Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html <comment><USER2> I don't understand the Anti-Vaccine crowd. I see no possible way for what they espouse to be morally responsible. Without vaccines the mortality rate of children to these diseases would be higher than the total rate of autism. This means that you would have more kids die than get autism even if _every_ case of autism was directly caused by a vaccine.

This leaves us with two options for the beliefs of the anti-vaccination crowd.

1\. They believe that a dead child is better than one with autism.

2\. They are comfortable letting everyone else's children take the "risk" of getting a vaccine while they sit back and rely on herd immunity.

<comment><USER3> Those aren't the only two options. But I mostly avoid discussions like this on HN because the atmosphere here is pretty openly judgmental and hostile (a la your remark) so I don't see any real good coming out of trying to discuss it. It doesn't help that anyone here who is anti-vax tends to post in these threads in a manner that just promotes the view that we are all extremist nutcases, unfamiliar with basic logic, etc. So posting the type of remark you have just posted (in a forum that is already pretty biased on the topic) is highly unlikely to get you a real explanation of a third option. Thus you get your own "confirmation bias" stuff going on.

Peace.

<comment><USER4> The reason people are so hostile about this is because the anti-vaccination belief is objectively wrong and literally fatal. It is directly analogous to believing AIDS isn't spread by HIV.

<comment><USER3> I don't think it's quite that simple. Most scientific views boil down to "belief" -- by that I mean that most people are essentially taking the word of some expert or other without themselves genuinely understanding it and, also, the lovely drawings of the solar system, tectonic plates, etc that you find in scientific materials are basically made up fantasies. If you used any kind of meaningful scale for the solar system, it would not fit on the pages of any book. In 8th grade, the entire class was asked to do a model of the solar system. I was sick and missed a bunch of school and turned mine in late. The teacher was trying to ding me hard for not having a scale. Then I explained that I had run the calculations and if I used 1mm = approx 33 million miles, then Mercury would be about 1mm from the sun, Venus would be about 2mm from the sun, Earth would be about 3mm from the sun and Pluto would be about 100 meters plus 8 millimeters and the model wouldn't even fit in the classroom. Tectonic plate drawings are basically a mental model and while you can find geologic evidence of them, they don't look as nice and clean as the drawings suggest and it was a very controversial theory for like the first 50 years, IIRC.

So I think most arguments like this boil down to "belief" on both sides and it is usually pointless to try to sway the other side. I didn't stop vaccinating based on "scientific" anything. I stopped because the people who had information that was getting me healthier all were anti-vax. So I stopped based on "social proof", so to speak -- which isn't really any different than most folks who believe their scientists and doctors are correct but they think it is vastly different, so my "social proof" only damns me as it is viewed as further evidence that I am a fruitcake.

So I generally make no effort to argue the science involved.

Peace.

<comment><USER4> Your "social proof" has a name, its called anecdotes. While occasionally reasonable in the small scale, it is absurd to believe local observations have any merit in the grand scale.

"Most scientific views boil down to 'belief'" this almost sounds like your saying that nothing can truly be knowable. This is the path of nilism, not reason.

Science has a rigorous process, peer review being part of it. One does not have to be an _expert_ in the field to read numerous studies, evaluate their methodology, reason as to whether the conclusion actually matches the data+experiments, and see if the results across the studies were consistent. This isn't an act of faith.

<comment><USER3> Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life for introducing a new concept. It took many years for Einstein's theory to get sufficient proof as to be accepted. Einstein himself said something like "You cannot solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it". I think it is reasonable to assume that our current medical assumptions are part of the problem when it comes to autism, which has reached "epidemic proportions" according to some articles.

I am not suggesting a path of nihilism. I am only suggesting that I recognize that the reasons I do things and the thinking I use to make such decisions doesn't look very "logical" to quite a lot of people. This is highly likely to be true for people arguing from the "scientific" position. Yet, we are all human, even scientists, and thus even they have their biases, shortcomings, etc. I made the choice I made not due to anecdotal evidence but due to a track record of success: These people were helping me get concrete results in terms of a health problem for which "science" would like to write me off and consign me to a slow, torturous death as my only due in life. These same people had strong negative views of vaccines. I went with the folks who were getting me positive results. My other choice is to go along with conventional treatments for my condition. Everyone who does that gets gradually sicker and sicker until they die, usually at a young age. Science claims it is not killing them, it is their genes that is killing them.

To me, that position lacks logic -- but the overwhelming belief is that it is true, so that makes me a lone nutcase. And it is usually a hopelessly lost cause to attempt to point this out when everyone "just knows" they are right, science and doctors are on their side, and I am "objectively" wrong, nevermind the results I am getting. Those results can be easily dismissed as "anecdotal". I didn't get well to impress anyone or make any kind of point. I only did this to get my life back (and give my kids a life of their own). So it is mostly not worth arguing about. Those folks who do not believe me cannot be convinced. The fact that it is a done deal weighs nothing in their minds.

Peace.

<comment><USER5> Galileo did not introduce the new concept. And he was put under house arrest by scientists. Your point about Einstein just confirms that science is not about belief, but about proof. Your reference to science in quotes is really off-putting.

      Everyone who does that gets gradually sicker and sicker until they die,
      usually at a young age.

Sounds like you know everyone and their condition. Can it be? Your position is based on logical fallacies. Does not look like you are even trying to understand why people do not believe you.

Orange.

<comment><USER3> I put a great deal of effort into trying to understand why people do not believe me. I am well aware that many don't because they are basically incredulous -- what I am saying flies in the face of everything they know to be true. It is not only hard to believe, it is very upsetting to believe because it calls into question the trustworthiness of their doctor, which is very threatening when you have a deadly medical condition.

Currently, the average life expectancy in the US for people with CF is about 37. I have talked to quite a few people online -- there are only about 30,000 diagnosed cases of CF in the US and some lists have hundreds of members, some of whom have more than one family member with CF. I don't know "everyone" but it is a small enough community to know quite a good cross section of such people via the internet. The folks who are doing better than expected generally make a lot of dietary and lifestyle changes and do a lot of research. The details of what they do and what they think may vary from what I do and what I think, but dietary changes are a very consistent aspect of what I have seen work for this population.

<comment><USER6> Anecdotally, most people -- whether they have CF or not -- would be well served to make significant dietary and lifestyle changes. Having a life threatening disease just provides more incentive for this to take precedence over many people's personal mantra of immediate gratification and lack of serious introspection.

This doesn't really have any bearing on the efficacy of vaccines, though. Perhaps certain lifestyle changes do dramatically reduce susceptibility to certain diseases, but that doesn't mean one should also rule out current scientific literature.

<comment><USER3> I don't rule out current scientific literature. I just keep in mind that it has its own biases and that view informs my interpretation and use of it.

For example, I am not aware of any studies concerning making dietary changes to control inflammation in people with CF. However, I am aware of many drug studies that show that controlling inflammation in people with CF does reduce incidence of infection. Those studies are generally conducted by drug companies, whose agenda is to develop products to sell (in this case, drugs). The detail that reducing inflammation in people with CF also reduces infection is useful information to me. The fact that they only seem to study which drugs can be useful in this regard while apparently completely ignoring diet and lifestyle is something I view as inherent bias in the source.

I am not a drug company with an agenda to develop a product and/or find a good reason to sell high doses of an existing product to very ill people. I am an individual who was once extremely ill and wanted to suffer less. (I had no goal of "getting well" initially. I just wanted to take less medication and be less miserable.) So I parse out which pieces of such studies are useful neutral information and which pieces smack of bias and agenda. "Reduce inflammation to reduce infection" is valuable information. "Take boatloads of our drugs (such high doses they have to run liver tests and closely monitor you)" smacks of agenda and bias and, frankly, callous disregard for my welfare in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Peace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The sad thing is even though the study has been thoroughly discredited[1], it continues to hang around and be cited by anti-vaccine activists.

[1] Even sadder is that they cite Wakefield being exposed as a fraud as evidence of tampering by "Big Pharma".

<comment><USER8> I get the impression that the tide has turned in the battle, and we should start seeing an improvement in vaccination rates over the next few years. Pity there will be a large lag as children who weren't immunized grow up and continue to get sick from these preventable diseases.

<comment><USER9> There doesn't have to be a lag; if you have not gotten or spread the disease but get your immunization late, no concrete damage has occurred. It's not like the immunizations _only_ work when you're two, they'll work anytime.

<comment><USER8> Absolutely, but once a child has left the normal cycle of immunization either the parents or the government need to make an effort to get them up to date. IMO this by and large won't happen without either policies in place or a large public interest campaign directed at it.

<comment><USER10> Are children still accepted into schools without their vaccinations? I know when I was a kid I had to bring a card with all my shots or they wouldn't enroll me. So has this requirement been dropped?

And to get a VISA for some countries you need to bring that card.

<comment><USER11> In most US states, a parent can apply for a religious exemption that will allow them to enroll their child in school without one or more of the required immunizations. Some states even offer "philosophical" exemptions.

The National Conference of State Legislatures maintains a list of exemption statutes by state:

<http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14376>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The study's author "misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study." Oh, and he was paid by a law firm which was looking to sue vaccine manufacturers.

The net result: vaccination rates dropped, and measles cases have gone up sharply.

</comment><comment><USER9> Poking around a bit, the British Medical Journal itself has a much more in- depth and interesting article on the web, which the CNN story is but a pale reflection of: <http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full>

<comment><USER12> great link, definitely worth reading the full BMJ article.

Here's a quote from the senior clinician on the project, after the journalist presented information from one of the parents that conflicted with the data in the study: "Well I can't really comment," he said. "You really touch on an area which I don't think should be debated like this. And I think these parents are wrong to discuss such details, where you could be put in a position of having a lot of medical details and then try to match it with this, because it is a confidential matter."

no wonder why so many people are losing trust in science ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This isn't particularly new; here's an article with more details from August 2008, from Ben Goldacre's book _Bad Science_ : <http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/>

Also worth reading is Roald Dahl's account of his eldest daughter's measles infection at <http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=715> .

<comment><USER8> The latest developments being reported are new. Previously the study had been found to be erroneous, it is now been decided parts of the study are outright fraudulent.

There is a big difference between fraud and making mistakes. Mistakes in study methodology or in drawing conclusions are expected to happen in science, hence the peer review process. Fraud on the other hand usually ends a scientist's career.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wow. It boggles the mind that somebody, a physician no less, would jeopardize children all over the world for half a million dollars. It is beyond comprehension.

<comment><USER15> In two respects, really--first, that it's reprehensible for a physician to jeopardize people's lives in this way, and second, that the magnitude of the motive (only half a million dollars) is nowhere close to the magnitude of this evil.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> These conversations never go well.

They are valid arguments to either side and nothing is conculsive. I think it is best to do your own research from medical journals/studies etc and do what you think is best for your children.

I think that is one thing everyone here has in common, we all want to do what is best for our children.

<comment><USER17> Seems like the summary of the research is that there is a BLATANTLY FRAUDULENT argument on one side.

Erroneous consensus or agreement to disagree is NOT superior to objective truth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This has been known for several years by people who have followed Brian Deer's investigations and the Autism Omnibus Proceedings.

At the same time there have been massive targeting of parents of autistic children by quack therapists.

</comment><comment><USER19> What's the name of the law firm? This is criminal.

</comment><comment><USER20> can someone get Jenny McCarthy's view on this. She was a believer.

<comment><USER21> It'll be something along the lines of "Big Pharma did a hit job on him".

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Vaccines do cause autism. Here is a peer reviewed paper in the journal of Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, the abstract:

Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds Authors: D. A. Geiera; P. G. Kingb; M. R. Geierc

Abstract Thimerosal (ethylmercurithiosalicylic acid), an ethylmercury (EtHg)-releasing compound (49.55% mercury (Hg)), was used in a range of medical products for more than 70 years. Of particular recent concern, routine administering of Thimerosal-containing biologics/childhood vaccines have become significant sources of Hg exposure for some fetuses/infants. This study was undertaken to investigate cellular damage among in vitro human neuronal (SH-SY-5Y neuroblastoma and 1321N1 astrocytoma) and fetal (nontransformed) model systems using cell vitality assays and microscope-based digital image capture techniques to assess potential damage induced by Thimerosal and other metal compounds (aluminum (Al) sulfate, lead (Pb)(II) acetate, methylmercury (MeHg) hydroxide, and mercury (Hg)(II) chloride) where the cation was reported to exert adverse effects on developing cells. Thimerosal-associated cellular damage was also evaluated for similarity to pathophysiological findings observed in patients diagnosed with autistic disorders (ADs). Thimerosal- induced cellular damage as evidenced by concentration- and time-dependent mitochondrial damage, reduced oxidative-reduction activity, cellular degeneration, and cell death in the in vitro human neuronal and fetal model systems studied. Thimerosal at low nanomolar (nM) concentrations induced significant cellular toxicity in human neuronal and fetal cells. Thimerosal- induced cytoxicity is similar to that observed in AD pathophysiologic studies. Thimerosal was found to be significantly more toxic than the other metal compounds examined. Future studies need to be conducted to evaluate additional mechanisms underlying Thimerosal-induced cellular damage and assess potential co-exposures to other compounds that may increase or decrease Thimerosal- mediated toxicity. Keywords: autism; glial; lead; mercury; mercuric; neurodevelopmental

[http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910652305~...](http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910652305~db=all~jumptype=rss)

The PDF of the paper is on the page.

This is a peer reviewed article.

Here is another one:

"Vaccines May Cause Brain Changes Found in Autism" - Journal Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis 2010

[http://www.autismny.com/2/post/2010/08/vaccines-may-cause- br...](http://www.autismny.com/2/post/2010/08/vaccines-may-cause-brain- changes-found-in-autism-journal-acta-neurobiologiae-experimentalis-2010.html)

Nether of these papers were written by Wakefield. Just because we have a bad scientist doesn't mean the science is flawed.

In fact, the "vaccine doesn't cause autism" scientist have been caught creating fruad as well: Scientist who "debunked mercury vaccines" caught in fraud, steals $2 Million, skips town A Danish scientist who was a key researcher in two studies that purport to show that mercury used in vaccines and the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine do not cause autism is believed to have used forged documents to steal $2 million from Aarhus University in Denmark according to reports in the Copenenhagen Post Online and a statement from Aarhus University.

Poul Thorsen, MD PhD, headed up a research unit at Aarhus University that was hired by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to prepare a series of studies that would exonerate thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative and adjuvant used in vaccines, and the MMR vaccine from any role in causing autism. The veracity of the two studies he co-authored is now in doubt.

These studies formed the foundation for the conclusions of several Institute of Medicine reports that claimed that it was highly unlikely that thimerosal or MMR were implicated in autism.

In a statement Aarhus University officials said that believe Thorsen forged documents supposedly from the CDC to obtain the release of $2 million from the University. Thorsen resigned abruptly in March 2009 and left Denmark. Since then Thorsen has held several jobs in the US, first at Emory University in Atlanta and then at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Documents show that as late as January 22, 2009. Thorsen was employed at Drexel. Any reference to Poulsen has now been deleted from the Drexel website. [http://info- wars.org/2010/03/11/researcher-who-said-mercury-...](http://info- wars.org/2010/03/11/researcher-who-said-mercury-in-vaccines-do-not-cause- autism-forged-documents-to-steal-2-million-from-university/)

<comment><USER23> Don't just vote him down, folks...he's posting links and support for his position. Surely someone on HN is knowledgeable enough on this subject to respond with something more detailed than clicking a down arrow...

<comment><USER24> It's pretty clear this is a troll account (ie, one that exists to post controversial statements in order to cause grief). Here are some examples:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1782355>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1935416>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1994504>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2041013>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2027532>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018434>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018405>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1881991>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1935387>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1919731>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1914963>

I think the best response here is to down-vote and not engage beyond the sensible rebuttal that has been posted.

<comment><USER22> those posts are my honest replies. I don't invoke name calling and try to backup everything with sources. I do get downvoted a lot here, I do not have multiple accounts or use my account "as a troll account." My postings are sincere and I honestly have a dissenting viewpoint in general both online and offline. My friends often remark that I like debates. If you disagree with me, let me know. My philosophy in debating is that I either abandon my argument by learning new facts about what I was wrong about, or my argument stands. I live in the Portland Oregon area and if you would like to meet me for a beer I can attest to this. Thanks

<comment><USER24> Debate is pointless if you ignore contrary evidence.

For example, it's pretty clear that you are anti-vaccine. It's fine to hold that opinion, but as I'm sure you've seen the overwhelming evidence against your point of view I don't see any need in re-hashing the arguments.

In cases like this you may not be consciously trolling, but in my view arguing a dissenting view in the face of such overwhelming evidence exhibits the same damaging behavior patterns that a troll engages in. Given that, I think the appropriate response is exactly the same as the response to a troll, ie: a perfunctory link to counter evidence on Wikipedia (for the sake of casual readers), and a downvote.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


NSA revelations only 'the tip of the iceberg,' says Dem lawmaker - <AUTHOR> http://thehill.com/video/house/305047-dem-rep-lawmakers-learned-significantly-more-about-surveillance-programs-in-nsa-briefing <comment><USER2> " _if somebody else is going to step up_ "

You're a freaking congressperson sworn to represent the people of the united states.

If something bad is being done, it's YOUR responsibility to "step up" not someone else's.

BTW what the hell is with the NSA calling it the "Black Star" \- is that some sick joke about the death star destroying worlds? So the rebels took out the death star with the exhaust port - does that mean the Black Star can be taken offline by the A/C units?

<comment><USER3> What she heard at the briefing would be illegal for her to divulge.

By telling us that 1) Snowdon is true, 2) Snowdon was a very small cog and doesn't realise the extent of it all, she's going further than all others at that briefing, and hopefully encouraging more whistleblowers to step up (and ruin their own lives).

<comment><USER4> There are some constitutional protections on speech by congressmen in the course of their duties, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause)

<comment><USER5> Yes, but it has an exception for treason and felonies, and disclosing classified information may count as at least a felony, if not treason.

<comment><USER6> > Yes, but it has an exception for treason and felonies

There are two separate parts:

1\. While they are attending a session they can't be arrested, and

2\. They can't be held accountable in any other forum based on the content of any speech or debate in either House.

The exception for for treason, felonies, and "breach of peace" applies to the _first_ ; the second, is an _absolute, unqualified_ immunity, and, as applied by the Supreme Court, applies to all "legislative acts", which includes quite a bit that is not physically on the floor during a general session of the House.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What concerns me most about this whole situation isn't even the surveillance, though I think that's pretty abhorrent. It's the fact that something so stupendous has been done without any kind of public debate - despite the fact that anyone with two brain cells to rub together can't help but see would at least be a strongly polarizing issue.

From this article it sounds like there hasn't even been much of a secret debate. If they won't consult the people about such an explosive issue, the least they could do is consult their elected representatives. Instead, they just did it, and now they want to sweep it all under the rug and tell us "we thought really hard about it and we decided it was OK - and after all, TERR'ISTS!". I have a sinking feeling that it'll work, though, and that this debate will not really happen anyway since most people don't seem to care.

<comment><USER8> There was an extensive public debate about the Patriot act at the time of its passage, and the security proponents won. It's past time that we had another one, but anyone over about the age of 30 who wasn't aware of this wasn't paying attention.

<comment><USER9> It was opportunistically passed 45 days after 9/11\. Very few Americans were in an even semi-rational position to understand or debate the nature of the Patriot Act. The only public discussion was a small minority of people thinking about the future implications, and the other radical majority that was reacting based on fear / emotion (and the lawmakers that passed it were counting on that, otherwise they would have waited a lot longer to pass it).

<comment><USER8> True, but so what? that's how things are in a democracy. I keep pointing out that a great many people simply do not share the concerns of privacy and civil liberties advocates, and people keep responding that the public is too uneducated or doesn't really understand. The reality is that a lot of people understand the implications just fine but they simply don't agree with the minority viewpoint. So they're foolish and short-sighted, but it'll be a cold day in hell before that changes.

<comment><USER10> > True, but so what? that's how things are in a democracy.

Using fear and emotion of a recent disaster to push an otherwise controversial law really has nothing to do with democracy. Any type of government would use this technique because it's so easy.

And you should demand your government to be _better_ than that. I know I do. Even if you don't believe they'll listen (fair enough), the moment you stop complaining and bitching about it, is the moment you're saying "well, okay then, if you persist, I give up".

Additionally, I expect _human beings_ to be bound by more than just laws or constitutions, but also by ethics, a will to stand up for what's right and against what's wrong. That's why governments and corporations are not persons. But you are, and as soon as you say "I'm okay with this because it's legal/constitutional", without being able to argue why it is also _right_ (in your opinion, we can still disagree about this, but that's another matter entirely), you fail that test.

<comment><USER8> Governments and corporations are just agglomerations of persons, who act with varying ethical standards. Treating them as monolithic entities leads on astray into all sorts of fallacies.

As for my own ethical position, I think the US needs a constitutional amendment that creates an explicit right to privacy, rather than an inferred one. But I also think the head of the executive branch is bound to serve conflicting imperatives regarding defensive issues, and that it's foolish to expect government actors to tie their hands hands in fulfilling that mandate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It sounds like this congressman is begging for another leak.

I smell blood. And a republican president in 2016. It looks like this is going to be Obama's big theme for his second term. Like LBJ, he inherited a shitty situation and made it much worse, and thus lost out for credit on all of his domestic work.

We'll see, but I don't see any easy out for Obama. Ironically the only thing saving him is that the conservatives really love these policies, and the liberals, who should be at his throat for this, really can't because he's part of their club. Lucky duck.

<comment><USER12> Actually, the latest Gallup poll[1] showed (and this was a surprise to me) that Republicans disapprove of these policies way more than Democrats do:

        Party      app   disapp
        </comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----
        Democrats   49%    40%
        Independent 34%    56%
        Republicans 32%    63%

        All         37%    53%

[1] [http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove- gover...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-government- surveillance-programs.aspx)

<comment><USER13> This has got to be mostly because of which party is in the white house right now. I think the numbers would be more than flipped if we had a Republican president.

<comment><USER14> Agreed. Looking at a 2006 Gallup poll regarding warrantless wiretapping, it was 80%/16% Republicans, 42%/53% Independents, and 27%/69% Democrats (approve/disapprove).

([http://www.gallup.com/poll/20887/public-divided-whether- wire...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/20887/public-divided-whether-wiretapping- justified.aspx))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _The briefing was meant to convince lawmakers that the surveillance programs > are legal and necessary in fighting counterterrorism_

First, I don't think you want to fight counterterrorism, but, rather, terrorism?

And second, what's with this business of "legal and necessary"? It doesn't matter if it's "necessary", it doesn't matter if it's really really super useful, it doesn't matter if it's very efficient. The only thing that matters -- that should matter, in a democracy -- is whether it's legal and constitutional.

The moment you let "efficiency" step over legality you let the beast loose, and the results are drone killings and surveillance programs.

Drone killings are a hundred million times worse than surveillance, BTW, and somehow make less of a scandal.

<comment><USER16> >And second, what's with this business of "legal and necessary"? It doesn't matter if it's "necessary", it doesn't matter if it's really really super useful, it doesn't matter if it's very efficient. The only thing that matters -- that should matter, in a democracy -- is whether it's legal and constitutional.

Well, no. The Constitution is not the be-all and end-all of governance, nor does it forbid all possible onerous behaviours. The position of the USG is that what the NSA engages in is constitutional. Even if that were the case, that wouldn't make it a good idea-- _unless it were necessary_. You could implement a 1000% tax on beer and it would be perfectly legal and constitutional, but would also need to be somehow necessary in order for it to be justifiable.

Even _if_ what the NSA is doing is deemed constitutional, that doesn't mean it's right or a good idea. In order for that to be the case, it'd also have to have a strong claim of necessity.

<comment><USER15> That's what I meant. First we need to see if it's legal, and THEN whether it's useful / serves any kind of purpose with any kind of efficiency.

The problem is, "necessity" or "usefulness" are used as substitutes for legality.

"Well, it's not, technically, one hundred percent legal, but look at how well it works in fighting [terrorism|pedophilia|some other big cause that gets people all worked up without actually threatening anyone in any statistically meaningful way]".

<comment><USER17> > "Well, it's not, technically, one hundred percent legal, but look at how > well it works in fighting [terrorism|pedophilia|some other big cause that > gets people all worked up without actually threatening anyone in any > statistically meaningful way]"

Uh, paedophillia is statistically significant. The wider issue of child abuse (physical, emotional, sexual abuse or neglect) means that about 5 children a day die in the US from abuse-related causes.

Numbers are difficult, but over 3 million reports (for over 6 million children) are made every year in the US, and about 9% will be for sexual abuse. (And about 90% of those will be where a child knows the offender in some way.)

Very many people are harmed, sometimes severely, by paedophiles.

Please don't ever place paedophilia in the same category as 'nonsense boogeymen' like terrorism.

<comment><USER18> I don't think anyone is trying to minimize the heinousness of child abuse. I think the point being made is that just because a particularly technique may be effective against a particular crime, doesn't mean that technique is morally or legally right.

We could castrate everyone even accused of pedophilia and that would probably discourage some amount of child sexual abuse, but clearly that wouldn't be right. Similarly, we could forcibly commit everyone with a history of mental illness in mental institutions and maybe that would've prevented Sandy Hook, Aurora, and most recently the Santa Monica shooting. Yet, that wouldn't be right.

In short, the ends don't justify the means. Usurping constitutional rights because it would make it more convenient to fight terrorism is the worst possible path we could take in dealing with the threat of terrorism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If I had paid attention in junior high civics class, I might expect a _member of Congress_ to correct egregious abuses of government power, once they had been admitted by the actual abusive government officials. As in, I might have thought she would take action, rather than obliquely wondering about who might step forward next. If she doesn't have the power to fix this, who the hell does?

<comment><USER20> Remember the part of this whole equation where a government with access to all of this kind of information could use it in ways to convince or discourage its people to act however they wanted?

<comment><USER19> Hahaha, like I said I didn't pay attention, but I seriously doubt the stars- and-stripes gang at my local public school had ever even heard of public choice theory, let alone taught it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I personally hope they out the amount of government paid shills on the internet and any documentation as to their directive, such as how they 'slide' topics off of popular social media sites or comment to quell a rising storm.

To that end, when are we going to get some more reputable people in Washington? Why has it become the chore of the least of us to represent all of us? Where are all the upstanding citizens that these jobs should be filled with, rather than the lowest common denominator that's proliferated our house and senate to this day?

I've run through all the possibilities I could think of, regarding solutions to this mess, and the one that seems to come closest to reality is that we need to start pushing for the formation of a new party. Only by the formation of a new group, who has not yet been subjugated by the money powers that be, will we be able to get out of this mess. These revelations are our best chance to get such an initiative started, as those in a position of power are either too cowardly or too bought to do so themselves.

<comment><USER22> _I 've run through all the possibilities I could think of, regarding solutions to this mess, and the one that seems to come closest to reality is that we need to start pushing for the formation of a new party._

We already have plenty of alternative parties. Depending on your political leanings, they may or may not be appropriate to you, but there are groups like the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, Worker's World Party, Prohibition Party, Pirate Party, etc. Hell, there's even a "Modern Whig Party".[1]

But a big part of the problem is the _mechanism_ by which we elect representatives to our government. Most of the US uses single member district, "first past the post" (FPTP) voting[2], which has a side-effect of tending to create a "two party system"[3].

There are various initiatives around to push for the use of other voting systems which are more favorable to 3rd parties, like Approval Voting[4], Condorcet methods[5], Range voting[6], etc., but guess who typically sets the standards for how elections are conducted? Yeah, officials (mostly Democrats and Republicans) elected under the existing system! Talk about a "chicken or the egg" problem. But this is one of the first things that needs to be attacked, if we want a less corrupt, and more responsive government.

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_th...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States)

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the- post_voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting)

[3]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)

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

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

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

<comment><USER23> Part of the problem, as your post itself demonstrates, is an excess of choice: once we've decided we need something better than plurality voting (PV, aka FPTP), we have to pick a system. It becomes an engineering decision, and a rather subtle one at that. I've long been partial to Approval Voting, but I have to admit it has a clear disadvantage in actual use relative to PV: because the total number of votes is no longer bounded by the total number of voters, it gets much harder to detect fraud.

The point is, first, the relative merits of the various alternatives to PV are debatable (and debated), and second, considerations apply beyond the mathematical properties of the systems.

This is why, though I detest PV, I have little hope that a consensus will emerge as to the best alternative -- at least not without a lot of experimentation.

<comment><USER24> Personally, I have fallen in love with run-off elections (not sure the specific name) as used for electing the mayor in Chicago.

Basically, there is an officially non-partisan election in which anyone qualified can be on the ballot. The vote is held, with everyone able to vote for one person on the list. If there is a single winner (50%+1) then that person is declared the winner and the election if over. If no-one gets a majority of the votes the top 2 candidates face off in a run-off election about 2 months later.

This allows everyone to vote for their preferred candidate in the general election without 'wasting' their vote, but ensures that the eventual winner was chosen by at least 50% of their constituents.

There's obviously some tweaks that can be made (for one, it doesn't _need_ to be non-partisan) but I think it does a very effective job at avoiding some of the party politics and the pandering to the base for the primary then moving to the center you see in many elections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So while on the one hand Congress, NSA, etc. are denying what Snowden is claiming; on the other hand, they're calling him a traitor and guilty of treason.

If he's lying, _how_ can he be guilty of "treason"? Don't you have to reveal some classified (and truthful) info to be guilty of treason?

<comment><USER6> No, you have to wage war against the United States or provide aid and comfort to its enemies. Revealing true classified information, per se, is neither necessary or sufficient for treason (one of the reason for the Espionage Act and other laws criminalizing revealing secret defense info is that those acts often won't meet the Constitutional standard for treason.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> So while the White House and the NSA are saying the claims so far from Snowden are overblown and hyped up, Congress is saying there's far more going on than has even been reported yet.

<comment><USER22> So, politics as usual, then?

<comment><USER27> Well, it's a Democratic congress person while we have a Democratic President, so I don't think you can make that charge necessarily.

Certainly this authoritarianism is business as usual, but not the back-and- forth in this case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> If only we had an elected body with oversight authority and subpoena powers that could make sure three letter agencies don't step out of bounds.

Nah, that's crazy.

</comment><comment><USER29> Imagine if you had a meeting scheduled at a place and when you arrived with some unannounced parties it was already known who your compatriots were because of your last calls and proximity to those phones prior to arrival. Wouldn't that be crazy if that happened, just plain non-nonchalantly, without any kind of checks or restrictions or restraints.

People are going to be lulled back into complacency by the same people who have exhibited their absolute lack of trustworthiness. There is something seriously wrong with the human condition as exhibited by the apparent inherent trust placed in those who one should trust least. If one is willing to lie to Congress with assurance of impunity, why would one ever tell the truth about anything to anyone.

Hate to break it to people, America is under a dome of propaganda little different than that of most other autocratic regimes, we simply are far more sophisticated about it due to several unique circumstances. Ever wonder how one could believe the propaganda in dictatorial regimes of the past and present? Well, you are living it right now.

</comment><comment><USER30> The Guardian interviewed Snowden for an entire week. We've seen 10 minutes of it.

</comment><comment><USER31> Obama is at liberty to divulge all anytime - the only free man in the US. Perhaps he should resign?

<comment><USER32> The President is not above the law either. He might have the authority to declassify the material before he divulges it, but then he would have to be personally convinced that the material poses no possible threat to national security.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> " Universal retention of provenance without commensurate universal commercial rights would lead to a police/ surveillance state. Universal commercial provenance can instead lead to a balanced future, where a middle class can thrive with proportional political clout, and where individuals can invent their own lives without being unduly manipulated by unseen operators of Siren Servers. " [1]

[1] - Lanier, Jaron (2013-03-07). Who Owns The Future?. Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

</comment><comment><USER34> >The briefing was meant to convince lawmakers that the surveillance programs are legal and necessary in _fighting counterterrorism_

The Government/NSA is now a terrorist group? Are they fighting themselves? Why not just use the secret surveillance system called PRISM to discover that the enemy has a secret surveillance system called PRISM?

</comment><comment><USER35> But according to Obama, everybody in Congress already knew everything

<comment><USER19> According to the polls I'm not supposed to trust Congress, but I do think most of them know the content of their own minds better than Obama does. If a particular Representative was too dense to understand the first presentation, the officials should have dumbed it down and given it again. They report to Congress, not the other way around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Snowden and reporters have been saying there will be more leaks over the next few weeks to months.

</comment><comment><USER37> My guess:

1) they are _also_ listening to phone calls of Americans, despite what Obama said

2) she may be referring to the fact that NSA can spy on Americans without probable cause a week before deciding whether to ask FISC for a general warrant or not, like Mike Arrington said [2]

3) the "upstream" part of the slide [1] sounded very similar to that AT&T room from years ago, and they might be repeating that, with a slight twist

Steve Gibson from TWiT's Security Now had a theory yesterday [3] that they may be doing something similar now (which is why they also called it "prism"/cable splitter), but this time instead of getting all the data indiscriminately, they get the data from where Google, Microsoft and others are hooking up with the cable providers. This way they know exactly where it came from, so then they can go and use NSL's and FISA orders to get that data on that individual from Google and Microsoft.

[1] - [http://static.guim.co.uk/sys- images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys- images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/8/1370710424658/new-prism-slide-001.jpg)

[2] - [http://uncrunched.com/2013/06/11/connecting-the-prism- dots-m...](http://uncrunched.com/2013/06/11/connecting-the-prism-dots-my-new- theory/)

[3] watch around 00:58 - [https://twit.cachefly.net/video/sn/sn0408/sn0408_h264m_1280x...](https://twit.cachefly.net/video/sn/sn0408/sn0408_h264m_1280x720_1872.mp4)

<comment><USER38> Obama's statement, strictly read, was very narrowly tailored: "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls."

This doesn't mean they're not being collected, recorded, analyzed, transcripted, read, or cross-corrolated.

Just that there isn't a listener assigned to each and every person in the United States to listen to their phone calls.

As someone who's largely a supporter of Obama, I was instantly left cold by his statement. It assured me of absolutely nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The way Manning's trial has been handled and the way Snowdon's actions are being responded to make the truth obvious. There's a lot more shady business to be revealed and the U.S. government is scared as hell. They're absolutely desperate to discourage further would-be whistle-blowers. Obama just got caught in a rather public lie too. It doesn't sound like these Senators were briefed on PRISM before Tuesday even though Obama said, "every member of Congress has been briefed on this program". Honestly, if Americans will impeach a president for lying about his extra-curricular cigar-related activities, how can they let something like this slide?

<comment><USER40> Because he is black and we have lost the will to have open discussions about anyone of that race. We have gone to far in that we now give people too much special treatment for their gender or color of their skin.

Sadly if we had true equality this guy would be roasted....

<comment><USER41> we've had 4 years of people running around claiming that Obama wasn't born in the US and that he's a secret Muslim sleeper agent based on him being black. The claim that he isn't scrutinized because of his race is indefensible.

The reason Obama gets a pass is the same reason GWB got a pass on privacy invasions. Its seen as part of the WoT so people tend to give the government the benefit of the doubt. In general I think the populace is willing to give the government a lot of latitude when they see something as part of a 'war' effort.

<comment><USER40> Non of those were remotely credible. Yet the media continually treats him with kid gloves.

<comment><USER41> _Non of those were remotely credible._

I agree that those claims weren't credible. I struggle to see how the fact that absurd and derogatory claims got play in the press for 4 years supports your claim that Obama gets special treatment because of his color. Seems more like evidence against what you're claiming.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Global surveillance with RFID

I heard rumors that many (if not all) citizens in the western world already have RFID chips in clothes, shoes, bags etc. so that everyone could be tracked right now.

I think that's not just a rumor. The question is not whether they use it but how far they have come yet.

RFID chips are almost invisible tiny low power circuits which send a unique digital code on request, and which work without battery via energy harvesting. RFID is the perfect tool for global surveillance.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID)</comment>


Beautiful People Are the Hardest to Draw: Interview with a Courtroom Artist - <AUTHOR> http://ratter.com/ratter/all/inverse-published/213837-courtroom-artist-l-d-chukman <comment><USER2> Not an expert for face perception but I think faces are believed to be stored in memory in terms of their deviation from the standard face (the average face in your environment). Since beautiful faces happen to be precisely the faces that are close to the average, it's completely unsurprising that they are hard to capture because their deviations from the standard face are really subtle. Storage of faces as differences from the standard face also explains why white people find it hard to distinguish Asian faces (and the reverse): they all deviate from a white standard face in a similar way. Caricatures can also explain by this because a caricature is what you get when you amplify someone's deviations from the standard face.

<comment><USER3> Nice model, but unfortunately it's not true. Neocortex doesn't have 'special face diff storage mechanism'. It doesn't work like this.

<comment><USER4> Really? How do you know this? I thought that our knowledge about how things are stored in the brain was extremely poor.

It seems that we do have some pretty specialised mechanisms in our heads for dealing with human faces, given how good we are at recognising them compared to other things. Even tiny changes in face shape (ie expression) are instantly recognisable and can cause major emotional responses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's poor Tom Brady (Patriots Quarterback) in court:

[https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/cmoycq4woaa2mt1....](https://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/cmoycq4woaa2mt1.jpg?w=1000&h=750)

</comment><comment><USER6> "They're cutting each others' throats as vividly as they can."

The very last line of the interview is what scares me about our future. Yes, we've always been cut throat, but in my life--right now--I see people whom are willing to sell their souls in order make more money. Or, maybe since a lot of us question whether their is a soul; we do horrid things in the name of business? Or, maybe I'm too sensitive to how money can corrupt; my sister pretty much put my mother on the streets with her greedy, money manipulating mouth.

I wasen't part of the Hippy generation, but they did not act the way we are acting now? At least they tried to change?

I don't find our current society progressive, or fashionable. The "Power Couple", "I will do anything to make the Paper", "Buy that book on how to manipulate people, and make money." "I'll build my scalable site so I can live like that little weasel?" I honestly find it all disgusting--

(Off topic, but through out that interview; it just reminded me how ugly society has gotten, and not just the defendants in the court rooms. I guess I just was expecting a light article about art?)

<comment><USER7> Only commenting to say you are not alone thinking about this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It was an interesting read, but I'm frustrated at how link baity the title is.

There actually was no discussion of how "beautiful people" are hard to draw. Read the whole article looking for the line. Very frustrating.

<comment><USER9> It was in the Tom Brady section.

 _You know what 's hardest to draw? Beautiful people. Reproducing beauty is hard. Beauty is usually based on very fine, careful proportions with no irregularities. There are a couple judges who are just too handsome or too pretty. It's a challenge going in to draw them. It's a challenge to get a good likeness of them. A lot of beautiful people are just bland._

<comment><USER10> Yes, some "beautiful people" are bland, with very symmetrical features, etc. What seems to matter is some mix of averageness, and ratios of feature sizes and arrangement.[0,1] But I've also noticed that some strikingly beautiful people not at all like that. And in some contexts, they can be just as dramatically ugly.

[0] [http://petapixel.com/2013/05/28/what-averaged-face- photograp...](http://petapixel.com/2013/05/28/what-averaged-face-photographs- reveal-about-human-beauty/)

[1] [http://faceresearch.org/students/averageness](http://faceresearch.org/students/averageness)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Pro tip: If you are ever trying to report on a high-profile court case and there is an overflow room where they pipe in CCTV, go to that room because the camera angles will be much more conducive to getting a good view of the defendant.

<comment><USER12> Unless you want to see the reaction of the jury. Those cameras rarely cover the jury in my experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> >> There are a couple judges who are just too handsome or too pretty. It's a challenge going in to draw them.

There are no beautiful people in courtrooms. Everyone is under some sort of stress. Lawyers and defendants can win or loose, jurors don't want to be there, the court officers are busy moving prisoners around and acting authoritatively. Even the galleries are full of unhappy family members. It's no surprise that this artist mentions the judges. They are in charge. They know that no matter what happens they will still be in charge come the end of the day. Confident people always look better than those under stress.

<comment><USER13> Stress doesn't make someone not beautiful, your premise is flawed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Men are easier to sketch because shadows, sharp angles and the "irregularities" of your pencil line tend to look masculine. For example, shadows tend to look like facial hair. The slightest flaw on a woman's face is generally more dramatic and unflattering--you want a thinner, softer, smoother line without shadows. Sketches by definition are quick and dirty--which doesn't work out as well for people with delicate features.

</comment><comment><USER15> Don't know about we learn much about the difficulty of drawing beautiful faces, however the images of the artist's work were impressive.

The traditional boundary between "art" and "illustration" isn't hard and fast. The latter is valued for its utility, but there's always a possibility that mere workman's duty will be exceeded, with the result carrying a sensibility well above its intended purpose.

I think that may be the case for this particular sketch artist. The drawings seem to capture not only how individuals look, but also portray something of their emotional states, contrasts among them obvious, interesting and surprising. The relational elements are echoed in the subtleties of spacing, angles and proportion, factors that begin to delineate "art" from the prosaic.

The article shows the artist to be quite a character himself. In a way reminiscent of 1940's newspaper photographer "Weegee" (Arthur Fellig), who similarly transcended the common utilitarian aspects of his job, ranking among the best photographers of the 20th century.

It's refreshing to know there are inspired souls putting forth such noteworthy effort and contributing more than we could expect.

</comment><comment><USER16> Is this drawing thing in court rooms specific to US? And why is drawing allowed and not taking pictures?

<comment><USER17> Because you have to draw the line somewhere.

It's kinda similar to how you can take notes, but not record.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The font used for the interviewer's text is striking. What is it?

<comment><USER19> Freight Micro Pro: [https://typekit.com/fonts/freight-micro- pro](https://typekit.com/fonts/freight-micro-pro)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ah, that is why I am so un-photogenic. Explains it. Thanks.

<comment><USER21> It explains it how? Have people told you that you have an easy face to draw?</comment></comment>


Life found deep below Antarctic ice - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/348007/description/Life_found_deep_below_Antarctic_ice

<comment><USER2> For some reason I always feel underwhelmed when they dig up a few microbes and their corpses from the deep. Where are those huge tentacle-ye monsters, we want so much to look at? Or at least find the Tesseract?

<comment><USER3> Huge tentacle-ye monster (or at least, close): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5026950>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is it not dangerous to do this? What if we bring to the surface new viruses or bacteria that are very harmful?

<comment><USER5> Unlike what Hollywood would lead us to believe organisms cut off from the rest of the world don't become dangerous. In fact the opposite is more likely, organisms cut off from the rest of the ecosystem are more likely to be specialised and be at risk themselves from outside organisms.

<comment><USER6> But which are the "outside" organisms -- us or them? ;-)

<comment><USER7> It's like you are trying to be deep, but didn't actually read your parent.

<comment><USER8> The parent wrote: "Unlike what Hollywood would lead us to believe organisms cut off from the rest of the world don't become dangerous. In fact the opposite is more likely, organisms cut off from the rest of the ecosystem are more likely to be specialised and be at risk themselves from outside organisms."

So, the question the Smudge was genuinely asking (and I think it's a clever one) is are the "organisms cut off from the rest of the ecosystem" the microbes in the glacial lake, or are the humans the "organisms cut off from the rest of the ecosystem" for 100,000 years?

<comment><USER7> The only way to consider the rest of the world, with its 8.7 million species, to be the organism that was cut off from a few types of bacteria in a remote lake is to quibble over pointless semantics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if they're archaea or bacteria. Does anybody have a guess?

</comment><comment><USER10> ia ia cthulhu fhtagn!

<comment><USER11> Actually, it was the Elder Things that were in Antarctica. Cthulhu's in the Pacific somewhere.

<comment><USER12> Shoggoths. They've definitely found shoggoths.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Se til helvete og kom dere vekk. Det er ikke en bikkje, det er en slags ting! Det imiterer en bikkje, det er ikke virkelig! KOM DERE VEKK IDIOTER!!

<comment><USER13> Ah, no love for The Thing. Oh well.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Looking for book about turning a company around - <AUTHOR>

Yo,
After getting through a couple of books from the Song of Fire and Ice series, I'm going to change it up for a break:
I'm looking for a good book that focuses on someone coming to a company and turning it around.    As a mildy technical guy, I'd prefer a technically oriented book.
Any recommendations?  What is the best book you've ever read about transforming a company? <comment><USER2> Probably not what you want to spend time reading, but a big chunk of Private Equity literature covers this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not exactly what I had in mind, but also don't know much about it.

Where does one find such literature? Any specific recommendations?

<comment><USER2> Sadly not. It sprung to mind because my girlfriend is currently going through the training term at a PE (private equity) firm and I have been lightly flipping through her textbooks and training manuals.

PE is about buying under-performing companies, making them more valuable, and then re-selling them. So she's being trained in how to spot a particular type of under-performing which they're in a good position to improve. They have a couple different strategies they are comfortable with, including basic stuff like switching the management to fancier plays like buying one company in a new industry with the intent to use it as a platform to acquire lots of other companies in the same industry and turn on the economies of scale.</comment></comment></comment>


Thoughts on being sexism neutral: "I Don't Know: Is There Anything You Can Do?"  - <AUTHOR> http://www.novemberwest.com/blog/2011/07/12/i-dont-know-is-there-anything-you-can-do/

<comment><USER2> _Much to my annoyance, the men who most often play this sexism-neutral role tend to be polite enemies rather than allies: Men who don't much like me or who are subtly trying to keep women out of a male-dominated area or some such but who are basically decent, professional people who don't stoop to personal attacks and ugliness._

Do you think they actually are sexist but are just acting indifferent? What makes you think they are trying to keep you out because of your sex? Wouldn't the fact they play a sexism-netural role make that less of a possibility?

<comment><AUTHOR> I offered two possibilities there, one of which was that they don't much like me personally, which may have nothing whatsoever to do with my gender. So I am not suggesting that such men are necessarily sexist. But there are definitely cases where my read of a particular situation is that it is a subtle form of sexism, sometimes probably not consciously intentional but there nonetheless.

Thanks.

<comment><USER2> _...where my read of a particular situation is that it is a subtle form of sexism, sometimes probably not consciously intentional but there nonetheless._

Can you give an example of this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Some years ago, I belonged to a forum where two of the top dogs in the forum basically challenged me to post a nude photo of myself. I do not think either man was intentionally trying to be sexist but I read the situation as a group attempt to say "You cannot run with the big dogs. You are just a girl." It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation -- a put up or shut up challenge where I should have "lost" no matter how I responded.

<comment><USER3> The best example you can come up with is something which happened in an online forum? A fabricated, but relevant "real life" story would have been much more appropriate. Heck, a less-relevant, but real "real life" story would have been more appropriate. My issue is that, if this is the best example you can think of, it makes me think you have not encountered these situations in "real life"

<comment><AUTHOR> It happens to be the first thing that comes to mind for me because it happens to be an anecdote I reread moments before submitting this piece.

Real life example: In a college class, my Egyptian professor would ask me three or four times "How do you know that?" every single time I answered a math question. It became blatant enough that he was being obtuse that a male class member blurted at some point "She has obviously already worked it out in her head."

Best I can do for now as I have to go.

Catch you later.

Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You may just be likable as person.

I find often times, regardless of gender, when I like someone as a person before I get an understanding of their skills as a programmer or engineer I'm less critical of their work. When I don't know someone, or even better don't like them, I challenge them to show me their best work.

Of course, well structured criticism is important to grow as a person, the sweet-spot is finding someone you likes you, but is comfortable criticizing you. A really good manager should be this person, they should feel like you fit into their culture when they hire you and they should have a lot to gain from pushing you to do your best work. Of course that's in an ideal world.

</comment><comment><USER5> Interesting that the proposed question is almost exactly what a nice guy would ask himself, but applied to her:

Mr. Nice: "Is there anything _I_ can do"

Empowering guy: "Is there anything _you_ can do"

</comment><comment><USER6> _well-meaning nice guys often deprive women of the chance to struggle, to prove themselves and so on. It is often heartbreaking to watch well meaning men make such mistakes._

I can usually tell, so this is confusing me.. is this post satirical? (Update: Seems not!) I'm a "well-meaning nice guy" to anyone, male, female or otherwise, who's not antagonizing me; I haven't appreciated that this may cause people problems, but different strokes, etc :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> It is not intended as satire.

Not all well-meaning nice guys make such mistakes. But I have seen it. Maybe you are both well meaning and reasonably socially savvy?

Thanks.

<comment><USER6> I'm not socially savvy but I try to apply the 'golden rule' as much as I can to make up for it ;-) (I've found the key is _knowing_ about one's flaws and working out techniques to get around or diminish them - I have enough!)

The key reason, however, is I've found being polite and well-meaning produces the best outcome for my pursuits. I used to be quite argumentative but empathizing with people's positions has led to less anxiety, helped my business, and has given me a better rapport with partners and customers. These are selfish reasons to be nice on the surface, but I've found it eventually becomes a default, natural position to approach people and problems with.

(Oh, and being British seems to help. For some reason people often assume we're going to be polite so it doesn't seem so odd ;-))

<comment><AUTHOR> Some people are more prone to foot in mouth disease than others. Given my medical condition and the amount of medication I was on at one time, I have spent plenty of time with both feet in my mouth. I try to be understanding even when it just so happens that I am the person being killed with kindness.

Take care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Disclaimer/confession: I happen to be the author. That may not be obvious but it is also no secret. I posted it as my contribution to the general ongoing HN discussion of issues like women in tech and related stuff that shows up here.

Enjoy. Or not.

Thanks.

<comment><USER7> I enjoyed it, and I try to stay away from the gender stuff at HN because it is often trite in part due to the issue you are talking about.

First though, I do think in Aliens, that part of the mens' and the audience's enjoyment and celebration with Ripley that she ran that loader so well is because she is a woman, so in that respect, it is sexist (woman shows disbelieving men and audience). (It might also otherwise be because she's been in cryosleep for decades and unused to loaders, or just that she does her job so well.) (Also, there are times I really hate Chekhov's gun, but that scene has never been one of them.)

And one of the aspects of gender discussions on the web I find annoying is in fact that at many such discussions the male commenters getting the most applause are actually often very sexist, condescending, white knighting, patronizing, cheerleading, and fact free commenters (and that are probably clueless as to their own actual behaviors. (cf. Hugo Schwyzer)

For the sake of your essay you categorize men in two groups:

 _Men who don't much like me or who are subtly trying to keep women out of a male-dominated area or some such but who are basically decent, professional people who don't stoop to personal attacks and ugliness._

 _In contrast, well-meaning, supportive nice guys are frequently maddening in their boundless ability to pave a road to hell with good intentions._

My fear is that you and others default to perceiving the men from Aliens, and in fact, many men, as belonging to the first group. But you can see that Apone and Hicks aren't in either of those groups.

One take away from your discoveries is that maybe you should reconsider the nature of the word "enemy" and what it means to be an enemy or friend, because Apone and Hicks, and people that take you seriously and engage in an intellectual argument with you (and fight with you) are probably your friends in ways that the trite cheerleaders rah rahing you for your gender are not.

I am not sure what the relationship of your essay is to "Hacker News". Written as is, I think it would be better suited to a variety of feminist and men's blogs, including the Good Men Project.

Best wishes,

<comment><USER8> "First though, I do think in Aliens, that part of the mens' and the audience's enjoyment and celebration with Ripley that she ran that loader so well is because she is a woman, so in that respect, it is sexist (woman shows disbelieving men and audience)."

While I broadly agree with that analysis, I would point out that's a metanarrative analysis. In the context of the narrative itself I believe Mz's analysis is accurate. And you gotta start there. The metanarrative unavoidably has elements of the real world in it and the way it changes is with people choosing and accepting other narratives over time.

I say this because I think in general sometimes people can overanalyze things like this, and the danger there is that sufficient "analysis" can turn anything into anything else. (Which is the core fallacy of postmodernism in an information theory nutshell.) It is unavoidably a product of its time and culture, but irreducibly, it is merely what it is, as well. Too many people get so caught up in the former they forget the latter.

<comment><USER7> _In the context of the narrative itself ... And you gotta start there._

See, I disagree that it has to start there.

I love the movie, but I analyze it that Dan O'Bannon wrote a script in the 80s for an 80s crowd, and he knew that the audience and the purchasers of his script would love seeing a shapely Ellen Ripley in her feminine white panties one moment and in a masculine yellow loader the next showing all the military men she was their equal or better. It was a rah rah feminism moment, one of many you go grrl moments in cinema. (And O'Bannon also knew about Chekhov's gun and knew it would be good for the audience to introduce her talents with the loader early in the movie.)

So I see the internal narrative as a function of what scripts could be expected to sold and be successful in the 80s.

Similarly, Aliens can also be analyzed outside the narrative of the movie as a Vietnam War movie, and in the early 80s when it came out, that was a pretty big deal, especially since the movie was a science fiction movie, set in the future, about the Vietnam War.

<comment><USER8> The problem with your analysis is that it has no information content, in the sense of information theory where "information" has the ability to distinguish between two outcomes. A movie made in the eighties is unavoidably a movie made in the 80s. There is no distinguishing power between 80s movies if you insist on their metanarrative being "correct", for any value of correct other than "comes from the 80s". They all fail equally.

I've seen attempts to make movies or write books that somehow avoid the context of the time they were made in for a variety of reasons (political correctness, avante garde art attempts, etc), but when I look at them decades later it's clear to see that they merely demonstrate _different aspects_ of the prejudices and context of their time, not that they even remotely succeeded at being a product of another time.

If what you say is true, then there is _nowhere_ to start changing attitudes, because the metanarrative, while interesting and important to consider when analyzing a work, can not be modified, can not be chosen, can not be rewritten. You're stuck with it.

You can not write or watch movies from the metanarrative of the 2050s. And if you could, it would surprise you. I guarantee you nobody actually knows what the 2050 metanarrative will be. Any attempts to guess would themselves only be prejudices of the 2010s.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


'Spiderman' Hacker Daniel Kaye Took Down Liberia's Internet - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-12-20/spiderman-hacker-daniel-kaye-took-down-liberia-s-internet <comment><USER2> >An Israeli/American-owned telecommunications company tries to oust the dominant Liberian-owned company in Liberia, using unsavory tactics meant to shame and humiliate the latter and its users, eventually hoping to sell out to a French telecommunications giant. Oh, and then they just straight-up hack/DDOS them.

I'd like to introduce the term "neo-colonialism" to the discussion.

<comment><USER3> >I'd like to introduce the term "neo-colonialism" to the discussion.

I am curious if you are aware of the context of colonialism with respect to Liberia.

Oddly, many aren't aware, but Liberia was founded as a colony by the American Colonization Society in an attempt to return freed slaves back to Africa.

Although the number of US slaves that colonized Liberia was pretty limited in number (and a minority compared to the number of natives) they took power, and the Country has essentially existed in a state of civil war between the freed slaves (colonists) as minority rulers and the natives who did not view the freed US slaves as Africans.

<comment><USER2> I am. As another user mentioned, Liberia was essentially colonized by a Western power. It's a shocking example of the virulence of the culture of exploitation that pervaded the Americas at the time.

<comment><USER3> >It's a shocking example of the virulence of the culture of exploitation that pervaded the Americas at the time.

Well I think there were both good and bad intentions.

For example, you have Lincoln who of course most would consider an advocate of the abolition of the practice of slavery in the US. And Lincoln supported the American Colonization Society initially, even into the War, but eventually changed his position after speaking with African-American soldiers in his Army (imagine that a politician changing their position on a matter without being ridiculed as a flip-flopper).

On its face without knowing more I think one might think establishing a colony in Africa for freed slaves may have been a noble cause, like Lincoln did at one time, and its not like there weren't a few thousand who took the offer.

Now in practice of course the Whites from the American Colonization Society were the rulers and then the power shifted to the freed US slaves, but of course to the local population they weren't fans of their colonizers white or black.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This was a quite interesting and enlightening read! I was in Liberia at the time, from December 2016 through June 2017, doing a project for the Liberia Ministry of Health, and got acquainted with some people working for Cellcom. I also gained a great friend in one member of my team, who later worked briefly for Lonestar and is now employed by Orange. There aren't that many opportunities for a young developer in Liberia outside of NGOs (fickle) and the telecoms. Obviously I forwarded the article to him (coincidentally, Israel is his name).

Liberia's history is quite interesting indeed, and I actually like to compare it with the state of Israel -- both are the result of an unholy alliance of people wanting to help, on the one hand, and get rid of, on the other, another people in "their" land: African descendants in the USA, and Jewish people in Europe.

I went back to live in Liberia for three months earlier this year, to try and trace some ancestors of a family member. Things are dire, indeed, with an economy hit hard by the Ebola crisis, on top of years of military rule, civil war, corruption and abuse.

Apart from being used for resources, mainly by Firestone (now Bridgestone) for rubber, but also iron (Arcelor Mittal) and gold (large parts of which is being smuggled to UAE), it remains a strategic interest for the US (their presence is still huge, with CIA's only listening post in Africa), meanwhile trade is controlled by the Indian and Lebanese communities.

Also of interest is that some Cherokee opted to join the free African Americans, with one ending up a chief of the Vai tribe, and possibly inspiring the Vai script with knowledge of the Cherokee script, recently posted here on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21737230](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21737230)

<comment><USER5> >CIA's only KNOWN listening post in Africa

<comment><USER4> Point taken.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Throwaway for obvious reasons. Around 13 years ago when I was a lot younger we were in fight with other site community, none of it was for profit. We got hit by DDOS so we wanted to retaliate. We've scanned their DDOS boxes and found out the software that was running on them and vulnerability that they were using, then we hacked that box, got their tools because all was transferred without any encryption (different times). We wrote our own C&C software and started gathering our own botnet. Most of the bots were coming from datacenters so they had high bandwidth pipe. That community we were fighting with moved to offshore hosting in Malaysia. I've used our whole botnet and started DDOSing, oh man, I didn't know what kind of power we had. Whole country (Malaysia) was cut off the rest of the world for hours. Fun times, some teenager from some place in the world can cut off whole country from internet by executing one command.

<comment><USER7> Did they stop fucking with you after that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> An interesting aspect is how broken the Internet is (those dodgy routers and IP webcams, what other IoT devices can be exploited?), and how critical it actually is, if you can cripple a whole country's economy.

<comment><USER9> It's not really illustrative to call it a "whole country's economy". Liberia has the same population as LA but only one third of one percent of the GDP. So of course it's not going to be able to afford the protections that a typical country can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's a typo in the title; the hacker is known as 'Spdrman', not 'Spiderman'.

</comment><comment><USER11> Yes, this is an example of [https://xkcd.com/386/](https://xkcd.com/386/) so I'm creating an account on HN for the first time.

> The attack against Liberia began in October 2016. More than a half-million > security cameras around the world tried to connect to a handful of servers > used by Lonestar Cell MTN, a local mobile phone operator, and Lonestar's > network was overwhelmed. Internet access for its 1.5 million customers > slowed to a crawl, then stopped.

On a more serious note,this is seriously exaggerated. Internet penetration(mostly mobile broadband) was 21% during this period and was split between LoneStarCell, Cellcom, the govt carrier - Libtelco and smaller ISPs. For a population of 4.5m people, 21% meant each mobile operator had less than 500k Internet subscribers.

The post-apocalyptic description of the impact of the DDoS doesn't fit the feeling in that period ( Nov '16). Friends from outside Liberia reached out (ironically over WhatsApp) to ask whether Liberia's Internet was cut off. I checked and saw international media reporting an Internet shutdown which was even more confusing. After emailing a couple of friends at various ISPs and the regulator, I finally got confirmation that LoneStar was under attack. Apparently, they were keeping it a secret. It did not make national news for another 2 months until the formal complaint and lawsuits were filed. Mobile broadband was very patchy back then so perhaps people just assumed it was the usual state of affairs. Now, we have LTE on both operators and an upcoming pre-5G operator.

Source: I'm from and have been based in Liberia (2015-present) and used to manage services at the national Internet exchange during that period.

National Regulator: [http://www.emansion.gov.lr/doc/CONSULTATION- DOCUMENT.pdf](http://www.emansion.gov.lr/doc/CONSULTATION-DOCUMENT.pdf) Export.Gov: [https://www.export.gov/article?id=Liberia- Telecommunications...](https://www.export.gov/article?id=Liberia- Telecommunications-Services) Twitter Thread: [https://mobile.twitter.com/tksiakor/status/79486360223055872...](https://mobile.twitter.com/tksiakor/status/794863602230558720)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Actually hacker related stuff..

<comment><USER12> I'm going to break out my roller blades and watch Hackers this weekend.

<comment><USER13> Sneakers has a better storyline..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I read some more info on him from Krebs' blog. Here's a Apache tomcat vulnscan script that he wrote when he was around 19 years old:

[https://www.binaryvision.co.il/wp- content/uploads/2011/01/to...](https://www.binaryvision.co.il/wp- content/uploads/2011/01/tomcat-scan.tar.gz)

</comment><comment><USER14> Note that this has nothing to do with the hack of the Spiderman movie documents circa 2015.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Those of you who worked at Facebook/Google, wouldn't he make more money by simply being L5-L8 at one of those firms?

<comment><USER15> For us non-FANG ppl, what does L5-L8 mean? Are those cybersec job role classifications?

<comment><USER16> I think [https://www.levels.fyi/](https://www.levels.fyi/) gives these classifications.</comment></comment></comment>


The Lawless Town Obsessed with Gold - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20161003-the-gold-miners-who-work-for-free <comment><USER2> [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AwMemm8...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AwMemm8sM2wJ:www.bbc.com/travel/story/20161003-the- gold-miners-who-work-for-free+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)</comment>


Gadgets to Play Laser Tag with Your Pet from Work Are Now a Thing (WSJ) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/gadgets-for-playing-with-your-pet-remotely-1455223286 <comment><USER2> Lasers are notoriously bad for dogs. Not sure about cats, but they cause anxiety and OCD from being unable to successfully catch the "prey."</comment>


Show HN: Mogo Chat – open-source team chat app written in Elixir and Ember.js - <AUTHOR> https://getmogochat.com <comment><USER2> There are tons of free apps, with contenders like Kandan ([https://github.com/kandanapp/kandan](https://github.com/kandanapp/kandan)) if you're looking for a self-hosted or free alternative to HipChat/Campfire, you can even find sexy-ish Web clients for IRC ([https://github.com/thedjpetersen/subway](https://github.com/thedjpetersen/subway)).

The problem I see with message apps is that it's like email; you really wished you could host it yourself and fine tune things (as well as make sure nobody is eavesdropping). But you can't have it down or (worse) performing at half capacity. It needs to be up all the time with almost perfect quality.

Sure you can set something up yourself, but you'll probably struggle with maintaining a decent QoS, and if your team is any good, they probably won't allow that to go on very long.

<comment><USER3> Shameless plug, I've also written an app: [https://github.com/sdelements/lets- chat](https://github.com/sdelements/lets-chat)

It looks a little something like this: [http://i.imgur.com/djnd0Uk.png](http://i.imgur.com/djnd0Uk.png)

It's still in it's infancy, currently working on a big update that includes a REST api and other stuff.

<comment><USER2> Why re-inventing the wheel? IRC and XMPP are proven technologies that scale, I wouldn't go and try to build my own messaging technology: there are hard problems like presence and notifications that you don't want to solve yourself.

<comment><USER3> I don't see how these are hard problems. We needed something simple, stateful and easy to work with so we rolled our own thing. It's only a few hundred lines of code and we've extended it to work with LDAP among other things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Someone seems to have broken the demo by typing in some JavaScript. Doesn't seem to be sanitizing input completely.

EDIT: Looks like it's CSS, not JS. In case it helps, here's what I'm seeing [1], and here's the code from the message:

        <style>* { float: left; display: block }</style>

[1] [http://imgur.com/BoZ6lrF](http://imgur.com/BoZ6lrF)

EDIT 2: Yup, style tags don't seem to be escaped. Tried changing colors of the room a few times, and it worked:

        <style>* { color: green; }</style>

EDIT 3: Issue filed here: [https://github.com/HashNuke/mogo- chat/issues/2](https://github.com/HashNuke/mogo-chat/issues/2)

<comment><USER5> This should be a major red flag to anyone.

You don't make an app/website secure by deciding on a list of things you need to sanitise.

You sanitise _everything_ to start with.

A very common rookie error.

<comment><USER6> > You don't make an app/website secure by deciding on a list of things you > need to sanitise.

I agree

> You sanitise everything to start with.

So you need to _list_ everything you need to sanitise...

A better approach is to ban "innerHTML" from your code. You should always display user generated text in text nodes.

<comment><USER5> Just to clarify:

        var t = document.createTextNode(msg);
        content.appendChild(t);

That code sanitises all possible content in msg. I don't need to list out HTML tags, script/style tags, do special case for unicode exploits, etc.

You need to list what variables are "unsafe", but you don't need to list out the ways they might be unsafe. If it's got the potential to be unsafe, assume it's completely unsafe in every conceivable way, and don't use it in any context apart from as an unsafe text string.

The rookie code is something like:

        msg.replace("something I think is unsafe", "something safer");
        content.innerHTML+=msg;

And agreed. InnerHTML should be removed from browsers.

<comment><USER7> Ya, but if they built it so msg='<b>msg</b>' that would remove the bold, no?

So it is a bit more complex than that if they want to enable user markup. [https://code.google.com/p/pagedown/source/browse/Markdown.Sa...](https://code.google.com/p/pagedown/source/browse/Markdown.Sanitizer.js) [https://code.google.com/p/pagedown/wiki/PageDown](https://code.google.com/p/pagedown/wiki/PageDown)

<comment><USER8> I'm not even a front end guy but I'm pretty sure the field they are adding the user message to should handle the style, not the user message.

<comment><USER7> If one uses common choices [e.g. Markdown] that isn't how the parsers are designed.

It is [message] -> [parse] -> [sanitize], generally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It seems that the room message state is synced via a poller, as seen here: [https://github.com/HashNuke/mogo- chat/blob/master/assets/jav...](https://github.com/HashNuke/mogo- chat/blob/master/assets/javascripts/pollers/message_poller.js.coffee)

I'm curious why you decided to implement this with a poller instead of with a Websocket. There's actually a reasonably detailed answer about how to do this sort of thing with Ember Data in the emberjs.com guides: [http://emberjs.com/guides/models/frequently-asked- questions/...](http://emberjs.com/guides/models/frequently-asked- questions/#toc_how-do-i-inform-ember-data-about-new-records-created-on-the- backend)

Either way, how did you find working with Ember Data in general? What were the main sticking points?

<comment><AUTHOR> Here are some problems when using websockets

* Message loss * Latency * Authentication has to be done again over websockets - on every connect and reconnect. That means it is going to make the app resource hungry.

This is my first time with Ember. Experience was pleasant. The codebase is fast-changing, so StackOverflow replies become quickly outdated. You'll have to refer to the CHANGELOG.md file in their repos. And the Ember IRC channel is super-helpful.

<comment><USER10> _Authentication has to be done again over websockets - on every connect and reconnect. That means it is going to make the app resource hungry._

Right, except that WebSockets only connect once in normal operation. You'd be surprised how resource hungry WebSockets _aren 't_ when compared to constant HTTP connections. Waiting 2.5 seconds for messages to arrive to all clients feels a little imperfect.

<comment><AUTHOR> I live in a country where latency for websockets is 300-400ms for most hosting services (US/Europe). And the most common internet connection speed 512kbps.

Websockets disconnects for me frequently. So during reconnection, I'll have to reauth in my case.

<comment><USER10> Well it isn't difficult to detect that case and drop back to polling (which should have the exact same latency anyway). Aiming for lowest common denominator in this stuff seems unwise.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally agree. That's the right way to do it.

MogoChat is right now a one-man project, so supporting websockets and then polling seemed tedious, especially with something like Faye or SocketIO missing in Elixir. Phoenix Framework will soon have a high level abstraction over websockets (with Faye-like features). Once that's in, I'll be able to use it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I am glad to see an Elixir app on HN! Elixir is a great language I have been enjoying messing with in my spare time. It's far below a 1.0 release but its syntax is delightful and it's been a good excuse to get familiar with BEAM and OTP as I know nothing of Erlang.

So quality of the app aside (I haven't looked) everyone should give Elixir a go.

</comment><comment><USER12> Suggestion: Have messages instantly appear in chat (maybe with a loading icon to one side) when uses hit enter/send... then display an error if it fails to reach the server. Not _enter_ ........ _message appears_. It'd make the app feel much more responsive.

</comment><comment><USER13> Isn't every Erlang web tutorial about building a chat app?

Thanks for an example in Elixir, though:)

</comment><comment><USER14> I would like to see a credible open source alternative to Campfire, etc, so this is nice work.

But if it's an Ember app, why don't the different rooms present as different URLs?

<comment><AUTHOR> When URLs change the message pollers also will be destroyed and reinitialized. That would be a problem.

IMHO, chat apps usually push the limits of any frontend framework.

<comment><USER14> That's not true. It's a "single page app" with built in support for both pushState and hash-based URLs, so there's no reason anything needs to reinitialize just to update the URL.

I have written an Ember app that maintains a persistent websocket connection as it transitions around through many URLs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "[TODO: Too tired to complete the docs. If you feel like contributing, please take a look at the routers and send a pull-request.]"

I approve of this kind of API documentation.

</comment><comment><USER16> Out of curiosity, why did you choose Ember? For context, my team is evaluating Angular vs. Ember. Thanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> At first, just to learn Ember. For complex layouts I believe Ember works better. You could use Angular too, but I think you'll need UIRouter or something else along with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is cool, and as a heavy IRC user, I'm eager to find a solution that can replace self-hosted IRSSI+ZNC entirely, without compromising security. Don't reinvent the protocol, reinvent the UI.

<comment><USER18> Why irssi+znc? Why not just run irssi on the box you run znc on (inside screen or tmux)?

<comment><USER19> Because with ZNC it's possible to connect from multiple clients, get the full message backlog on every device, push notifications, iOS/Android apps. You could use an ssh client on your phone and reattach to the screen/tmux session but it's just not that comfortable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is there any documentation on installing this locally (without Heroku)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. You can install locally by following this doc page - [https://github.com/HashNuke/mogo- chat/blob/master/docs/insta...](https://github.com/HashNuke/mogo- chat/blob/master/docs/install-local.md). If you have any questions feel free to send me an email.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I know the advantage here is the open source availability, but ever since my team joined Slack for dev team chat, we haven't looked back. So many integrations. Such awesome.

<comment><USER22> I have a test account on Slack, I really like it....but like so many Saas-only products, we'll never be able to use it here at work behind our firewall, with our protected source code and JIRA databases....

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you're interested in this, you might also check out [https://echoplex.us](https://echoplex.us)

</comment><comment><USER24> That's a lot of AJAX requests. Why not use WebSockets?

</comment><comment><USER25> I'll just stick with IRC, thanks

</comment><comment><USER26> someone already changed the demo account password

<comment><USER27> Perhaps. Although I just tried a fresh install on my own Heroku instance, and the default password is not working there either.

<comment><AUTHOR> Works fine from here. I just tested by deploying an app.

Make sure the last command is run when you copy-paste the commands. That is what creates the admin user and the sample room. firstname.lastname@example.com and password is "password".

Also, I've now disabled editing the account details on the demo app (the password was being changed frequently). So it should be fine from now on.

<comment><USER27> I did follow all the instructions, and was told the admin user was created successfully, but it will not let me log in. The demo is working now though, so thanks for that :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It would take 30 minutes to modify the Node.JS and Socket.IO examples into a usable, IRC-like chat server.

<comment><USER29> Every programmers underestimate complexity. Based on what you think it is easy. But when you look into more details, 30 minutes of work include code highlight, notification, responsive design, etc?</comment></comment>


California utility augments 1,800 air conditioning units with "ice battery" - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/05/ice-batteries-commissioned-by-utility-will-cool-california-businesses/ <comment><USER2> Nothing new. Downtown Denver Colorado has had this for years.

[http://www.denverpost.com/2007/07/06/downtown-buildings- are-...](http://www.denverpost.com/2007/07/06/downtown-buildings-are-on-ice/)</comment>


Spelling Reform -- And The Real Reason It's Impossible - <AUTHOR> http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html

<comment><USER2> A fun essay by an astute, linguistically aware author who has a spicy writing style. Also worth reading from the same site is "Learn _Not_ to Speak Esperanto,"

<http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/>

which punctures many of the inflated claims of supporters of the Esperanto project for a worldwide interlanguage.

The funny essay kindly submitted here rewards readers who read deep into the article with examples like

"Imagine the heartaches / Of diplomatic attaches / When the wind detaches / Their false moustaches"

and many more thought-provoking turns of phrase.</comment>


Show HN: Curated list of tech-related events in Italy - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ildoc/awesome-italy-events <comment><USER2> * [https://2019.rubyday.it/](https://2019.rubyday.it/)

* [https://2019.vueday.it/](https://2019.vueday.it/)

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks! I'm going to add them right now

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Good job! I'm unlucky because I am either not interested on those or interested but too far from my location :(</comment>