions. One may say that men are predisposed towards physical aggression due to their increased musculature relative to women and testosterone, but that doesn't mean every act of violence is healthy. Females may be attracted to dominance, but that doesn't mean all means of dominating women are justifiable.

We may be apes, but that doesn't mean we get to rape any female we find attractive and murder the offspring of rival males because, you know, we're trying to have a civilization here.

>You deny the pain and loneliness that unnatractive men experience daily because of factors beyond their control - height, build, facial structure, social difficulty.

Plenty of unattractive, facially asymmetrical and socially awkward men are able to meet with women, date, have sex, all over the world, every day. Believe me, if women didn't have low standards in that regard, our species would probably have died out long ago.

>Pride, agression, drives for achievement and competition, these natural, "toxic" masculine traits BUILT the modern world.

You see... I literally said that wasn't what "toxic masculinity" meant and that people automatically confuse the term for an attack on masculinity itself... you literally _quoted the part of my comment where I said that and then you went and did exactly that._

At least _try_ to approach this on an intellectual level and not be so triggered by feminist jargon.

<comment><USER18> > Yes, but what traits society allows men to express while still being > considered "proper men" differs depending on culture, and mediates whatever > biological imperatives might exist.

Having plasticity in societal expectations does not change the characteristics of 'typical male behavior' in those societies. All it does is require us to further abstract what constitutes 'male behavior'.

Studies on the effects of testosterone mainly show that it encourages men to display behaviors that gain them social status. In a violent society, this would be violence. In a peaceful society, this would be shows of benevolence. Either way, pursuing status-ful behavior is undoubtedly associated with testosterone. Violence, surprisingly, is not associated at all.

[1] [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/testostero...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/testosterone- bumps-up-status-seeking-behavior-not-aggressive-risk-taking/)

<comment><USER19> You might have misread that study. It doesn't encourage behaviors that gain social status, but rather maintain existing levels of social status. As the study showed, gaining status increase hormone secretion, which can be seen as a method to regulate how much effort and individual should be spending in protecting what has already been gained.

The conclusion is still the same. In a violent society individuals will defend their social status with violence. In a peaceful society status will be defended through benevolence. A individual seeking to stay at the top of a social ladder will undoubtedly have hormone secretion increased as a matter of biological effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Yesterday we found out we're not having sex.

Today we find out suicide is increasing.

I wonder if the two are linked.

<comment><USER21> Probably, and I can make an educated guess how: modern society eschews the value of human relationships in favor of status and wealth seeking.

People find they are not happy, so they search for a path to happiness and our culture tells them that it is through being wealthy, famous, and successful. They search for a path to those things and find that it often involves long hours, greed, and psychopathic behavior. Human relationships are a risk, and risks are to be minimized. They put this knowledge into practice and find that it doesn't work.

My own theory of how depression works is that it involves an inescapable realization that your model of reality is broken and can't be used to make predictions that allow you to effect the change you want to see in your life. You wanted to be happy, society gave you a bad model to work from, and the mind's reaction to discovering that this model doesn't work is depression.

<comment> rv-de Where does the sex come in?

<comment><USER2> Part of (some) human relationships. Being ignored at the expense of working towards success or building a brand towards status.

<comment><USER21> It's worse than that, it's active avoidance of human relationships because they're a liability. Not just because they create dependencies but because in order to form connections we need to make ourselves vulnerable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> How are they making these categories of workers?

> Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Occupational Managers category (a sub-group of > the Management major group)

> Agricultural Workers category (a sub-group of the Farming, Fishing, and > Forestry major group)

Farmers aren't in the Farming major group? I'd like to see a little more detail here

<comment><USER23> Farm workers are classified as agricultural workers. farm managers / owners are classified separately.

There was a whole redacted study because of managers being accidentally lumped in with workers.

[https://newfoodeconomy.org/farmer-suicide-crisis-cdc- study/](https://newfoodeconomy.org/farmer-suicide-crisis-cdc-study/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media group features for both men and women. I wonder if 'hustle culture' has anything to do with this... [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18381605](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18381605)

Separately this is a huge HR problem that just isn't addressed properly in the USA. If the suicides are due to work pressures that employer has a direct responsibility for that situation.

Echoing what others have said here, if you are contemplating suicide talk to people about it. Don't suffer in isolation. Get out of your bubble of despair and try to see your life in perspective - get help that's what we are all here for, each other...

</comment><comment><USER25> Quick PSA: If you are contemplating suicide you should reach out to professionals for help. You are not alone in this struggle and deserve to be happy and live a fruitful life. What do you have to lose by talking with a professional?

<comment><USER26> Why can't suicide be noble? Why can't we respect a decision to not participate in this experience that none of us asked for in the first place? Why is the answer more pills or shrink sessions just to keep on to the next day? Please tell me one actual down side of suicide for suffering person. It's selfishness ultimately; we want them to stick around for us, not for them.

<comment><USER27> I suppose I could respect it, but many survivors of suicide attempts decide not to repeat their attempts. IMO this suggests that some of them believe that they might be better off alive.

<comment><USER28> _but many survivors of suicide attempts decide not to repeat their attempts_

I survived a suicide attempt at age 17. I'm 53. I'm still frequently suicidal, in part because of an incurable medical condition, in part because the world is a shitty place, full of really shitty people.

I have not made a second attempt. There are myriad factors there. One is that if I'm stuck here, it's better to be stuck here without extra medical bills and people assuming me to be incompetent. My life is hard enough without those additional burdens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'd like to mention as someone who's mother committed suicide when I was a young child that if you choose to take your life you're harming your family and friends In ways they'll never fully recover from. So I request people think about that before making a decision to go through with commmiting suicide.

</comment><comment><USER30> There is an interesting discussion on this topic in the last Sam Harris podcast, based on established connection between depression and suicide and the current political context in US. [https://samharris.org/podcasts/142-addiction-depression- mean...](https://samharris.org/podcasts/142-addiction-depression-meaningful- life/)

</comment><comment><USER31> They should do a study on suicide among all workers who are forced to use Slack. #notkidding

</comment><comment><USER12> Lack of religion: [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/atheism-has-a- suicide-p...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/atheism-has-a-suicide- problem_us_5a2a902ee4b022ec613b812b)

<comment><USER32> Seriously, that article is a joke...

      You get three atheists in a room together and it won't be
      long before there is some minor issue that divides them.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should I get a U2F key? - <AUTHOR> So this latest round of reported big-scale phishing attacks has me looking around again at physical U2F tools, and I'm looking for a bit of advice on the pros & cons.
I have a password manager and use randomly generated unique passwords for all my logins; I have 2FA turned on (via SMS or code generator) wherever it's available. But I've seen a couple of pieces (not least of all the guide Maciej Ceglowski just published) suggesting this isn't bulletproof. I've also seen other pieces saying that a sign-in setup including a physical component isn't worth it if you still have to access the account from mobile etc.
Any and all input appreciated. Thanks. <comment><USER2> The big advantage of a U2F key over other forms of 2FA is that it gives you stronger protection against phishing. Phishing attacks that would give me control of your email with other forms of 2FA don't work if you use a security key.

Unfortunately, phones still don't support a physical security key. But you can still use the authenticator app there. On your laptop, U2F is a big step up.

Whatever you decide, you should not use SMS as your second factor. U2F keys, TOTP (the authenticator app) and push notifications are all significantly safer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, this is the spine of Ceglowski's argument also and I'm pretty much persuaded by it. I was just curious whether there were any significant downsides, but it appears that there aren't really.

Thanks for your time.

<comment><USER3> If I'm not mistaken the author himself just replied to your question. It's him ;-)

<comment><USER2> It's one of my many sock puppets!

<comment><AUTHOR> Whoa. Never mind systems that ensure it's me using my account, it sounds like I need a system to tell me how many of the people I'm conversing with are the people I'm conversing about.

Sorry for the confusion @idlewords. (For the record I'm not ruling out the possibility that @chrisked is also you Maciej. Fool me once...)

<comment><USER2> I'm actually the only person on this site.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Your Body, Their Property: Who Owns Human Tissues? - <AUTHOR> http://bostonreview.net/us/obasogie-gene-patent-myriad-moore <comment><USER2> By definition you cannot patent something that was not invented.

I fail to see how anyone could issue a patent on human genetic material.

It was "discovered" perhaps but certainly not "invented", so clearly patents issued on any naturally occuring geneitc material should be declared null and void.</comment>


Reminder: Boston YC meetup: Tonight 7pm Espresso Royale - <AUTHOR> http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=17969 <comment><USER2> I'm waiting to see notes on this one! Post them when available please :)</comment>


iPhone 4S Preliminary Benchmarks, beats all smart phones - <AUTHOR> http://www.anandtech.com/show/4951/iphone-4s-preliminary-benchmarks-800mhz-a5-slightly-slower-gpu-than-ipad-2

<comment><USER2> "beats all smart phones" seems a bit of an editorial, it looks like it's got a better GPU and a newer Javascript engine (they only show the Apple benchmark rather than Mozilla or Google's and on the desktop Apple does about a fifth better on it's own benchmark than Google's V8, but loses to it on the other two.).

They don't show the raw CPU performance against anything non-Apple, but I'd guess they'd perform roughly the same as any other dual-core A9 at the same clockspeed (with the caveat that Tegra2's don't have NEON), though most Android phones have higher clockspeeds. Since 1GHz Tegra2s from tablets beat it even on Sunspider it seems they still have a raw CPU disadvantage due to clock speeds.

<comment><USER3> A "bit of an editorial" would be you playing down the fact that in 4 comparisons of smartphones, the 4S is first by a mile in all 4 or claiming that a Sunspider score of 2220 is somehow meaningfully better then 2222.

Everyone and their mother knew the SGX543MP2 was gonna smoke everything else on the market right now. Maybe the new Nexus will leapfrog that but as of this week "beats all smartphones" in benchmarks would seem accurate.

<comment><USER2> The _4 comparisons of smartphones_ are in reality 2 GPU benchmarks, and 2 browser benchmarks, one of which is just sunspider, and the other seems heavily weighted towards sunspider since the devices come in roughly the same order. And yes, I knew before I saw this benchmark that the GPU was going to be better than the competition. So as I said, _better GPU and newer Javascript_ seems to cover it (particularly when you note the jump of older iDevices due to OS upgrades i.e. newer Javascript).

As I said, there's no straight CPU benchmark, or anything that is limited by RAM so ""beats all smartphones" in benchmarks" is a fair bit less accurate and complete than what I said.

There's also the fact that Hacker News generally frowns upon editorialized headlines. What was so wrong with the original title of _"iPhone 4S Preliminary Benchmarks: ~800MHz A5, Slightly Slower GPU than iPad 2, Still Very Fast"_ that it needed changed?

(edit: getting very pernickity now but since you misunderstood my comment about comparing the sunspider benchmarks: Android's javascript loses on the sunspider benchmark to iOS's if run on the same device. So if a 1GHz Android device (without NEON) matches a 800MHz iOS device then it's quite likely that a 1.2GHz phone chip will beat it by a fair margin in Sunspider with the Honeycomb or ICS V8, by more again on other Javascript benchmarks which it generally does better on, and more yet again on anything that just benchmarks raw CPU power. I keep reading about Apple's magical A4 and A5, so I'm being pedantic on this point, but the gain is that they chose to use a better GPU from PowerVR and updated their javascript VM, not pixie dust or other Apple magic used in their hardware).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Noticed the Javascript benchmarks, iOS5 is heap faster than iOS4.</comment>


Bitcoin Talk is down - <AUTHOR> https://bitcointalk.org/

<comment><USER2> Apparently an exploit in the forum software.

Bitcointalk hacked

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1nmdq4/bitcointalk_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1nmdq4/bitcointalk_hacked/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Is this related with Silk Road problem?</comment>


Nigerian 'Pastor' Scam? What is the angle here? - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/xrM5Jeda

<comment><USER2> 'Oh, thanks for the bibles, could we possibly get some funding for shipping, too?'

</comment><comment><USER3> Kidnapping usually is a common result of the 419 scammers.</comment>


MPAA Just Won't Quit: Argues Links & Embeds Are Infringing - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/20434818458/mpaa-just-wont-quit-jumps-into-legal-dispute-to-argue-links-embeds-are-infringing.shtml

<comment><USER2> The Supreme Court of Canada recently rendered a decision on a lawsuit in which the plaintiff accused the defendant of defamation for linking to third-party content the plaintiff believed to be defamatory.

The plaintiff argued that linking constitutes republication, and that a link to defamatory content was therefore defamatory.

The Court decided that a link is a _reference_ , not a _publication_ , "analogous to a footnote or a card index in a library and should not be found to constitute republication of the defamation."

The decision also states: "A reference to other content is fundamentally different from other acts involved in publication. Referencing on its own does not involve exerting control over the content. Communicating something is very different from merely communicating that something exists or where it exists."

The court concluded that putting such a legal burden on hyperlinks "would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of expression."

Obviously this was a case specifically related to defamation, not copyright infringement, but it does seem to suggest a precedent with respect to the argument that hyperlinking constitutes republication for copyright purposes.

<comment><USER3> It seems so ridiculous that we still need to say things like " _analogous to a footnote or a card index_ ". A link is a link and its a common and standard enough part of our world to be considered as its own thing.

How long do we have to play this stupid game? _A link is like a reference to a site that's like a book that's hosted on something like a library which makes this behavior kind of like stealing my left shoe._ It's like trying to regulate highways based on laws about herding pigs in a national forest.

<comment><USER4> The existing law deals with X set of events. In order to adjudicate on this event a, different in form but one could argue not function from X, one must first relate it to similar elements in X. X is the corpus of existing law, a is the case at hand. This is, in a nutshell, part what the courts are for - refining and logically extending the law.

<comment><USER3> Sure, if we had laws about books and we needed to to make a judgement about pamphlets, that works. But we can't just pretend that we are extending some sort of logical rules from first principals. A link or an embedded video is not like a footnote in any way that matters.

<comment><USER2> > A link or an embedded video is not like a footnote in any way that matters.

I would argue that for the purpose of copyright infringement, a link is _exactly_ like a footnote - it's a reference to an external document. It just happens that hypertext makes it much easier for the reader to look up the reference.

<comment><USER3> I would say its more similar to a magic spell that conjurs up the book.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> These MPAA people are out of control.

Let's just limit copyright to something like 3-5 years, put these people in their place.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is actually legit. The DMCA only provides protection for service providers, not individuals. There is also no differentiation between embedding and linking to content and hosting the copyrighted content yourself.

A couple cases where this might be relevant:

* A site which allows users to embed videos could get a DMCA takedown request and would be obligated to remove the embed. In the case of YouTube videos it hasn't really been an issue so far because it makes more sense for the copyright owner to go directly to YouTube.

* If you have a blog where you post lots of embedded videos of pirated movies/shows, you could be sued as if you had uploaded and hosted the infringing videos.

<comment><USER7> The DMCA may not protect individuals, but what part of copyright law criminalizes (or provides civil penalties for) pointing people in a particular overseas direction? And if it does, how does one reconcile that with the ridiculousness of the notion that linking is the same as copying?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hate to lose rep but I must say that I can see the point where embedded content is concerned. Hear me out.

Certainly I understand the technical argument being made against the MPAA here. But, when I provide the descriptor (embedded video) at the cost of surrounding said video with ads then I am certainly attempting to profit from the inclusion of the video. If said content is copyrighted I can understand the copyright holder being displeased with others trying to profit from my work.

To be fair the average user (not average HN user) never says "I saw this awesome video via myVidster (site mentioned in article) though the content was hosted by and embedded from ...". The content is almost always associated to where it is found.

That said I wholeheartedly think the MPAA and RIAA need to be drug into the 21st century, even if it is kicking and screaming like a three old in cereal aisle of Wal-Mart.

<comment><USER9> _But, when I provide the descriptor (embedded video) at the cost of surrounding said video with ads then I am certainly attempting to profit from the inclusion of the video. If said content is copyrighted I can understand the copyright holder being displeased with others trying to profit from my work._

So what? There are already laws to deal with taking care of that at the source. Don't make excuses for the lazy and evil.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The MPAA has become very aware that it is in a position that could go quite south for them at any moment, so they are quite literally desperate to get any "data" to support their positions, up to and including re- contextualizing/redefining core concepts of how technology is perceived and used.

They were a client of a company I worked for in a past life, and they were fairly out of touch, but seemed to be aware enough that they were not going to "win" by pure technology alone (they grokked that DRM had limited, if any, real value). They are a policy farm at root, and they are going to leverage that as strongly as possible from here on out.

My honest suggestion is a scorched Earth campaign against them. Follow the money and start _real_ GOTV/support candidates who refuse to give in to the nonsense.

Yes, I understand the argument about where linked content could be perceived as violation based on pecuniary interest (but as stated elsewhere, a reference to a source is not a source, even if it provides the full access to that source), but I personally see that as a tenuous position and certainly lacks merit overall in terms of the generally inchoate state of copyright law these days.

</comment><comment><USER11> Not to be a cynic, but is this anything new? It seems to me that these are the 'reasons' the MPAA thinks TPB and other torrent sites are (supposed to be) illegal.

<comment><USER12> Not really new at all.

You know how geeks try to find technical solutions to laws, like the zero- knowledge pastebin on HN now? MPAA lawyers try to find legal solutions to disruptive technology.

<comment><USER13> I wonder if there is a technical solution that circumvents industry lobbying?

<comment><USER14> You cannot solve a cultural or political problem with a technical solution.

<comment><USER15> Actually technology is the best way to solve cultural and political problems. The invention of the printing press solved (or contributed to solving) many such problems, like the tyranny of the catholic church. Technology also had a huge role in the Arab spring protests -- Facebook and plain old tv.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This seems to be aimed at those sites showing "videos from Korea/Japan/China/etc" which work by embedding. I have a Japanese friend who loves watching these while he's away from home, so now he won't be able to watch his favourite Japanese TV dramas, as there is no alternative.</comment>


Ask HN: Are foldable screens useful or is it just another FAD? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> The fold as has been shown is just a means to an end. So the question boils down to whether a smartphone with 100% more screen area is significantly more useful than one without.

If someone wants a big video screen while out and about, or makes use of multi-tasking (multi-apping?) in Android/iOS, then yes.</comment>


Show HN: Prototype demo of my indie iOS/OSX game [Save the Pixels] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P-0U3DqIOc

<comment><AUTHOR> Playable demo: [https://love2d.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9780](https://love2d.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9780) (Download love engine from <http://love2d.org>)</comment>