Leaked CIA Red Cell memo on USA 'exporting terrorim' - <AUTHOR> http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CIA_Red_Cell_Memorandum_on_United_States_%22exporting_terrorism%22,_2_Feb_2010

<comment><USER2> _Shocking_. Some people who participate in organizations that the United States _recognizes as terrorists_ are United States Citizens. Citizens have helped the Taliban, have helped Islamist attacks in India, and have helped the IRA. So: what if India or the UK decide that we don't care about those people, but instead only the al Qaeda or IRA activities that target US assets?

There, I've summed up the new leak.

Naturally, that's not how WikiLeaks sums it up. They're not bound to the actual text, but rather to the contours of the narrative they're trafficking in; in that narrative, it's not random crazy Islamists or Irish Nationalists joining terrorist causes, but rather the US "exporting" it. In the document, the word "export" occurs only in a quoted label, and is predicated --- ' _if_ the US was _perceived_ as an "exporter of terrorism"' --- because of people's perceptions of random crazy people in a country of 300 million people.

According to the WaPo's last investigation, 850,000 people have some form of "Top Secret" clearance. It's a wonder everything labeled "Top Secret" isn't leaked. This isn't even that; it's "Secret: Don't Circulate To Foreigners" (as it concerns foreign policy and perceptions).

I think the unnamed official speaking to NBC summed this up nicely: 'This is not exactly a blockbuster paper'.

<comment><USER3> Does anyone have a good argument as to why I should take wikileaks any more seriously than, say, the drudge report, or the enquirer? In comparison even BoingBoing seems like a greatly more legitimate unbiased, hard-news organization.

<comment><AUTHOR> With WikiLeaks you get the original documents. Please show me _any_ news organization that provides original source documents for inspection by the public.

Wikileaks deserves some critical commentary, granted. But comparing it to "news organizations" like boingboing just makes it seem like it's falling out of favor with the "internet intelligentsia".

<comment><USER3> Sure, so that makes it possible to tell when their link-bait headlines are "not backed by evidence" (aka full of shit). However, these are confidential sources that nobody has access to and may or may not be confirmed in public. That moves the problem one level of indirection. How do we know if/when wikileaks decides to make things up out of whole cloth? How do we know if/when wikileaks' _sources_ decide to make things up?

The point I think I'm trying to make is this: what value does wikileaks bring to the table that, say, pastebin or dropbox doesn't? Increasingly it's looking like that value is actually _negative_. Which is important to make note of, and disconcerting.

<comment><USER2> I'm possibly the person on HN who is most vocal about their (current) failings, and even I don't think they're just making things up. I do think, however, that it was a calamitous decision for them to start editorializing. It wasn't a small mistake; it's been _devastating_ to their credibility.

Even in a case like this, the subtexts are all wrong. Why is Wikileaks summarizing anything about this release? Why are they playing it up anywhere? Anyone can read it and see that it's not newsworthy (the issue of reciprocity in extradition isn't just years old, it's _decades_ old!). It's not that any of their sources are false; it's instead the issue that who knows what they're _not_ publishing? Surely, nothing that hurts their narrative!

<comment><USER3> Sure, I don't believe they're making things up either, yet. But my point is, how do we know? How can we tell?

Their editorializing makes them much more vulnerable to being gamed by people who _are_ willing to make things up (even CBS had this problem). Again, I'm wondering what the value-add of wikileaks is. The access? That seems very outmoded in today's hyper-connected age.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another big yawn from Wikileaks. This could have been written by any college poly sci student as a B- paper.</comment>


Why I Am Sponsoring PyCodeConf (and what it means to you, hint: cheaper tickets) - <AUTHOR> http://voodootikigod.com/why-i-am-sponsoring-pycodeconf-and-what-it-me

<comment><USER2> I find it hard to swallow the PR this is an "organic conference" and "driven by love for the community" with a normal ticket price of $600. Even at the $300 cost this is more than the cost of PyCon. I followed the pre-hype and looked forward to this, that was until I saw the price tag. Maybe if they offered $300 up front and not $600.

If you want an example of a real organic conference, for the love of the community, check out PyTexas. This is a FREE conference this weekend.

If you live in TX/OK/LA, try to make it to College Station for a great a little conference. Well, it started out little. I think there are over 200 people already registered.

<http://www.pytexas.org/2011/>

<comment><USER3> PyCon is a really, really amazing deal. But don't let it set the bar unrealistically high. $600 is still very much on the low end of midsize to large conference. O'Reilly's Strata later this month is over $2000, for instance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Do want to go but not sure how I can justify it as a business expense. PyCodeConf's home page makes it look more like a party/gtg than a traditional conference, which is great, but not what the accountant is looking for.

<comment><USER5> Try giving the accountant the sponsorship brochure, it retains the graphic design with a lot more "business focused" reasons for attending. <http://pycodeconf.s3.amazonaws.com/PyCodeConf2011Sponsor.pdf></comment></comment>


Snap's Secret Weapon Speaks - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90382260/snaps-secret-weapon-speaks <comment><USER2> A paraphrase of the html title might be better than the current submission title, e.g.

An interview with Bobby Murphy, cofounder of Snap

</comment><comment><USER3> "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads, or automatically put pizza gifs on top of photos of pizzas"

<comment><USER4> I see that premise repeated ad nauseum.

So the best minds of their generation aren't working on CRISPR? Immunotherapy and gene therapy? Who are the engineers and scientists that work at Illumina and Intuitive Surgical? Working at SpaceX or Blue Origin? Who were all those relatively young people I saw cheering when the Falcon Heavy lifted off for the first time? Right.

Who are all the engineers working on 397 other uses for AI not related to ads? How about the thousands of engineers working on autonomous driving tech just in the US? We have 40,000 people dying every year in driving accidents. So those aren't the best minds, it's the people working on pizza gifs.

How about the scientists working on ways to replace our current approach to raising livestock & consuming meat?

How about the people working at TerraPower or on improving wind tech? The thousands of scientists & engineers working on improving battery tech just in the US?

How about vertical & autonomous farming?

The tens of thousands of engineers working on building out countless valuable cloud services that boost productivity or simplify technology for consumers and businesses? Those aren't the best minds - working on building out and realizing trillions of dollars in new business value and productivity gains - no, you see, it's the pizza gif people; it's not the engineers that have tripled the value of Adobe by bringing its most important products to the cloud in a wildly successful fashion and expanding how many people can easily use their products globally.

How about the thousands of engineers and scientists working in the increasingly vast field of robotics? Whether consumer, business general or industrial.

The people that work at Apple or Samsung or Applied Materials or TI or Taiwan Semi on semiconductor tech? The people that work at ARM or nVidia or Intel or AMD? Those aren't the best minds, it's the pizza gif people.

I call bullshit on the notion that the best minds are working on pizza gifs and ad clicks. I don't believe it's even close to being true; I think it's closer to being a comical overstatement that should be mocked aggressively.

I've thought about this a few times over the years, because it's a common premise. Here's what I propose instead: the premise, which is widely repeated, is actually a form of narcissism and undue self-aggrandizement. With some healthy skepticism and given the very large counter examples available to us (only a few of which I've mentioned), one might be prompted to question the 'best minds' premise entirely, because it seems to be non-sense right on the surface (and it is). Here's what I think is actually the case: the so called pizza gif people are more likely not the best minds of their generation, and they're simultaneously also not working on anything very important. You see, if, as a group, they subtly trumpet the premise that they're the best minds of their generation and they're merely collectively squandering their potential on pizza gifs, that's a far better comfort than the counter premise that I just floated (they're not the best minds of their generation and they're not working on anything important; ouch).

<comment><USER5> Adtech pays better than every single thing you're talking about here, except for the instances where you talk about adtech players like Apple. Your whataboutism doesn't change the basic premise, which is that adtech comes with stronger incentives than other fields. Of the much-vaunted FAANG companies, only Netflix doesn't run its own adtech platform (they stuck with good old- fashioned product placement).

What you've done is read too much into an aphorism that is phrased in reference to a well-known poem. It's implied to focus on the information technology sector because it was originally said by a Facebook engineer and quoted in an article about tech bubbles. It's a concise way of expressing disagreement with the priorities of our industry, and nothing more than that.

<comment><USER4> > Adtech pays better than every single thing you're talking about here

Which doesn't matter at all in regards to attracting the best minds. That's an entirely bogus premise. What you're stating is core to what leads people to incorrectly conclude the best minds must surely be working on ad clicks. It's the difference between attracting highly accomplished, top 5% minds (great income, went to a top school, great education results; surely must be among the best minds; but isn't), and attracting the actual best minds.

Conceptually if you were right, someone like Feng Zhang would have been working for Google or Facebook on ad clicks, rather than at Broad on changing the world of biotech via CRISPR. JB Straubel would have been at Twitter trying to figure out how to improve their ad system. Craig Venter would have been starting an ad network instead of cracking the human genome at Celera. Rodney Brooks would be working on mobile ads instead of robotics. Gwynne Shotwell would be running some ad division within Snap or Google. And so on.

The best minds are more often capable of both making enough money and pursuing what they want to do - pursing what they're most interested in. Many of them throughout history have chosen to nearly entirely neglect the money aspect in fact. Maximizing for money (and not life satisfaction) via eg working in adtech, is precisely what a best mind would not commonly do, and exactly what a highly accomplished top 5% type mind would do (something you see routinely, eg the mid or mid-upper management corporate types; highly accomplished, top schools, high incomes; also not the best minds).

> Your whataboutism doesn't change the basic premise, which is that adtech > comes with stronger incentives than other fields

Please point out the whataboutism in what I said. I've pointed out an obvious flaw in the common claim about what the best minds are focused on.

> What you've done is read too much into an aphorism that is phrased in > reference to a well-known poem.

I disagree. It's floated persistently and has been for many years as a serious generalized statement - a lament - about what the best minds are working on (ad clicks, not flying cars).

<comment><USER5> > Which doesn't matter at all in regards to attracting the best minds.

The idea that genius is unaffected by money is wonderfully principled but completely indefensible, especially since all of your examples gained significant material wealth in the process of winning your approval. Again I'll note your apparent unwillingness to factor in the context of the quote, which specifically is from and about the information technology sector anyway. Finally your anecdotal approach to demonstrating via example suffers from a massive contamination by confirmation bias -- e.g. for all you know the finest minds ARE working on adtech, but nobody's made a Wikipedia page about the fineness of their minds. In other words, your argument restricts itself to the set of people who employ public relations staff.

> Please point out the whataboutism in what I said.

Your entire post was whataboutism. I don't know how to teach you to see that. I apologize.

> It's floated persistently and has been for many years as a serious > generalized statement - a lament - about what the best minds are working on > (ad clicks, not flying cars).

It is a lament, and taken in its original context if you please, you might even notice it's true. A "ha ha only serious" joke in computer science research goes something like "if you want to get funding, look at what the field was researching twenty years ago, and put that in a grant proposal." Progress in the fundamentals of computer science has slowed to a crawl, and the incentives appear to be set to ensure the status remains firmly quo for some time to come.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What a puff piece. Obviously paid for by Snapchat, with every single image in the article coming from them and the interviewer lobbing softball after softball.

<comment><USER7> > What a puff piece

Absolutely

> Obviously paid for

That's not obvious at all, in fact you're making a pretty severe ethical accusation against specific people and it's almost certainly untrue.

I wish people could understand the difference.

<comment><USER8> Aww thats so adorable, he thinks journalists write this crap. When the PR firm writes the piece, fast company gets free content. It's a win win, that's how these things work.

I have no evidence for this specific case, but assuming this until proven otherwise isn't a bad default strategy.

<comment><USER7> I have extensive experience in journalism and media, what you're saying is just factually incorrect.

Business publications like FastCompany run uncritical puff pieces all the time. There's similar content in in-flight magazines, on many blogs, on various TV profile segments and much more. You're free to decide if you enjoy reading light, superficial, and purposefully positive stuff like that. Often the writers and the subjects of the writing run in the same circles, are even friendly. The content is often predictable and boring.

I'm not a huge fan of the genre either.

But it's still journalism. There's a difference between paid placements and journalism and it's a distinction I believe is important.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't know this secret weapon, but from people I know at Snap, I've heard it suggested they succeeded in spite of him and the CEO.

</comment><comment><USER10> Another website that is broken on Firefox.

<comment><USER11> I'm on Firefox 69 beta. It worked fine for me. And Reader View works too.</comment></comment>


Solved: The 47-Year Mystery of a Murder Victim's Many Identities - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/nyregion/unsolved-harlem-murder.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news <comment><USER2> Well, identified anyway. Murder still not solved.</comment>


Big tech's quest for human-level A.I - <AUTHOR> https://fortune.com/longform/ai-artificial-intelligence-big-tech-microsoft-alphabet-openai <comment><USER2> I wish they'd knock it off with the grandiose headlines. I make my living with what passes for AI nowadays, and I can say with complete certainty that we will not be achieving anything anywhere close to general AI in my lifetime. I'd be willing to bet serious money on that, too, if there were a way for me to collect.

Literally nobody is working on human-level AI. There are no papers, no conferences, nothing. And yet, we see these headlines with persistence deserving of a better cause.

<comment><USER3> > Literally nobody is working on human-level AI.

As a concrete project? True. As a long term vision? False.

OpenAI and MIRI were explicitly founded with AGI doomsday scenarios in mind and how to do fundamental AI research to avert those by making sure that when we reach human level AI _eventually_ that it'll be safe. The blue brain project exists too.

Of course nobody will say that they'll have a timeline or even a concrete plan build an AGI in the same way that nobody will say they have a cure for cancer or HIV today or tomorrow even though the hope behind research is to have effective cures one day.

> I make my living with what passes for AI nowaday

Many practical applications are not exactly bleeding edge research or even applications of the latest research results. Perceptrons are from the 50s and still have applications today, AMD's branch predictor uses them for example. That doesn't negate the fact that the field advances.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://archive.md/VSgOL](http://archive.md/VSgOL)

<comment><USER5> Thank you!</comment></comment>


The Scientific Truth About Planet Nine, So Far - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/05/09/the-scientific-truth-about-planet-nine-so-far <comment><USER2> Wow, really really aggressive land page if you have an AdBlock...</comment>


'Eye-Phone': Surgeons' tool - <AUTHOR> http://zumbeel.net/beta/news/details.php?rev_param=6970

<comment><USER2> _these images are transmitted through broadband to eye surgeons who are located hundreds of thousands of miles away._

That's gonna be a hell of a phone bill.</comment>


Facebook No Longer Home to Teens - <AUTHOR> http://beta.fool.com/maholder/2013/04/23/facebook-no-longer-home-to-teens/32008/

<comment><USER2> The adoption of commodity apps is now completely driven by fashion. There's no "best" photo sharing or video sharing App - what you use (snapchat vs. instagram vs. facebook vs. flicker vs. 500px...) is completely dependent on your sense of taste, and how the App is perceived by your peers and in the culture.

There is no "best" social network in the same sense that there's no "best" pair of jeans for everyone.</comment>


#ifihadglass I would jailbreak it and modify the software - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/saurik/status/327856986278477824 <comment> guard-of-terra Why would I even need a device that is supposed to become part of my mind but that I _don't_ have root on?

Come on.

UPD: I already have my mind where I don't have "root" on. It's kind of a black box. And it is counterproductive.

<comment><USER2> Someone start working on a psychotropic that takes back control from the amygdala and call it "su".

<comment><USER3> ... And gives it to what? My prefrontal cortex volunteers, but it's always so pushy.

<comment><USER4> My Broca's and Wernicke's areas often go on and on about how good a job they would do with sudo privileges. And they say their arguments are well formed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's quite depressing that such a peripheral would need to be jailbroken in the first place.

Computers got to where they are because they were hackable, not because they were locked up.

<comment><USER6> There is no need to 'jailbreak' it. It's built with the same idea as the Nexus phones. It isn't 'fastboot unlock' but Glass has a specific command in adb to unlock, so you can root it. Takes less than a minute, no need for exploits.

Tim Bray says, "Yes, Glass is hackable. Duh."

<comment><USER7> Apparently the previous person to provide your overall commentary got downvoted enough that you likely don't see my response anymore, so I will respond more directly here (making this reply sadly somewhat repetitive: I'm sorry).

First, it actually does have fastboot oem unlock, and no: there is no "specific command in adb" to unlock it; the command you are seeing people post reboots the device unto the bootloader, which can then be used with fastboot oem unlock.

However, that isn't helpful; in fact, I had to use an exploit (not one I came up with: a known one that affects all Android 4.0/4.1 devices) to accomplish this. (So, my device actually still has a locked bootloader ;P.)

In order to go from "unlocked bootloader" to "root" you need a new image to flash. The most common way to get this is to dump the kernel from the device (as you know that that works), but guess what: you can't, as that requires root.

The alternatives are either to have a stock image from the manufacturer that you can extract a working kernel from (something Google did not provide for the Glass, at least yet) or to build your own from the Linux source code.

Building your own kernel is, of course, possible, however it is quite irritating, and there is no guarantee the result will work as there might be binary blobs in loadable modules that you need, or other irritating hardware checks.

You also need a good feel for what hardware the device has for this to be an option, and Google disabled access to /proc/config, which makes the process of building a vaguely compatible kernel all the more like guess-and-check.

So no, it isn't at all clear to me that it is so obvious that you can go from nothing to "modified software" on the Google Glass. I'd like to see Tim Bray explain how _he'd_ easily go about hacking on the thing ;P.

This is _especially_ the case as the Glass Guide (the fancy term for the Google Glass sales person) who gave me the glass (I chose the option to go to Google HQ to pick it up in person) seriously told me that the debug mode feature (which gives you adb shell) is something that he thought they removed from the units they were distributing. (I guess I was the first person to find it during the at-Google demo and then ask what it would let me do ;P.)

<comment><USER8> _Google disabled access to /proc/config, which makes the process of building a vaguely compatible kernel all the more like guess-and-check._

Is there really no .config in their GPL release? AFAIK compile-time config is a GPLv2 requirement as part of the "scripts used to control compilation" (Gpl- Violations FAQ specifically mentions Linux .config files.) I'd hope there's either a .config or a defconfig that applies to Glass as-shipped.

(NB: I don't mean to dispute your overall point by this, just wondering.)

<comment><USER9> I haven't looked but I think you'd find the config file be in their kernel source under arch/arm/configs/.

<comment><USER10> it's the default config for the notle board, so you want "make notle_defconfig"

<comment><USER7> (For historical clarity, in the code that was released after these comments were posted.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Google Glass runs Android 4.0.4, which is subject to the adb restore race condition; com.google.glass.logging fits the needed configuration.

<https://twitter.com/saurik/status/327857009754001408>

<comment><USER6> Or you can just use adb to unlock it. It's built right in. It's not 'fastboot unlock' but it's an actual adb command on Glass, specifically to unlock it so you can root it.

No need to try and find a back door. As Tim Bray put it, "Yes, Glass is hackable. Duh."

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I believe that demand will exist for software that requires jail breaking, and hardware that interfaces with Glass's standard inputs.

Think of high-income professionals who can make $xx,xxx more per year by face- identifying people in the street and knowing their job and income. I don't believe Google's API supports this, and there are bounds of examples I'm sure.

</comment><comment><USER13> Wait, isn't this a public declaration of breaking some law or other? A few years ago I'd be impressed but not worried. Now? I'm impressed and worried.

<comment><USER14> <Honestly curious> What US/California law is this breaking? </Honestly curious>

<comment><USER15> The DMCA provisions for circumventing an access control measure. Cell phone unlocking had an exemption before, but are restricted again.

<comment><USER14> It isn't immediately obvious to me that DMCA applies to jailbreaking a device; has it been confirmed to apply? I understand it applies to breaking access control measures on copyrighted materials but it seems to be a stretch to apply it to jailbreaking in general.

<comment><USER16> Some of the code on the device is no doubt a copyrighted work, eg the main Glass APK and such. You can't dump some parts of Android without being root, and getting root would count as circumvention.

I'm sure they wouldn't pursue it... but it's shitty enough that they could.

<comment><USER17> But the measures that jailbreaking circumvents aren't intended to function as copy protection - they're doing something else entirely.

And even if those measures are protecting copyright in addition to locking down the device, has any court ever ruled on whether circumventing those measures without intending to breach copyright is a violation?

If a car manufacturer decided to lock the hoods of the cars they sell so that only authorized mechanics could access the engine, could they use the DMCA to outlaw users from circumventing the hood-locks on their own cars merely by printing some copyrighted text on the inside of the hood, and call it a copy- protection measure?

<comment><USER16> There was the DeCSS case, other than Sony's autorun CDs I think that would be the most trivial "DRM" but was still ruled a violation to circumvent.

Auto manufacturers, along with printer manufacturers, are already using IP in the on board diagnostics and printer cartridges to claim copyright violations when people adjust or replace parts "without authorisation."

<comment><USER17> Because the CSS code _was_ there for the purpose of preventing unauthorized duplication of content, not to restrict people's ability to control the functioning of their DVD players.

Regarding printer cartridges, there have already been court rulings [1] that have determined that "jailbreaking" them _isn't_ a violation of the DMCA, making the distinction specifically on the basis of whether the the element of the product being protected is "creative" or "functional". So we already know from case law that the DMCA doesn't actually prohibit people from circumventing functional lock-outs.

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int%27l_v._Static_Contr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_Int%27l_v._Static_Control_Components)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Last night me and my buddy were talking about the future of personal transportation and how when cars (or helicopters) start flying themselves people will resort to jailbreaking them to take back control.

<comment><USER19> ...why? Having _control_ of the car requires _paying attention_ to the car and surroundings. I'd rather be able to ignore all that and have more time for reading (whether educational or entertainment) and such.

<comment><USER20> Some people actually enjoy driving/flying.

That said, in order to get the true efficiency of computer controlled vehicles, it really helps to have them all computer controlled.

<comment><USER21> I don't believe that anyone truly enjoys driving. If that were the case I could say "I need a ride to North Dakota" and someone would totally be like "yeah I love driving, hop in!"

That never happens. People that love surfing will surf at every opportunity you give them, people that love eating will eat nearly anything you put in front of them. People that love driving.....well I need a ride to North Dakota.

<comment><USER22> Some people enjoy driving _in certain situations_. Few people get much enjoyment out of guiding a car down the interstate; it's boring, but breaking concentration can be rapidly fatal. No, I won't drive you to North Dakota.

Many people enjoy driving a sports car down a mountain road with light/no traffic though. If you wanted me to drive you from Flagstaff to Sedona[0] in a Mazda Miata, I'd do it happily, over and over. I would rather do that myself than let a computer do it, even if the computer can do it safer and faster.

[0] [https://maps.google.com/maps?q=flagstaff+to+sedona&saddr...](https://maps.google.com/maps?q=flagstaff+to+sedona&saddr=flagstaff&daddr=sedona&hl=en&ll=34.998785,-111.694565&spn=0.284612,0.41851&sll=30.34499,-81.683107&sspn=1.199363,1.674042&geocode=FUghGQIdL4VY- SkxJi7a944thzEAs9vOoTwfjg%3BFewRFAIdoqlW-SkNsEL5MqEthzH9jmz6I8VIVQ&t=h&z=12)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> #healreadyhasglass

<comment><USER24> They should start using #asihaveglass or #wellnowihaveglass

<comment><USER7> (;P I did feel that was somewhat awkward, but I felt I satisfied the grammar with the rest of my post.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder if one day it will be mandatory to wear some descendant of this device in order to receive government bulletins, and if the jailbreakers become some underground citizens rebellion against the corporate borg in Google, which ironically still goes by the now-sinister mantra "don't be evil".

<comment><USER26> I'd be okay with this being mandatory in some sense to our future descendants, after it becomes uniquitous enough that it's only the lone straggler who _doesn't_ have one.

Not for government bulletins, though--for instant-vote referrendums :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Accessing root on a device by using the built-in debug mode counts as "jailbreaking" now?

<comment><USER28> Really, dude? You're going to sass _saurik_ on the subject of jailbreaking? Know your history.

<comment><USER29> HN: where _everyone_ is an expert. A vile, condescending, hate-filled expert.

<comment><USER30> Yeah, like you know anything about HN.

<comment><USER31> Genius level trolling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Sometimes, I love you saurik.

Just this time...try not to capitalize too much on the whole thing ;)

</comment><comment><USER33> Jailbreaking isn't quite as fun when it's a matter of

> reboot-bootloader

> fastbook oem unlock

<comment><USER7> That lets you flash the device, it doesn't give you root. To get root from that you need to make a bootable image, which requires a compatible kernel, which you normally pull off the device _as root_. Thankfully, there is a race condition in the backup/restore mechanism that lets you do a symlink traversal to unlock root adb (by modifying /data/local.prop).

(To be clear, though, this was a known exploit: it is normally done to the Android Settings application, which isn't present on the Glass, but it turns out that the Glass Logging service also has the right prerequisites to pull off the attack, so I adapted the restore payload. The tweet I posted right after this one made it clear what exploit I was using against what installed package.)

<comment><USER33> I stand corrected.

Thanks for the explanation. Your next tweet was too cryptic for me to understand so I didn't realize you were explaining your jailbreak method.

If I'm understanding you right though, this technique sounds fairly universal. Does it affect any android device with an unlockable bootloader? Just devices running a newer version of the adb daemon?

<comment><USER7> This exploit seems to affect almost every device running Android 4+ (I am not certain about lower ones: all of the comments I've seen about the exploit talk about 4.0/4.1, but it might be because 2.3 already had a pretty universal root: GingerBreak). The person who wrote the most common implementation is B1nary (but I don't think he came up with the exploit either; it wasn't clear if the people he credited as having helped him did either... so I just cited the exploit itself as that seemed sufficient), which may help you find the XDA developers thread (which, as is usual, doesn't explain the exploit, it just provides a wad of shell scripts you can download from a few random filelockers ;P).

The exploit requires not just something in adb: it requires the device have the package for the backup service (I guess some don't, so B1nary's implementation tries to work around this as the most common alternative actually had a similar bug) and that there be a system package installed that 1) is not marked allowBackup="false" and 2) is marked with sharedUserId="android.uid.system". The normal Android Settings app has these properties, as does the Glass Logging service. It is thereby a trivial thing to mitigate, even without any extensive code changes: these packages don't need to be backed up anyway (backing up Settings, for example, results in an empty file... it has no data of its own, so it has no reason to avoid allowBackup"false").

The way it then works is that the backup service, in order to extract files with the right permissions, does a setuid to the owner of the package being restored (in this case that is root, so it continues to be root). It then extracts the restore image (which is a compressed tar file with a special header) to the package's data directory, and as it does so it honors the access flags of the files and directories. You then make a world-writable directory with numerous very large files, which slows down the process. As it extracts the files, you use adb shell access to add a symlink from a file in that folder to /data/local.prop. You have that file in the backup contain a /data/local.prop that forces adb to give you root access.

(Note: with those modifications, which typically includes telling the system you are running in the qemu debugger, Glass actually doesn't work correctly due to an assumption it makes that Bluetooth will work, which the qemu debugger I guess doesn't normally support. However, it is then easy to drop a copy of su, mark it setuid, delete the local.prop, and reboot to a system that is now pristine except for the one modification of setuid su.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Except it's not called jailbreaking on an Android device.

</comment><comment><USER35> saurik: doing god's work!</comment>


Global Demand for Bitcoin Shifts Wildly in Response to Regulation - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-bitcoin-volume/ <comment><USER2> At this point everyone remotely interested in blockchain should buy $1-5k of bitcoin and hold it forever. Much better odds than a roulette table, and decent chance it's worth 100x by the time you retire. Or you lose it all. But if you are a rich HN tech nerd then what do you care anyway?

<comment><USER3> My 70 year old, cant-even-use-a-Mac uncle wants in! I don't know what to tell him, paper wallet in a vault? How does a guy who can't even use an iPad buy bitcoins?!

<comment><USER4> Find a Bitcoin ATM. [https://coinatmradar.com](https://coinatmradar.com)

My friend who is all over Bitcoin, yet is technology inept, used one of these

<comment><USER3> Smart, this is going to appeal to him, thanks. Thanks as well to the others who offered lots of good advice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bitcoin seems like the latest in a long-line of "investments" whose primary appeal is/was past price increases.

<comment><USER6> Is the price increasing, or are their fiat currencies worth less? Hyperinflation is real, bank runs are real, and Bitcoin never fails an audit.

<comment><USER7> > Hyperinflation is real

For all practical purposes, it really isn't. Hyperinflation is a boogeyman used by deficit hawks and Bitcoin supporters to scare people into supporting their way of thinking without providing real arguments.

Think about it: people talk as though hyperinflation is always just around the corner, waiting to pounce at the slightest misstep. But in the last century, through all the ups and downs of the economic cycle, amounting to thousands of "country-years", how many instances of hyperinflation (other than countries totally destroyed by war) have there been? The answer is: three. Weimar Germany, Zimbabwe, and Yugoslavia. Don't you think it would be more frequent if it was really such a serious threat?

And none of those three examples are even really relevant. Germany's hyperinflation happened when we had a pre-modern grasp of monetary theory, and Zanzibar and Yugoslavia were both ruled by ignorant despots. I'm just gonna come out and say it: in a modern country with even a marginally competent central bank (which we have, whether you want to admit it or not), hyperinflation cannot happen; it is a myth.

> bank runs are real

Have there been any bank runs in the developed world in the last half-century where people actually lost their deposits? Again, a government with even the minimum amount of competence to institute deposit insurance makes it not an issue.

> Bitcoin never fails an audit

Only for a uselessly narrow definition of "Bitcoin". The protocol itself, sure, but for almost every company that actually does business in Bitcoin, it's a different story. Every Bitcoin exchange either has gone bust or will, most Bitcoin mining companies are scams that only ship once the difficulty has increased to the point where the hardware is no longer useful, etc.

<comment><USER6> The US Dollar lost half its value in my short lifetime. Most other currencies have done worse. At a time when the US Dollar is falling in significance as a global reserve currency, and a central bank holding ~$4.5 trillion in assets, you have no doubts?

I understand SHA-256 and ECC; they are easy to trust and more trustworthy than authority. Bitcoin is the most simple thing that could possibly work; and it meets "worse is better" criteria.

What backs FDIC insurance? A haircut, or printed money?

<comment><USER7> > The US Dollar lost half its value in my short lifetime. Most other > currencies have done worse.

You are describing ordinary inflation, and using the word "hyperinflation" to make it sound scarier than it is. That is FUD. And "lost half its value" completely ignores the fact that nominal wages have increased at the same time. Please don't use this first-grade nonsense on Hacker News, you're talking to intelligent people here.

> At a time when the US Dollar is falling in significance as a global reserve > currency, and a central bank holding ~$4.5 trillion in assets, you have no > doubts?

The US dollar is falling in significance as a global reserve currency, being replaced by... the fiat currencies of other nations. How does this prove the ascendancy of Bitcoin?

> I understand SHA-256 and ECC; they are easy to trust and more trustworthy > than authority.

You did not read my previous post. Bitcoin itself it perfectly fine, but it is too low-level to use for most practical transactions, you need to build layers of abstraction (futures, exchanges, wallets) on top of it. These are mostly run by companies that are either extremely shady, have terrible security, or both.

> What backs FDIC insurance? A haircut, or printed money?

A large insurance fund paid for by bank taxes, as even a few minutes of research would tell you.

There are good arguments in favor of Bitcoin, but I want you to understand that when its defenders routinely trot out the same easily-disproven cookie- cutter arguments repeated on autopilot, it becomes very easy for people not to take you seriously.

<comment><USER6> There is no such thing as a free lunch. FDIC insurance can and will fail in the largest bank run ever.

Banking is a Prisoner's Dilemma, because the first ones to escape get their cash, the middle ones deal with insurance, and the last ones lose everything.

Use always-audited Bitcoin. Readers here have an advantage of being able to understand the underlying technology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The FOMO of Bitcoin is unbelievable :(

<comment><USER9> If it reaches $1 trillion, what happens? $10 trillion? If it turns out everyone moves all their money over to Bitcoin because they're afraid of their fiat currency becoming worthless, how is that going to be a good thing?

Inflation of the dollar will skyrocket and anyone who wasn't holding bitcoin is going to get fucked. How is this going to end well?

Even for the bitcoin holders. If the economy is fucked from inflation and a car costs 50 bitcoins or $50 million of Fiat dollars... that's not going to be a good time for anyone.

<comment><USER6> The Bitcoin price will asymptotically approach its maximum - and the last people onboard will see the least amount of deflation.

It's certainly better money, and will have a lower monetary inflation rate than any other national currency by 2024.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is hardly an earth-shattering revelation. Global demand for anything can shift widely based on regulation. If China were to outlaw coal, guess what would happen to demand for coal.

</comment><comment><USER6> You know Bitcoin is worth it when so much cash is being dumped in Russia, India, and Eglin AFB to faction the community. The legacy powers are being turned over.

<comment><USER4> Lol what? All the people I know invested their hard earned(illicit) savings into specifically Bitcoin.

They were also part of influential group pumping bitcoins, and before that were in the penny/pink stocks pump and dump schemes.

Alot of them cashed out of Bitcoin forshadowing the potential demise as per meetings in china regarding its future in the country.

Alot of them have moved on to next popular coins to move their funds, and avoid taxes transfering money out of china</comment></comment>


New Relic files S-1 for IPO - <AUTHOR> http://newrelic.com/press-release/20141110 <comment><USER3> Sales and marketing are roughly 1-to-1 with revenue growth, and the spent over $100m in 2014 to make $63m in revenue. I don't find these metrics particularly encouraging. Now this is a SaaS business where you're betting on LTV - <USER2> these metrics are tough imho.

<comment><USER4> While I agree regarding the revenue growth, as someone who uses the service heavily in production, there is significant lock-in and the product is great value. If they continue to innovate this could be a good bet (one i will consider making personally)

<comment><USER3> What's the lock-in? Are you saving the data?

<comment><USER4> I just find its one of those products that the more you use it the more you simply cannot live without it. I could see someone copying the product, but personally I'd probably continue with New Relic unless the price difference was significant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Link to actual S-1 document: [http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1448056/0001193125144...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1448056/000119312514406260/d709327ds1.htm)

<comment><USER6> The consistency of their gross profit (around ~80%) is very impressive.

<comment><USER7> It's a software company. Since there's virtually zero cost of goods, you expect a high margin.

They are burning a large amount of cash on sales/marketing. Presumably this is forward looking, so it's probably not a big deal (ie upfront costs to get long, multi-year contracts).

<comment><USER8> $37M in sales/marketing to generate $47M in revenue in first 6 months of 2014. Are there metrics for Sales and Marketing expenses for a SAAS company that could be used for comparison? Seems pretty high, but maybe ok for a fast growing startup.

<comment><USER9> You can take a look at "Insight Ventures Periodic Tables of SaaS Sales and Marketing Metrics" [1].

\- [1] [http://kellblog.com/2014/01/21/insight-ventures-periodic- tab...](http://kellblog.com/2014/01/21/insight-ventures-periodic-tables-of- saas-sales-and-marketing-metrics/)

<comment> bjelkeman-again Thanks! That was really useful. It had several layers of depth that I can spend quite some time on digesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Two impressive things: Founder still owns more % than any investor (27.3%) and his Directors & VPs (12 people) together own 68.3% !

<comment><USER11> Their April round of $100M with a valuation of $1+B so figure that post money on the IPO they will be $1.5 - $2B making 13 new multi-millionaires in the San Francisco and probably take 13 houses off the market[2].

And the roughly 6,000 people in their networks will say "Man I could have been doing that gig, only a matter of time until I find the one that makes me rich!" and the circle continues.

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/28/cloud-app-monitoring- compan...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/28/cloud-app-monitoring-company-new- relic-raises-100m/)

[2] One allowed exemption for insider selling without filing with the SEC is certain types of mortgage expense. (which I think is still intact post STOCK act but I'm not sure so don't trade on that before checking with legal counsel)

<comment><USER12> Those Directors/VPs/Founder were likely already pulling a decent salary (as execs in any industry do). They could likely afford an apartment in the city, so it should be a zero sum transaction for housing (12 houses might be purchased and 12 lower cost housing options - relatively - will come on the market).

Housing prices in SF will be unaffected by this. The issues are much more nuanced (and mostly regulatory). This trope of "Post-IPO tech people are ruining the housing market" isn't helping anyone, and might serve to confuse some people unfamiliar with the actual housing market issues in SF.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> LTV. That's the key. With interest rates this low, you can pretty much justify any sales and marketing expense so long as customer attrition is low.

If New Relic has a USP (I am not qualified to weigh in on this), then I think they can go public and reward their investors with at least a market level return.

<comment><USER14> They occupy a niche that Google has a hard time making work for them (too complex) and Adobe so far doesn't really shine there either. Cue a takeover by one of these two at some point in the future.

<comment><USER15> What they provide is something that would make sense in Analytics. So who knows, maybe some day Google will annound Customer Analytics as a part of Google Analytics... For free!

It's not like they would be starting from scratch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> And that makes founder Lew Cirne 2 for 2 with Wily (acquired by CA) and now New Relic. Not too shabby.

<comment><USER17> Founder Lew Cirne still owns 27.3% of the company (wow!). More than any investor or other shareholder. He raised $200M+ and took little dilution. Awesome to see a repeat entrepreneur who knows what he's doing when fundraising.

<comment><USER18> The Founder's Dilemna's had a good writeup on him. He knows what he's doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I bet NewRelic spent at least $1m on T-Shirts & RC Helicopters

</comment><comment><USER20> Looks like they have a run rate of over $100M (25M in subscription revenue last quarter) -- seems like they spent $100M to get to $100M+ in run rate - typical saas model in early days

</comment><comment><USER21> Keep an eye on New Relic. Not only are they emerging as a really dominant player in the APM space, but their heading into a very interesting space with the evolution of their Insights platform. My $20 is they will push hard into the BI and analytics space and could end up competing with Omniture and similar players (successfully I think). This is a strong company with big dreams and a good long term vision.

</comment><comment><USER22> Is it just me or do those numbers look really bad for a software company.

They spend as much on General Administrative as they do on R&D and they spend 3.6x , more on marketing and sales then they do on R&D.

<comment><USER23> Enterprise software companies spend a very small amount on R&D. Usually < 15%: [http://www.zdnet.com/r-and-d-spend-critical-but-no-fixed- for...](http://www.zdnet.com/r-and-d-spend-critical-but-no-fixed- formula-2062304479/)

<comment><USER22> I didn't really think of New Relic as "Enterprise Software". They are a SaaS Company. Most of the reason enterprise software has so little R&D is because they spend all their resources customizing deployments for enterprise customers.

<comment><USER24> i think enterprise and SaaS are orthogonal descriptions. new relic is definitely enterprise - as opposed to consumer (ala, dropbox). That their product is a SaaS offering doesn't really make any difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Now I see the rush for New Relic to acquire Ducksboard. Should be good for the team, since they apparently took a large amount of shares through the acquisition.

<comment><USER25> 100k shares at $17 estimated value, it is 1.7MM. Together with 2.3MM in cash, at 4MM it is not really a "exit" but more of an acquihire. There seems to be a performance-based additional 2MM, but still fairly small.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Hmmm... wow I lost my bet that GitHub would have been the first of the hipster Ruby on Rails companies to IPO. Though, I'm still betting they will be next. New Relic is a great company that makes it very easy to keep on top of your application servers. I look forward to this infusion of cash taking them to the next level. Congrats team and good luck with the process!

<comment><USER27> What exactly is a "hipster Ruby on Rails company"? For better than half their life (founded in 2008, mentioned they made the switch in this 2011 article: [http://highscalability.com/blog/2011/7/18/new-relic- architec...](http://highscalability.com/blog/2011/7/18/new-relic-architecture- collecting-20-billion-metrics-a-day.html)) the piece that collects data was ported to Java. Also, I'd think Twitter was far more hipster. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think it's a great company but their risk factors section in their filing is fairly alarming:

\- We have a history of losses and we expect our revenue growth rate to decline. As our costs increase, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to achieve and sustain profitability.

\- These investments may not result in increased revenue or growth of our business. We also _expect that our revenue growth rate will decline over time_. Accordingly, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to offset our expected cost increases and to achieve and sustain profitability. If we fail to achieve and sustain profitability, our operating results and business would be harmed.

<comment><USER29> Are there any filings that don't state such risk factors? Seems fairly boilerplate, no?

<comment><USER30> Yes and no. In theory, the SEC's rules[1] require that the risk factors be things that are unique to the company (i.e. not risks that apply to stock offerings generally). The factors you mention are common among new companies but wouldn't be included for more mature companies.

Sometimes these factors are helpful. Sometimes they seem to represent the product of a particularly imaginative lawyer or accountant. RSA once had a risk factor stating that if an efficient means of factoring primes were developed their business might suffer.[2]

[1][http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/229.503](http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/229.503)

[2][http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/932064/00009501350200...](http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/932064/000095013502001833/b41874rse10-k.htm) search "prime"</comment></comment></comment>


The little pill that could cure alcoholism - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/may/09/alcoholism-health-doctor-addiction-drug

<comment><USER2> The article says the drug is a muscle relaxant. I would like to see studies that use Kava as a means to treat some types of addictions...especially alcohol and smoking.

</comment><comment><USER3> I hope it really works and becomes widely available. That would be huge.</comment>


Bellingcat, a Kickstarter for open-source investigative journalism - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1278239551/bellingcat

<comment><USER2> Don't get the name. Is it a play on common industry terms or a famous investigative journalism piece?

<comment><USER3> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling_the_cat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling_the_cat)</comment></comment>


TA-65 Pharmacokinetic Study - <AUTHOR> https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02731807 <comment><USER2> Why is this interesting? They will have 8 people take different formulations of of TA-64/cycloasrageol to see if those improve bioavailability.

It was "First received: April 4, 2016", with an expected start date of May 2016, but "This study is not yet open for participant recruitment".

Who knows if this study will ever occur.

Some background: anyone can register on clinicaltrials.gov. As a consequence, less than ethical researchers (and frauds and quacks) will register some experimental protocol. Why? Quoting [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health- science/want-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/want- to-enroll-in-a-clinical-trial-nih-database-is-huge--but-lacks-a-few-key- details/2016/07/26/52e5eda8-4518-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html) :

> Critics worry that some people seeking to participate in clinical trials may > be desperately sick or in pain and vulnerable to requests for money they > don't have. These patients see the ".gov" domain and the NIH imprimatur as > stamps of approval that mean the research is legitimate, they say.

> "The average patient and even people in health care . . . kind of let their > guard down when they're in that database. It's like, 'If a trial is listed > here, it must be okay,' " said Paul Knoepfler, an associate professor at the > University of California at Davis School of Medicine who writes a blog about > stem-cell research. "Most people don't realize that creeping into that > database are some trials whose main goal is to generate profit."

I am not saying that this trial is in that category. I am saying that the existence of an entry in clinicaltrials.gov is not, on its own, interesting.

Instead, references to it might be going around specifically to hype something beyond its intrinsic value.</comment>


The United States Postal Service Will Now Email You Your Mail - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/566668/the-united-states-postal-service-will-now-email-you-your-mail/ <comment><USER2> I would pay for this, at times. All of my mail is delivered to my box at a post office about 15 minutes from my home. I normally only check it once every week or two. When I'm expecting something important, however, I may make a trip there once a day for a few days in a row until it arrives.

I wouldn't pay for it all the time as 98% of what I receive isn't really "time-sensitive" or all that important (mostly it's just bills that I pay online anyways), but for those times like I mentioned above I'd gladly pay a few bucks for the service.

Of course, since it's not unusual for me to end up with other people's mail in my mailbox, I'm expecting there to be some "privacy violations" that come out of this as well.

<comment><USER3> There's no privacy violations that happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise, right? If it was in your mail, you had access anyway.

<comment><USER2> They could accidentally send my images to you but still deliver my mail correctly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've had pretty much all my mail _contents_ scanned for me since 1999. It's a great service - I can go anywhere in the world, and never worry about a bill, or a charge, or change in terms of services that get mailed to me. Plus, they'll forward any "hard items" (like credit cards) to a physical mailbox (which, in my case, is a pobox that will forward anything that arrives to whatever address I happen to be in the world.)

So - all my mail goes to Sioux Falls South Dakota, which then gets scanned (and presumably shredded), and then hard items are re-mailed to Mountain View, which then, on a monthly basis or so, get re-mailed again to Singapore (where I currently am).

It only took the USPS 16 years to offer the scan/email service for the _envelope_ \- it will be interesting to see when they'll scan/email the _contents_.

<comment><USER5> Can you post the services you use?

<comment><USER4> paytrust.com for the scanning. UPS Store at 650 Castro for re-mail to Singapore

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There was a startup called Outbox awhile back that was trying to be a proxy service for physical mail- have your mail forwarded to them (or maybe they picked it up manually?) and they digitized it for you. This idea from USPS isn't quite that but a good step in the right direction. Super handy for more transient urban millennials at least.

<comment><USER7> There's one running now called Virtual Post Mail.

<comment><USER8> Earth Class Mail does it too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Swiss post office calls this service "E-Post office": [https://www.post.ch/en/private/receiving-mail/private- specif...](https://www.post.ch/en/private/receiving-mail/private-specify- receipt-location/e-post-office)

I've never tried it, but the descriptions sounds great: You receive a notification whenever you get a letter and can then decide, whether to get the letter physically delivered or opened & scanned. With automatic filtering for later letters from the same address.

</comment><comment><USER10> It should cost almost nothing to implement as they already doing it for law enforcement anyway. And it is also an indirect method for them of informing the general public that they have the capacity of doing it and therefore it must not come to a surprise if it is also forwarded @fbi. Maybe in their mind it's a way of declining moral responsibility for their spying. And likewise for federal governement as it is certainly endorsed (if not suggested) by them.

<comment><USER11> Are you really suggesting that the USPS is opening all letters sent through them, scanning their contents and passing it all on to law enforcement? It's a serious allegation without any proof.

If I recall correctly, they are actually scanning the outside of the letter which gets you senders, recipients, sending time (the metadata, so to speak.) Which isn't very nice but also not as brazen as opening and resealing letters KGB-style.

<comment><USER12> What I don't understand is how the US got not to interpret emails as an equivalent to a letter, and how the secrecy of correspondence that applies to mail didn't extend to emails. As you say, opening and resealing letters is "KGB style", but that's exactly what they do with emails. Even USPS is not allowed to open your mail.

<comment><USER13> The argument was that emails are more like postcards, since they aren't "sealed" and you "share" their contents with the provider. That said, I believe the sixth circuit agreed with you in _United States v. Warshak_ , in 2010. Of course, LE is trying its best to read that ruling in the most narrow way possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Digital postal mail:

* [http://www.virtualpostmail.com/](http://www.virtualpostmail.com/)

* [https://www.postscanmail.com/](https://www.postscanmail.com/)

</comment><comment><USER15> The link to sign up for Informed Delivery Notification just goes to the preferences page. I was only able to opt into My USPS (package tracking), as well as choose to receive communications from USPS.

</comment><comment><USER16> There's a small part of me that feels as though this might've been something that should have happened maybe as early as 1990, but didn't, somehow.

</comment><comment><USER17> Now if only you could look at the online envelope images and mark them "spam", "open and scan contents", or "deliver unopened".

<comment><USER18> Yeah, that's what the mail forwarding services do, like the one I use. Not free of course. But people like me would pay the USPS for the service if they could match what private mail forwarders do. One advantage is you wouldn't have to do the notarized form for authorization to receive mail. That can be a major pain if you are living outside the US in a country that is not a member of the Apostille Convention, meaning it doesn't have real notaries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> A lot of business services companies, providing a registered address, etc, do this (for individuals, brass-plate overseas offices, or individuals that don't want their own address known). It costs around GBP 90 for a London (UK) registered address and unlimited mail forwarding (physical or scanned email).

</comment><comment><USER20> Haha, this is what Jerry Seinfeld once jokingly proposed when he was mocking the postal service.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xR...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xR1ckgXN8G0#t=300)

</comment><comment><USER21> I would definitely pay for this if it replaced physical junk mail with scans. I'd pay even more if it just went ahead and deleted all junk mail. I'd pay a similar amount to...unsubscribe from junk mail.

</comment><comment><USER22> SO many people have tried this, and the USPS has shut them down. Either the USPS will do it or no one will, because they won't allow competition.

</comment><comment><USER23> _Endorsed by the NSA_

Hmmm...

<comment><USER24> it's just pictures of the front outside of the envelope. that part is not private, and the usps already can -- and does -- provide that to law enforcement if they request it. So this does not change anything.</comment></comment>


Jessica Mah of inDinero Discusses Business Problems and Building a Product - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/inctv/2011/01/live-chat-jessica-mah.html

<comment><USER2> Jessica,

What is your media secret? You have been featured by Inc like 10 times this year already.

<comment><USER3> there's always a lot to talk about re: inDinero! Just wait for the press frenzy we'll be getting in the next few months... so much new stuff we'll be sharing with media.</comment></comment>


Facebook Now Shares Phone Number & Address With Third-Party Apps - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_now_shares_phone_number_address_with_thir.php?sms_ss=hackernews&at_xt=4d3346d0e7608241%2C0 <comment><USER2> As I recall, Facebook still won't let the app/script that I run myself save the email addresses of my friends that they choose to share with me (I can manually save each shared email-address of each friend of my hundred friends but the terms of service prohibit any bulk downloading of this information).

So the assumption is that I, as a user, am naturally more willing to share my contact information with anonymous application X than I am with my friends.

Naturally, this is indeed a transparent effort at lock-in.

</comment><comment><USER3> Less sensational headline: Facebook Now Allows _You_ to Share _Your_ Phone Number & Address With Third-Party Apps

<comment><USER4> If this is true, then why was it announced to developers and not users?

<comment><USER5> It's announced to users where it matters: when they are asked for permission to share their data.

<comment><USER4> Ok, so tell me -

1\. Does this apply to current developer/client connections? 2\. Will the connection request specify that you are giving consent to address & phone #? 3\. Will you be given the option to specify which data you give to applications or will it continue to be all or nothing?

I'm not a user advocate, but I can tell you this - I'm tired of FB constantly glossing over the details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I seem to remember that not so long ago it was standard advice not to give out your address or phone number to people you don't know on the internet.

<comment><USER7> Most people also didn't use their real name online. Facebook played a huge role in changing that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Where's the option to choose which items get sent? Looks like all or nothing.

<comment><USER9> I have been wondering that for a while; why isn't there a conditional permissions system that you can choose what gets shared or not. It wouldn't be that hard for app developers to sanity check for what is available or not, and tell the user if it is an issue.

The all of nothing mentality is flawed, much like most of Facebook's decisions it seems. (imo)

<comment><USER10> It is not flawed by any means - from Facebook POV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> With a multi-billion dollar valuation, I'm sure that the majority of Facebook's value is in all information it gathers about you. Is this any surprise to anyone? One way or another Facebook is trying to monetize your info. Maybe it's just me but there always seem to be some kind of news fading away about Facebook privacy. I'm my theory that's why they are worth so much. Don't think they are going to stop doing this anytime soon.

Opt-out..hahaha maybe opt-out of only the really obvious ways Facebook is selling your info.

</comment><comment><USER12> I've been developing Facebook Connect applications for a long time, and I'm wondering - hasn't facebook had this feature already for email addresses?

One of the permissions read: "Send me email" (optional: send through a facebook proxy)

So now, you can also let the apps know phone number through the graph? I don't find that too big of a step. CAN-SPAM still applies. Perhaps they should set up proxies for the phone number, though.

What I find more funny is that ReadWriteWeb writes:

"Thankfully, this sort of information cannot be shared via your friends' careless actions, unlike other profile information."

which is in direct opposition to the attitude that blogs had on the same issue when Google complained that facebook was "trapping your contacts" by not letting you export them. Now they are thankful facebook doesn't do this :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Who owns your online identity is a completely different thing than letting this sort of contact information leak through the carelessness of your friends. Other profile information of yours, if you don't correct FB's settings, can be given to third-parties by way of your _friend_ saying okay.

That is, thankfully your friend can't decide they want to share there contact information with some app and vicariously share yours too.

Big difference.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> But how many people have added their full address and phone number to their Facebook profiles anyway? I would bet that the majority of people have their city/town set and not their full address and won't have specified their phone number at all.

However, this really could be quite useful if used legitimately, i.e. Facebook commerce, having shipping address available; location aware apps etc.

<comment><USER14> Anecdotally, something like 30% of my friends list (not particularly tech- savvy skewed) probably share their phone numbers.

It's also one of the most useful features of the whole site, if I'm out somewhere and realise I suddenly need to call someone whose number I can grab from Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I commented on this already in another thread that I saw first. My apology for bending the rules, just this once, by posting the same comment a second time in this active thread to make the point:

I'm sure my relative would appreciate her abusive ex getting his hands on her phone number. (And given past problems with third parties, I have to think this information -- speaking generally if not specifically -- is going to leak.)

You use the cell phone number as part of password recovery / identity verification (as I understand it). And then you do this?

</comment><comment><USER16> The idea of allowing users to control what individual permissions they have is good in theory, very hard in practice. It faces two main challenges that I can think of:

1) There are UI issues that have been raised elsewhere in this thread - mainly, that users get confused when shown a set of complex options. Having watched usability studies where users are given a lot of relatively complex options, I'd suspect that a model where users have to pick among the permissions to give an app is going to fail massively (ie, user turns on everything without actually understanding anything, turns off everything by default or just cancels out of the app install altogether.) A model where apps request permissions right when it's needed will be annoying users with all the dialogs needed.

2) Some apps don't work if they don't get all the permissions they need (imagine an address book app for an email program - if you don't get email address it just doesn't work.) Adding a lot of conditionals to change how your app works based on what permissions they get can be expensive and adds a lot of unnecessary test cases.

In my opinion, Facebook's decision give more granular permissions, but to make it an all or nothing proposition allows them to protect their users by removing spammy/malicious apps, and simplifies the applications built on their platform . This puts responsibility on them to actively remove malicious applications, and on developers to pick only the permissions they need. Given that users tend to make bad decisions given a set of complex options that they don't understand, it seems like they made a rational choice. AppStores on the various phone platforms have a similar decision to make as to how to best protect users from apps, and there isn't consensus as to the best model in that arena either.

They do need to step up their activity to remove malicious apps in light of giving regular applications this option.

<comment><USER17> "Remove malicious apps" doesn't undo the damage they caused. A reactionary approach only works until the first gigantic breach occurs, at which point people will finally start to ask "why do I have to give ShittyGame every permission under the sun?"

It's the same on Android. Why do I have to give any app that wants to display ads in my face permission to read my phone number and device serial number? Hell, on some carriers that's all you need to clone the phone and steal service from it. What possible reason could there be for that? It's poor design, and there's no reason I need to give "Bob's Fun Game" my telephone number just so it can have a unique ID to datamine later. Generate one on startup and use that.

The problems are similar and the solutions are similar - line-item veto for permissions, period. If your app can't handle it, crash - I'd rather have a broken app than risk my privacy for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> So from now on, we need to remove two more items from our profile.

Well, as long as we are not allowed to partially denie permission requests (which of course would make certain apps not able to share our information to other third parties)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's the follow-up story...

[http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_identity_the_c...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_identity_the_continued_push_toward_becomi.php)

</comment><comment><USER19> Just in case anyone else is wondering...

[http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-do-i- delete...](http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/1/how-do-i-delete-my- facebook-account)

</comment><comment><USER20> I wonder if Facebook developed this functionality to aide companies bringing their ecommerce efforts directly onto Facebook (as Amazon and hundreds of others are now doing).

</comment><comment><USER21> You know who else shares my phone number and address? The phone book!

<comment><USER22> _You know who else shares my phone number and address? The phone book!_

but the phone book doesn't call up the websites you visit to tell them that it's you that's visiting them. It's not about the specific information being available; it's about the context it's available in and what other information it could be connected to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> No, Facebook doesn't share this information - you do! Let's be clear here. Those who are dumb enough to put their PII data on Facebook and the alike are sharing their information. My God, can we stop blaming someone else for our stupidity?

<comment><USER24> Facebook is in a weird middle spot between totally public and totally private. You log in, and you primarily interact with friends, but then a friend can allow an application to programmatically access your data... People have problems parsing the situation. Further, Facebook used to be much more private, and the constant adjustment of goalposts doesn't help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> When somebody knocks at your door, peep through the peephole first. It might be some stalker who got your address from an app.

</comment><comment><USER26> there is always a problem with facebook! I can't trust them ever!

</comment><comment><USER27> ReadWriteWeb-sponsered submission? Check the URL, it has a tracking string (for want of a better word) with "hackernews".

<comment><USER28> If you look at the bio of the submitter, he writes for ReadWriteWeb and, I believe, wrote the article. Nothing wrong with that; people often submit their own work here.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are correct. I write for ReadWriteWeb, wrote the article and I _think_ that the URL has that code in it because I clicked on the Hacker News button on the article to share it.

:)

<comment><USER27> Perfectly good! I have no issue with it, I just thought it was worth pointing out as I had seen the same URL tweeted.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you want Apple to buy Tesla and why? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Tesla really doesn't need the money that Apple would have to pay, either on a company function or executive compensation level.

What Apple could do (and with this much slush in their fund should do), is greenlight a division to go head-to-head against Tesla. The market's already been validated, and there is likely very little Tesla could do to keep Apple out. Apple could buy the automaker (or auto parts suppliers) of their choice to shorten their learning curve.

Now if we get a spinning rainbow ball on the door when you hit unlock on the remote, I'll take what I said back.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd want a "Steve Jobs" Apple to buy Tesla. The current Apple... I'm ambivalent.

Why? Well, Steve Jobs was a perfectionist and in some aspects, an idealist. Elon Musk is the same way and he has complete authority over product. That's why Tesla exists and is so damn good.

If purchased now, I think anything could happen. I'm not a Tesla groupie, but I would like to see the company succeed and succeed in making an entry level vehicle and I'm not sure its possible under the current Apple executive infrastructure. They have different skills.

</comment><comment><USER4> No - unless the payout is so big that it enables Musk to go all-out with SpaceX.

<comment><USER3> I'd be down for that.

<comment><USER3> Or up...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If this happens, I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla cars start coming with a special type of plug which only fits in a charging point in their own network.

</comment><comment><USER6> No. With the current trends in Apple (easiness--, usefulness--, fashion++, lock-in++) it'll be a net negative.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wrote an article on this.

Jackkillilea.com

Apple will not buy Tesla.</comment>


Facebook frees up 60% more shares today - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-16/facebook-freeing-60-percent-more-shares-seen-weighing-on-stock.html

<comment><USER2> From the article, with ellipsis as shown:

"Facebook, worth $51.2 billion, has lost about $40 billion in market value since the IPO, making it the worst performer among all large IPOs on record, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

. . . .

"'It certainly wouldn't behoove and wouldn't be in the shareholders' best interest to dump the shares on the market all at once,' [Harding] said. 'I would assume that all of the investors that hold the 270 million-odd shares are probably rational, and probably realize that flooding the market with that kind of supply over such a short amount of time wouldn't help their position.'"

By contrast with Mark Harding, the analyst at JMP Securities LLC quoted in the article, I would keep in mind the old saying "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent," and be very concerned about other investors looking out for Number One and thus depressing the price of Facebook stock for all other holders of Facebook stock. Over the next several weeks or months, those of us who are looking on (I don't own any Facebook stock) will see what the various investors decide. Thus far, all the trading activity seems to agree in general that Facebook shares will not recover their IPO price any time soon.

<comment><USER3> "'It certainly wouldn't behoove and wouldn't be in the shareholders' best interest to dump the shares on the market all at once,' [Harding] said. 'I would assume that all of the investors that hold the 270 million-odd shares are probably rational, and probably realize that flooding the market with that kind of supply over such a short amount of time wouldn't help their position.'"

This reasoning seems flawed to me: He seems to not understand that the rational choice for individuals acting independently is often not rational for the group as a whole. The Prisoner's dilemma, Bank runs etc. are all examples of how this can happen.

If everyone else is in danger of selling and pushing the price down, you're better off selling _now_ before that happens... and of course, everyone else would reason the same way, making it a self fulfilling prophecy.

If the shareholders had some way to collaborate and agree collectively to not sell now, his statement might be correct - but I doubt this is even legal even if it was feasible.

Of course, if you're in it for the long haul, then other people's opinions of the stock price shouldn't matter: you just buy/sell facebook stock based on whether you think the future expected dividends justify the investment.

<comment><USER4> This is known as "The Tragedy of the Commons".

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

<comment><USER5> Except there's no "shared limited resource" in this case. Just an overvalued social network.

<comment><USER6> The "shared limited resource" is the pool of buyers.

<comment><USER7> What pool of buyers?

<comment><USER6> The people who would be interested in buying FB shares.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> ...and it tanks again. Many facebook employees purchased houses using facebook stock. That is, they didn't have enough income to qualify for a loan, but they showed their facebook stock + current market price(pre-ipo), and got approved that way. So one bubble(FB), inflated another bubble(housing), and it's all deflating before our eyes. The fact that facebook employees are tanking/will tank this stock further should tell you something. I believe the employees start selling en masse in October, so this is just the warmup. I'm betting we'll see $12.

<comment><USER9> Considering the housing bubble peaked 5 years ago, way before FB was valued at $100B, and has been deflating ever since, I find your connection tenuous, at best.

<comment><USER10> "Across the country, home values fell 15% to 60%, peak to bottom, depending on the area and how badly it was affected by foreclosures — most of San Francisco got off comparatively lightly with declines in the 15% to 25% range." In SF, the bubble was effectively flattened. Other areas saw loss of value beyond pre-bubble prices.

Quote from one of many available sources, this one comes with graphs: <http://www.maureenterris.com/?p=2557>

SF/Silicon Valley was insulated against the rest of the country's housing crisis largely due to its strong tech sector, which didn't suffer the recession as severely.

I don't know about people using pre-IPO stock to get loans, but the connection is less tenuous than you might expect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> These are not new "dilutive" shares - the stock was always factored into the FB market cap so it's not like publicly traded shares are suddenly worth 60% less just because the float increases. But it _does_ mean that for a while people who have been unable to sell are able to do so which is going to lead to some short term downward pressure. Once that is over Facebook will resume its normally trajectory, ummm, downward...

</comment><comment><USER12> It's down 5.47% early... Not a good sign, almost ready to break through the $20 barrier.

<http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:FB>

<comment><USER13> yup, just broke through $20.00 at 10:00am EDT

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've always been curious about trading options. It seems like now is a good time to buy the FB120818P00017000 put for example. I honestly don't see the downside to this. That option is trading at $4 for a block of 100. So investing $400 get's you 10000 options. If the price of the stock dips below $17 the option could trade at 48 cents in which case you've turned $400 into $2400 (minus transaction fees and taxes). On the other hand you could lose your $400 which isn't that bad. What's are the downsides here that I'm missing?

<comment><USER15> Downside is obviously the 100% loss you'd take on the $400.

Assumption you're making: That FB is overvalued currently, and has 15% to fall (it's at 20 now, and you are saying it will go down by $3 by the 18th [tomorrow!!!])

I'm not sure where that $0.48 is coming from in your comment. At expiration (when an option has no time value), a put should be worth StrikePrice - StockPrice. So if Strike is $17, and stock is... say... $15, the option will be worth $2 ($200 since each option actually controls 100 shares). That math changes with the stock price, so I'm not sure what you're talkinga bout with $0.48...

Also note that spreads at the low end of options will eat you alive. Specifically you should expect to pay upwards of $10 or even $15 to get anybody to fill you on those options. The $4 amount is highly unlikely to get filled, especially at the qty you are talking about.

Basically, this is a bad idea, and will just lose you $400.

<comment><USER16> After reading this, it seems like way too much complexity exists in the market. Me and my naive thoughts of "it's just simple buying and selling, right?"

How long has it been like this?

<comment><USER15> Options are really cool since they are so well named. They really do give you a ton of options to adjust your risk to exactly what you want.

On one hand, you can have infinite risk strategies, on the other, you can lock in a stock price almost exactly, with little market risk. And then everything in between (ie, you can easily build something that's like: "I think this stock will go up a few bucks, but nothing crazy", or maybe: "I'm worried about a horrible plunge, but a minor decline is fine, I'll buy a put out of the money and have coverage for the plunge".)

And really, it's fairly simple, a lot of the stuff I said about "time value" and such was related to how you value options, not the actual complexity of the thing itself. "How much is this worth" is always tricky, even for something as easy to understand as a bond.

Organized markets, and bubbles, and derivatives are all old. And they aren't inherently bad either.

You have to look at futures & options as a way to sell or buy risk. If you're willing to pay somebody, they'll take your risk away. And the other way, if you want to take on some risk in exchange for money, you can do that.

(note, that last thing sounds scary, but how about this: sell a put [ie, promise to buy a stock at a certain price] right near where you want to buy the stock anyway [with a traditional limit order]. If it gets to below that level, you get 'assigned' the stock, which you wanted anyway, at the price you wanted anyway. If it doesn't hit that, then you wouldn't have bought the stock anyway. The counterparty gets insurance against their stock dropping. You take on the "risk" of it dropping, but you've set yourself up so that it works out for everybody involved).

(note that last strategy doesn't work if the stock temporarily dips, then pops back up. You probably won't get assigned in that situation, where a limit order would have triggered. That risk is what you get in exchange for getting paid for selling the put).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's funny that all these analyst can talk about such vague suggestions when it seems clear that different investors have clear motivations here.

It's perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to hold on to their shares--even if facebook goes broke they still have billions in cash.

Thiel will probably sell part of his stake--you don't hang on to 1.5 billion by being overly concentrated in any one area.

Other investors (VC's and funds) will almost certainly sell most or all of their stakes. There's no expectation of 10x or 5x returns anymore and a fair amount of downside risk.

I expect 90% of individuals with stock options to sell as they can. If I have a choice between selling at $20 now and getting, say, $200,000 or waiting some unspecified time and possibly getting more (or nothing), I'm going for the sure money every time. Even for someone whose pay is in the low six figures, option money like this can mean paying for your kids' college education or starting your own business. The only ones who might hold on would be those who don't have many shares/options (I'm thinking less than 2,000).

<comment><USER18> > It's perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to hold on to their shares--even if > facebook goes broke they still have billions in cash.

Common shareholders are last in line when a company goes broke.

<comment><USER19> Microsoft has billions in cash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> And seven times as many over the next 9 months. I hope that's already priced in...

<comment><USER21> Wow. I guess they hope they will have stabalized things after a few more quarters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> How did Facebook's IPO go so badly? (It's generally agreed upon that it went horrifically for Facebook and its shareholders, right?) Is it, in a very stylized way, Wall Street in just wanting to extract as much money as possible from a target and not really serving the interests of the client?

If so... how can that market be disrupted?

<comment><USER23> A company's customers determine its value. Facebook's customers are advertisers, not stock purchasers.

Advertisers have valued them at a few billion dollars. The stock purchasers put that value at over $100bn. For some reason, people took the stock purchaser's word over the actual customer's word.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but if The Street knows that large blocks are going on sale, this would be an optimal price to run down the price.

<comment><USER25> And how do you propose they run down the price? Someone needs to be buying on the other end, and there are a shortage of those. _That's_ why the price sinks.

Besides, the Street made their money off of this deal a long time ago.

<comment><USER26> They can make more. They like more :-)</comment></comment></comment>


The Borderlands Gun Collector's Club - <AUTHOR> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.in/2012/03/borderlands-gun-collectors-club.html

<comment><USER2> One teeny tiny nitpick:

 _The game is distinguished by its use of a 3D rendering technique called cel shading_

As far as I can tell (both from playing the game myself and from what I read online), Borderlands does _not_ use cel shading. Instead, it uses normal rendering techniques but uses textures which were crafted to make it appear cartoon-like. The end result may be quite similar, but its not really the same thing.

As I said, _tiny_ nitpick :)

Other than that, interesting read and the HN comments from last time it was posted are a great read too.

</comment><comment><USER3> Duplicate: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3693023>

Still, it's a great post.</comment>


IBM tells thousands of remote employees to come back to office or find new jobs - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2017/05/ibm-teleworkers-back-to-the-office/ <comment><USER2> Looks like this isn't in regard to the effectiveness of remote work. It's a way of using a blanket company policy to effect a major workforce reduction, keeping the most dedicated employees, without engaging in politics or performance evaluation. I wonder if they have back-channel offers in place to keep the most effective remote workers engaged.

</comment><comment><USER3> What is IBM? I jest of course, but I cannot remember the last time I saw any interesting news from them, and cannot remember the last time I saw any hardware, software or services with their name on it. Going by their numbers they are still a big concern, but what struck me was their number of employees - 380k! according to Wikipedia. With that in mind I'm not surprised they are downsizing. Profit per employee must be pathetic compared with peers.

</comment><comment><USER4> As soon as they said that I'd be having lunch with recruiters and leaving.</comment>


Ask HN: I called my cc company to renew my card.. - <AUTHOR>

I hear staticy voices for a couple seconds, now I'm hearing a loop. eg I can hear the echo of me typing this going through the microphone, out their speakers and back through mine.<p>I'll try calling them back.. and hope they aren't compromised. <comment><USER2> This is something I've seen happen phone networks from time to time. A call will get routed into an echo, rather than to its destination. Not sure why it happens, though. There seems to be enough delay that it's getting out into the towers before coming back.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Called back and it went through as usual. Any idea what happened?

<comment><USER3> Audio feedback? Speakers instead of headphones?</comment></comment>


The Stanford Prison Experiment was massively influential. It was a fraud - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17287319).</comment>


FBI arrests 16 in Anonymous hacking investigation - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20080746-245/fbi-arrests-16-in-anonymous-hacking-investigation/

<comment><USER2> Note: These arrests are connected with the PayPal/Visa/Mastercard DDoS attacks organized by Anonymous/AnonOps, and have nothing to do with Lulzsec/Antisec or any of the major breaches.

<comment><USER3> I hear from a user on another forum that a guy on his dorm floor got arrested and had previously bragged about participating in an attack on a group who opposed the food drive in Orlando that got shut down (user hasn't mentioned hearing about involvement in anything else).

<comment><USER4> Rule #1 states you do not talk about Anonymous.

Anyone who is dumb enough to brag about something that can land them in jail deserves to go to jail.

<comment><USER5> No.

<comment><USER4> OK, not anyone, but bragging about stuff you can be arrested for is still stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/iu93n/fbi_raided_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/iu93n/fbi_raided_my_house_with_a_search_warrant_today/)

</comment><comment><USER7> All the major LulzSec players have been tweeting all day. I'm doubtful that they caught any big fish.

</comment><comment><USER8> I thought ddos was usually via botnets/unaware infected users. The story states such people were willing participants?

<comment><USER9> DDOS is indeed normally conducted by botnets; however, Anonymous uses a tool called LOIC‡ to carry out DDOS attacks.

Unlike a normal DDOS attack, people actively coordinate the attack (ie: it's not automated), and apparently, do so from their own systems.

I suspect a lot of the people who participate either aren't aware of the technical particulars, figure they'll be masked by large amounts of traffic, or just don't care.

‡ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOIC>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> How exactly does running LOIC constitute "conspiring to intentionally _damage_ protected computers?" Where's the damage? Does standing in front of a vending machine now qualify as vandalism?

<comment><USER11> _(8) the term "damage" means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information;_

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_0...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030 ----000-.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Its interesting that an FBI bust comes the day after News International had its DNS servers knocked down taking out every News International website.

Given that Rupert Murdoch and his businesses are already under suspicion for bribing police and government officials (and possibly had a whistle blower murdered), why does it feel like one of Murdochs cronies must have a director at the FBI on a leash.

It could be coincidence, but IMO when you have billions of dollars, there's no such thing as coincidence.

<comment><USER13> Even if presented with billions of dollars, the FBI is not efficient enough for this to have anything to do with news corp.

Please don't post conspiracy theories unless you have some sort of evidence to back them up.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Becoming a web developer – Free sample is out - <AUTHOR> http://owenfar.com/professional-web-developer/ <comment><USER2> I can't see inside, but I can imagine it is teaching people how to use Webpack 4, meaning it will have to be rewritten from scratch in two months, when Webpack 5 is launched (with many nice features, indeed!).

<comment><USER3> Oh god, I'm still on 3</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who did or did not get an interview applying in the "no idea" category? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I am interested in knowing this too. We want to create a private space where all who have applied can talk about their experience and provide input. For now just leave a comment here <http://www.i4edge.com/ycombinator-apply-list/></comment>


Speeding up GROUP BY if you want aproximate results - <AUTHOR> http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2008/03/07/speeding-up-group-by-if-you-want-aproximate-results/

<comment><USER2> Chris Jermaine has done some interesting work in giving DBMSs support for approximate query answers.

<http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~cjermain/OLA>

</comment><comment><USER3> or use a better dbms</comment>