The Rising Return to Non-Cognitive Skill [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://ftp.iza.org/dp10914.pdf <comment><USER2> I had to look the defninition of Non-Cognitive skills. Below is an example.

[https://blog.udemy.com/non-cognitive-skills/](https://blog.udemy.com/non- cognitive-skills/)

Once I understood what they were I realize that I have encountered the behavior in my life anecdotally. Also, I realize the ones that I am deficient in.

EDIT: The study has a definition that I missed when reading it. See tboyd47's comment below.

<comment><USER3> It doesn't seem that the skills in that link are relevant to this study:

> The non-cognitive score is based on behavioral questions in a 20-minute > interview with a trained psychologist. On the basis of the interview, the > draftee is scored along four separate dimensions (see Mood et al. (2012)): > (i) social maturity, (ii) psychological energy (e.g., focus and > perseverance), (iii) intensity (e.g., activation without external pressure) > and (iv) emotional stability (e.g., tolerance to stress). There is also an > overall non-cognitive score on a Stanine scale, which ranges from 1 to 9.

<comment><USER4> They seem to define "non-cognitive skills" as "social skills". Not manual skills, such as those needed for carpentry. This is confusing. Is this a translation from Swedish?

<comment><USER5> Not just social skills: for example, intensity and stress tolerance. I think "emotional skills" would be a better way to describe what they're getting at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> In my experience, non-cognitive skills are definitely a big boost to your career. However, the real need is for people with both cognitive AND non- cognitive skills: if you can understand something intrinsically through your cognitive skills, you can leverage your non-cognitive skills to lead a group of people with high cognitive skills.

That leadership piece is what's in demand; and IMO that requires strength in both areas.

<comment><USER7> Not from my experience.

<comment><USER8> How so? I've heard what OP said often enough I'd call it folk knowledge. What part do you disagree with?

<comment><USER5> > That leadership piece is what's in demand; and IMO that requires strength in > both areas.

I'm not the person you asked but for me, the idea that leadership is more in demand than intelligence doesn't ring true (anecdotally, of course). In the course of my career, I've met more than enough capable leaders, but finding people who meet the bar for intelligence is much harder. At some level, this is probably due to the fact that you need far less leadership than you do intelligence: by definition, leaders are a fraction of the workforce, but intelligence is useful at pretty much every level in the org (for white-collar work).

I guess I'm lucky enough that I've been in companies that were generally quite well-run; I'm sure the demand for leaders would seem higher in dysfunctional companies where competence in leadership isn't routinely achieved.

<comment><USER9> In my experience leaders are seldom judged on _being right_ , and that's the cognitive portion of their job. A leader may be organized, sociable, disciplined, but a leader also has to make choices. A leader in particular must make a choice if there's no consensus, and so there is not an agreement on the right course of action, and presumably there is no identifiable "right" choice. In fact, though, there is usually a right choice, it's just that no one knows for sure what it is. But as events transpire we learn about the effect of decisions (though we still lack the counterfactual), and often it becomes clear if a decision was right or not. I seldom see leaders judged based on the result of their cognitive decisions.

I find there's a strong bias against even attempting to make that judgement. "In hindsight" is used to dismiss criticism: sure, you can say that in hindsight, but I had to make the decision at the time with the information I had. But very few outcomes are actually entirely surprising, we weigh information and risk and probabilities, and these can be improved. An example I remember with particular frustration was Hillary Clinton, repeatedly confirming her decision about the Iraq war given the information she knew at the time. There was _lots_ of information available, she made particular choices about how to weigh the information and risk, and while within her decision framework at the time the choice may have seemed right, clearly her framework was wrong even given her own conclusions. (It's also hard because we expect leaders to always be right, and if they aren't then they shouldn't be leaders, which leaves no room for improvement.)

<comment><USER3> Culturally, we don't seem to consider information gathering and filtering to be a leadership skill. Leaders are just assumed to be the best informed people at any given moment and we don't look how much work they are doing to get that information.

If a ruler of a country never steps down off the throne and walks through the marketplace to ask the people what they need, how else will he know? Information gathering is connected to humility and manners in my mind. In order to be well-informed you have to be able to interact with different kinds of people and that requires a lot of social maturity, which according to the researchers, is apparently a "non-cognitive" skill.

<comment><USER6> Information filtering is absolutely a leadership skill. It's the core component of managing, honestly. You don't want your boss to know all of the mistakes that people make, because it's your job as a manager to fix those. If there are structural or systemic problems, yes. But if one of your team members screwed up, you shouldn't be pointing fingers at your subordinates. As an engineering manager, it's your main job to be the crap filter between your executives and your engineers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I refuse this terrible term and invite everyone to use (following zitterbewegung's udemy link) to use "metacognitive skills" instead.

<comment><USER11> Seconded. Non-cognitive has a pretty clear intuitive meaning so to then define term to mean almost the polar opposite doesn't make any sense to me.

<comment><USER5> > Non-cognitive has a pretty clear intuitive meaning so to then define term to > mean almost the polar opposite doesn't make any sense to me.

FWIW, I didn't interpret it as the polar opposite. I don't see that much of an issue with a model of skills as physical, cognitive, and emotional.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The danger area is conflating lack of success in a particular social setting with noncognitive skills.

I.e., "this person lacks persistence" versus "this person has given up because this social setting is pathological."

I worry that this trend is used to justify unethical behavior by making trait- based attributions of dissenters.

I say this without denying the importance of social skills--but there's a fine line between "socially skillful" and "psychopath", especially as you move up the ladder.

</comment><comment><USER3> Fascinating study & highly relevant to most people here (since many of us "hackers" are in highly cognitive job roles)

Conclusion:

> Thus, the labor market appears to increasingly value individuals possessing > high non-cognitive relative to cognitive skills over time.

</comment><comment><USER13> How do you increase your stress tolerance? Imagine you are working on bleeding edge stuff at some top company with crazy pace and you don't want to end up with burnout. What would you do in order to improve this aspect? I noticed ramping up fitness training actually decreases my stress resistance as I stress my body and consequently brain much more and am more prone to getting mentally exhausted than when I am not training at all.

<comment><USER14> Fitness training is a very personal and individual thing. If you're feeling mentally exhausted after working out, you are definitely doing something wrong. I would recommend working with a qualified physical trainer with actual professional qualifications to get a tailored workout regime (be careful since there are many "personal trainers" who really don't know what they're doing).

Also, consider getting involved with yoga and getting a massage. While working out is great for building muscle and endurance, stress your body too much and it will give away.

<comment><USER13> It's actually quite weird, I do HIIT/strength/cardio training for a few days, I feel awesome, and then one day suddenly I hit a cliff and my brain is shutting down. The thing is I can't predict when it happens; I saw some relation to NO (sometimes adding NO-inducing supplements alleviates issues) though it doesn't seem to work 100% And if you read fitness articles, I am not the only person that has this issue. I mean "neural fatigue" is pretty common, so probably it goes further up with some people like me...

<comment><USER15> Actually the GP is incorrect. It's pretty well understood [1] these days that your body is like a "cup" that can only take a certain amount of stress before it starts getting counter productive. Mental stress and center-nervous-system stress (what weight training does) both contribute so if you already have a lot of one you're forced to have less than the other or everything suffers.

[1] I'm not in a position to hunt links but lookup "Alan Thrall stress" on youtube.

<comment><USER13> Many thanks, this seems to be pretty close! Anyway, do you know any way to increase the "stress threshold", so that I can withstand more mental + physical stress? Mental stress is given by work, and one doesn't want to look flabby either but rather ripped without getting ill/fatigued etc. I understand a lot of this is genetic, though I am sure there are some ways to help body with it.

<comment><USER15> Well, this is all new to me as well but the way I've seen it presented (from multiple sources) it seems to be person-specific. If there is a way to increase you "cup size" either I haven't yet seen it (wouldn't be surprising) or it isn't yet known.

<comment><USER13> Oh well, I guess it's trial and error then. I was actually doing 5 minute cold showers for a year, alongside HIIT/strength training/cardio and bleeding edge mental work, and I guess I was too optimistic I could handle it and went over my limits (which seem to be pretty high already but still firmly in place...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The buzzword a year or two back was "grit".

From my own experience non-cognitive skills are becoming rarer, so increasing returns make sense.

<comment><USER17> Increased internet use seems to be leading to decreased availability of non- cognitive skills.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Workers with an abundance of non-cognitive skill were increasingly sorted > into occupations that were intensive in: cognitive skill; as well as > abstract, non-routine, social, non-automatable and offshorable tasks. Such > occupations were also the types of occupations which saw greater increases > in the relative return to non-cognitive skill.

Isn't this a contradiction? "Increasingly sorted into occupations that were intensive in cognitive skill" and simultaneously "greater increases in the relative return to non-cognitive skill"? So are we just saying they saw the heaviest rise in skills in general?

I didn't read past the abstract, maybe the body is clearer.

<comment><USER3> It sounds like the quoted excerpt is saying: for occupations intensive in cognitive skill, both the number of people with non-cognitive skills entering the job and their relative salaries increased during the examined time period.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Can these non-cognitive skills be taught? Does anyone know of good resources for building these non-cognitive skills?

</comment><comment><USER20> So then surely we need some measures to prevent discrimination against those lacking in non-cognitive skills?

<comment><USER21> Or our education systems need to actually train people in those skills instead of ignoring them.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to deal with a prospective third co-founder? - <AUTHOR> We are two founders about 1000 hours into our startup (currently starting private beta), and are currently looking for a third co-founder.
We try to find someone who has (1) technical or business skills and (2) someone who is motivated, good to talk with and who will pull the project with us (we  aim at a public release in 4 to 6 months).
Of course it's not easy to find a reliable co-founder if you don't know the person very well, so we figured if we find a promising candidate we could do something like this:
(1) Have a one month 'trial' period which either party can quit at any point. After the first month have a reflexion meeting and, if necessary, extend to a second trial month. If the new person quits during the trial period for whatever reason, we'd compensate his/her work with money.
(2) If everything works out and we have a third founder in the team, we'd start splitting shares equally based on the amount of work everyone puts into the project over the next 3 to 5 years.
One idea how we could split shares based on the work: Have a web-based tool where once a week everyone enters the hours (and topics) spent during the last week. If three people put 1000 hours a year into the project over five years, it's roughly 15000 hours in total. This would suggest 1% for 150 hours.
How would you handle such a situation?
Any ideas, suggestions, experiences would be highly appreciated! <comment><USER2> My advice from little experience is to split shares equally three ways rather than based on number of hours. The startup should be everyones primary focus regardless of hours logged. If your business guy swings a huge contract that makes your business but has put in fewer hours does he still get a small percentage of the business?

Secondly I would vest all shares. After your trial if you decide it's all likely to work create a vesting schedule that starts after 1 year and progresses until the company is equally shared between the three of you. You might also have acceleration clauses in the case of selling the company or other milestones.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, that's a valuable advice! And I fully agree that the raw numbers of hours is not a very good metric.

But, from a pessimistic perspective, I'm unsure if 1 or 2 months trial will be enough to be sure about that person, and to make such a strong commitment. One worst-case scenario could be that the third co-founder works passionately on the project for 4 or 6 months, and then for some reason looses interest / motivation / time.

<comment><USER3> If you have a 4-year vesting schedule with a one-year cliff, then anyone who walks away before 12 months have passed leaves empty-handed. Anyone who walks away before 48 months have passed will be giving up at least a little.

However, I think vesting only protects you from co-founders who quit. I'm not sure how you can deal with situations where a co-founder simply stops contributing (or only contributes an extremely minimal amount). HNers, and advice in this area?

On a related note, splitting the company equally might not be the best decision. People are different, and as a result will contribute differing amounts. Later down the road, you don't want anyone to feel like he's doing a disproportionately large amount of work. Sit down and agree on what you expect from each other in terms of time, commitment, and effort, and make sure the equity is split fairly based on that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Time spent and value created are only barely correlated. Anyone who's worked for someone besides themselves is keenly aware of this. ;)

This is true even in process-oriented jobs, though to a lesser degree than creative jobs.

</comment><comment><USER5> From my experience, complicated earn-out structures are a nuisance. They are hard to set up fairly (a lot of edge cases) and even harder to deal with if things go south.

I second what nedwin said about vesting & equal split. Instead of focusing on putting equity value on every hour spent, think of the desired outcome (great company equally split by three cofounders) with a lot of time allocated and a kill switch in place.

</comment><comment><USER6> Agreed with @nedwin on gut feeling to make him/her nearly equal. Hours definitely not an accurate measure of value add _or_ your progress to date.

Heard this once: 90% of zero is zero. You want a split that incentivizes your partner to make your part worth millions and the best way might be to give them more.

</comment><comment><USER7> Define how the shares are split at the beginning. If you gonna track each week what each of you have done, it's gonna create lots of useless tensions.

</comment><comment><USER8> "We try to find someone who has (1) technical or business (or design) skills"

You don't know whether you need a business person, a designer, or a developer? Then the question to ask is why get a third co-founder at all? It will complicate communication, equity, etc., so you should actually avoid a third co-founder until you really _need_ them.

<comment><AUTHOR> The main issue is that we are currently 1.5 founders, actually. I am developing the product and my co-founder is involved only half-time (~20 hours per week). We make a very good team, but he just does not have more time to invest, and I would need support really pulling the project. That's why I'm looking for another founder, whether more focused on the technical or business side.

A developer would be great for brainstorming, for building a technically great framework, and for bringing motivation and inspiration to the whole project. I would enjoy working more on the business side of things too.

A third founder with business skills would be great too -- we need to incorporate and do a lot of different business related things such as risk management and research into law and the kind of guarantees we can give to our customers, amongst many other things. If someone else would focus on that I would be more free to develop the actual product.

We can go forward with 1.5 founders as well, but it would be a lot more fun with a third person, would increase the motivation, the speed of iteration, and overall the chances for success!

<comment><USER9> It sounds like you need a new 2nd co-founder if you want to take this seriously, not a 3rd.

<comment><USER10> I disagree. Three is better than two. no more, no less.

Look at Youtube as the perfect case study. Jawad, the thrid foudner, gave up operation dutities togo back to school. he still advised, and was paramount in the early stages of the company/product.

If the OP has already found one right partner (it takes more than just chemistry), then losing that person may harm you and your business.

At a same time, a 3rd founder who is a specialist could really help you in this situation. I don't think I can add any more value about that than it's been already said here.

Goodluck and make sure to post updates as to your founder search.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


When the British Empire Was Larger Than the Chinese Empire - <AUTHOR> http://thesoundingline.com/map-of-the-day-when-the-british-empire-was-larger-than-the-chinese-empire/ <comment><USER2> Blogspam of

[https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:3293861](https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:3293861)</comment>


Ruby apps development readied for Android - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/development/77686/ruby-apps-development-readied-android

<comment><USER2> This article is about JRuby's support for Android. I have nothing but respect for Charlie Nutter and the JRuby team but they are extremely short-staffed and spread quite thin with the ambitious agenda they have set. For that reason I would not count on a lot of support for any Android features they are able to roll out.

<comment><USER3> I think the hope is that the broader Android scripting and JRuby communities will step up to help. There is already a project[0] that allows bridged access to a lot of Android APIs via Python, and Lua. Getting JRuby to this level wouldn't be a huge effort, and would definitely give people a bit of motivation to move forward

That said, I think in the short term it's a pipe-dream. Getting the code going is the easier part, building the development infrastructure around it is a lot harder.

I'd love to write Android apps in Ruby, but I'm not holding my breath.

[0]<http://code.google.com/p/android-scripting/></comment></comment>


Cisco prism door U.S. involvement in monitoring China - <AUTHOR> http://www.best-news.us/news-4662353-Cisco-prism-door-US-involvement-in-monitoring-China-use-its-network.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I find it interesting that last year the US gov just blew whistles on Huawei and ZTE about 'security concerns'.</comment>


Please respect my decision not to dance - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@henryreich/please-respect-my-decision-not-to-dance-e19d1b6ae482 <comment><USER2> I can't upvote more this.</comment>


In praise of xlogo - <AUTHOR> https://simont.dreamwidth.org/242297.html <comment><USER2> TIL: xrdb translations.

25 years of X usage, and that one has somehow managed to evade me. Such an awesome (and now that I learned about it - obvious) thing.

<comment><USER3> These only work with programs written using (and linked to) Xt, the X Toolkit, or something which uses Xt internally, like the X Athena Widgets. More modern toolkit libraries like GTK or Qt are _not_ using Xt, since Xt is ancient; modern toolkit libraries are written directly on top of Xlib or the even more modern XCB.

<comment><USER4> I don't see age being the prime factor here. The X Toolkit Intrinsics (Xt) are actually a quite nice framework if you want to have an abstraction over Xlib, want some nice event loop functionality or OO features in C. I think I even remember someone writing a paper about using it without a GUI way back when.

Not using it was mostly done because you want to be cross-platform at that level, aren't using C as your core language (Qt, Tk) or just the usual case of NIH you get everywhere (Gtk, which rather invented glib).

<comment><USER5> I did Xt in college for a Unix Graphics Programming class and it felt so alien to me. The examples in the books (3 or 4 books) we had never seemed to work right. When compared to plain Xlib, OpenGL immediate mode and 3D mode, Java's AWT and Swing, or even the tiny bit of Win32 I picked up via NanoX/Microwindows, Xt always just felt like dereference vomit, arcane property setting in unrelated objects or contexts and an event loop that magically picked up some events but not others. It was like there was some undocumented state machines that backed the event loop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I deal with OpenGL a lot so glxgears has been my standby. If it's just X I'm testing I've always used xclock.

</comment><comment><USER7> I always used xeyes to test X connections in the past.

I wonder if we'll see a wleyes for Wayland, to test Wayland only and not the x11 comparability layer.

<comment><USER8> As a totally uninformed guess -- no?

Part of wayland's security design decisions is that one program cannot receive events from another program.

An app like xeyes would need cooperation from the compositor otherwise.

<comment><USER9> It could use a large window and get input from that entire area, right? Not quite the same thing, of course.

<comment><USER10> Wouldn't that only work when it has focus?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > As a ruler. Want to know how big something on your screen is in pixels? Fire > up an xlogo, line it up with one edge of the thing, resize until the > opposite edge lines up too, and if your window manager puts up a tooltip > during window resizing (which I think all the ones I've ever used do), then > you know the size.

I don't see a tooltip that shows the window size. I am using Xfce.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, I wondered about that too. I remember older, traditional window managers like TWM, FVWM, OpenBOX, etc. show this but most newer "Desktop" environment's window managers like XFCE's and Gnome's do not.

Interestingly when sizing a terminal window these WM's show the size in columns and rows and when sizing a "real" window it shows the size in pixels.

Probably an option somewhere to turn it on in newer environments but it's been a while since I used anything but cwm[1] (which does show the window size on resize) so I can't be sure.

[1] calm window manager - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cwm_%28window_manager%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cwm_%28window_manager%29)

<comment><USER13> Are you using cwm on OpenBSD or on something else? (Just curious.)

<comment><USER12> OpenBSD is where I discovered it and started using it. First on a laptop that I use to install Beta's and then a few machines at home.

I use a Slackware box at work and was delighted when I found a Linux port[1], now I use it everywhere except on Windows.

[1] [https://github.com/zenlinux/cwm](https://github.com/zenlinux/cwm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> xlogo is one of my favourite programs. I have it as the exec line on my xinitrc, so that the only way to logout is by killing xlogo.

<comment><USER15> or ctrl+alt+backspace unless you disabled it

<comment><USER16> In my experience, that typically needs to be enabled.

Different distros of course have different defaults.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> When a service kicks off, a small XLogo appears to let me know it is active, it goes away when it ends.

</comment><comment><USER18> Long time back (when xhost by default accepted all connections) in my college lab, I used to redirect DISPLAY to an unsuspecting user sitting on my favorite machine and and bombard them with `while true; do xlogo & done;`

<comment><USER19> I once used a computer lab where the AIX workstations each had their local filesystems exported to the entire campus via AFS. Even /dev. Including /dev/audio. Which was world-writeable. And there was no apparent volume control for the chassis speaker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I prefer xeyes

</comment><comment><USER21> > This [using xlogo as an alarm] is better than an audible alert because it's > less antisocial in an open-plan office

And here I am with a loud clicky keyboard and my notifications very much not on mute in protest of my open office.</comment>


Dungeons and Dragons Co-Creator Dies at 61 - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30147390/

<comment><USER2> Without Arneson & Gygax, I never would have created my first startup: <http://www.obsidianportal.com>

Plus, I would have been nerdy, unpopular, and bored in school, instead of nerdy, unpopular, and entertained :)

<comment><USER3> Wow, your first startup looks like something that might interests me.

Even though I never played D&D, I definitely appreciate the creators for the great contribution they made to the genre.

<comment><USER2> Sign up for free :)

Then get a premium account and send me your delicious money!

<comment><USER4> Do I get a bag of holding with my premium account?

<comment><USER2> Plus a portable hole. But, if you ever stop paying, I stick one into the other and...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It looks like this year's GenCon's going to have the same air of melancholy as last year after Gygax passed... /-:

</comment><comment><USER6> By the way, I've always been looking for a good introduction to d&d. Do you know a good computer game for beginners ?

<comment><USER7> I suggest that playing in person would be a better introduction to D&D than any computer game. The publisher, wizards of the coast, organizes D&D game days at local game stores around the country. They are free and very newby friendly. A key ingredient of D&D for many, myself included, is the time spent around a table with friends. Online interactions don't fully capture this experience.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The first program I wrote from front to back was a D&D character generator. But there was something I was taking away by substituting 3d6 with Random(). Somehow computerizing it made part of the tactile experience go away.

There's nothing like announcing "Okay, we're going to enter the room" and then hearing those dice rattling around behind the DM screen. Everybody looks at each other in anticipation.

They said he taught courses on how to make games more playable. I imagine some of those lessons have direct uses in making web sites more "sticky" and programs more immersive.

He'll be missed.

<comment><USER8> Wow, the first program I wrote was a D&D character generator too. My friend always has a giant excel spreadsheet open when he's DMing. The tactile response of the dice is fun, but calculating stuff like weight modifiers can be tedious.

Btw, For the 3d6 problem, you could do:

sum([random.randint(1,6) for i in xrange(3)])

That's the python version. I have no idea what I did when I first implemented this in C++ 10 years ago.

<comment><USER9> Just FYI, you can clean this up a teeny bit by removing the square brackets to make it a generator expression. Not a big deal but someone might be enlightened.

      sum(random.randint(1, 6) for _ in range(3))

<comment><USER8> Doh! You're right. And I just read an article yesterday comparing the speed of generators with list comprehensions [http://ikanobori.jp/weblog/2009/04/08/python-sum-of-file- gen...](http://ikanobori.jp/weblog/2009/04/08/python-sum-of-file-generators- vs-list-comprehensions/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "personality is as important as combat prowess"

I didn't expect such a quote from a creator of DnD. Isn't DnD the essence of hask'n'slash without much personality?

<comment><USER11> No. D&D can be played as a dungeon crawl series of encounters, but for me the best campaigns are ones with narrative arch and great characters with strong, cohesive, and complicated personalities.

<comment><USER12> I think D&D gets the hack'n'slash reputation mostly because people start playing it when they're too young to really understand role playing.

I play with my wife and kids, and I'd really like to push more roleplaying because that would allow my wife to enjoy the game a lot more (she really only plays because the kids like it), but the kids (ages 7, 11, 13, 15) just don't get it. They get bored with any sort of play that isn't heavy on combat -- a couple of days ago we played through a section of an ancient wizard's keep that was loaded with traps, tricks and puzzles and all but one of them got really bored, though my wife thought it was somewhat interesting.

<comment><USER11> I'm kind of curious/concerned about the future of role-playing -- will it get picked up by kids today? What's your perspective on this a as a father of today's children? Seems like the 15-year-old at least could get into the role- playing aspect.

That said I have buddies in their 30's who still love the hack-n-slash aspect, the superhero, rolling dice, throwing fireballs fun of it all, and who kind of get bored & check out when role-playing comes to the fore of a gaming session. So it could just be a component of the gamer's personality.

Related quote from Dave Arneson:

"Pegasus: What other changes have you seen in gamers, rather than in gaming itself? How are we different?

"Dave: Well, it seems like they're a lot older. Used to all be young – high school kids, college kids – you don't see that too much any more. I don't know if that's because they're off playing video games or card games, or they're just not interested. I think some of it's the video games because you get much more of an instant feedback response from a video game than you do from a roleplaying game. Again, is that good or bad? I think that's bad, because I think they ultimately have a lot more fun playing roleplaying games than shooting up spaceships and aliens."

([http://www.judgesguild.net/guildhall/pegasus/pegasus_14/inte...](http://www.judgesguild.net/guildhall/pegasus/pegasus_14/interview.shtml))</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Maryland governor allows Tesla to sell directly to customers - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/15/8611445/tesla-direct-sales-maryland-law

<comment><USER2> How do republican types who are pro protective action for dealerships justify all this is the context of 'free market'

Downvote? It was a serious question. The two views seem incompatible.

<comment><USER3> Most republican types aren't pro free market, only the illusion of free market with a healthy dose of regulatory capture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> dang or any mods, can you please change the url to: [http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/15/8611445/tesla-direct- sales...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/15/8611445/tesla-direct-sales- maryland-law)

The currently linked url is a bit of text and a link to the above url.

<comment><USER5> Thanks! Url changed from [http://www.globalhacknews.com/2015/05/tesla-just- got-green-l...](http://www.globalhacknews.com/2015/05/tesla-just-got-green- light-to-sell.html).</comment></comment>


Gmail Tampers with Outgoing Email - <AUTHOR> http://lee-phillips.org/gmailRewriting/

<comment><USER2> My summary: user is authenticating to Google's authenticated smtp server as one user but sending as a completely unrelated user. Google modifies the headers to reference the authenticated sender.

Frankly I'm not surprised. I think that the fact that is not a relay server but a specifically provided for the use of the MUA of a user with which they have a relationship gives themselves a lot of 'wiggle room' .

The use of 'tamper' in the heading is a little over the top too.

</comment><comment><USER3> AFAIR, registering your other email addresses with gmail ("Send as") works fine to prevent this behavior.

<comment><USER2> That is not the case here; that is specifically addressed in the article.

<comment><USER4> Where? I didn't read anything about him Pre-clearing the address with GMail as a verified email...

<comment><USER2> Apologies, I misread your comment. I thought you were referring to the second paragraph ending in

"...Google makes this straightforward to set up"

Do you have a link for the pre-clearing?

Anyway, while I'm here, I'd take issue with

"and their correspondents will never know they are using gmail"

They can easily find out if they inspect the headers.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is this the first company to manufacture smartphones in Afrika? - tefo-mohapi http://www.iafrikan.com/2016/12/08/onyx-connect-to-manufacture-android-smartphones-in-south-africa-but-will-they-be-the-first-afrikan-company-to-do-so/ <comment><AUTHOR> Why do you spell Afrika with a 'K'?

(just curious)</comment>


Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/13/charlie-hebdo-cover-magazine-prophet-muhammad <comment><USER3> The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it _The Qur 'an_ to Google-bomb the original? Even if they disregarded their own safety, dozens of organizations would do their best to stop it. Venue owners wouldn't take the risk. Insurers wouldn't accept standard policies. Audience turnout would be lower, fearing attacks. And yet, both religions are similar in their ridiculousness. One just happens to encourage less violence in its hosts.

For a little while, we'll all pile-on the cartoon Muhammad bandwagon in show of support. But after this dies down, who will be the first to step forward with some new blasphemous ridicule? Who will single themselves out, risking their life, their family, their friends?

Whoever does so will certainly be braver than me.

<comment><USER4> While what you said is probably true for obvious reasons, also remember that those cartoons probably offended around 1.5bn people. Seeing that three people decided to react violently after several years of the paper being put out weekly, it is fairly safe to say that this could be described as a clash of the extreme extremists (of whom there are very few).

I am pretty sure the outrage against anti-Semitic jokes would be ridiculous, too (which CH spoke out against and fired over).

I am not defending anybody here, just wanted to describe a slightly different point of view. Obviously it is CH's own choice to put out and condone whatever they want and that choice should be granted.

<comment><USER5> could have offended, if they even saw them. The issue is, how much offense was their really. If Islam is like any other religion there is a significant number who just don't care. They don't want to be bothered.

What we have here is a bunch of extremist trying to incite violence against their faith in order to create more recruits by demonstrating oppression. It does not matter that their actions caused it, it only matters it exists.

Used to be you could isolate a country to make them come around, restrict access to trade and banking. With these groups your going to have to make sure they have no home. keep them on the move so much they cannot get established. It won't be easy or quick, but the alternative is allowing them a beachhead and being subject to their whims

<comment><USER6> CH only printed about 30,000 copies a week. It was just a convenient proxy. I actually live in France and I've never read CH. However, tomorrow morning when the new issue hits the newsstands, I will be first in line. I'm buying the paper not because I care about the content, but because I care about the writers' ability to express their ideas freely and without fear of being shot in the face.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Warning: this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some > may find offensive.

It's the first time I've seen something like this on Guardian; I don't even remember it on articles discussing rape, murder or such, which is usually where "trigger warning" applies.

Personally, I find such trigger warnings, and especially "you might be offended" warnings, totally ridiculous. What about me? I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal responsibility, where is my warning?

<comment><USER8> > I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of > people's personal responsibility

How so? If an article says "trigger warning: (rape/Mohammed/spiders/flashing lights)", then people who don't want to be exposed to those things (e.g. due to PTSD, religion, phobias, epilepsy - or simply because it upsets them and they don't particularly want to be upset right now) can choose not to read it.

How does it erode someone's personal responsibility to give them the information they need to make that choice?

> where is my warning?

If there's a largish number of people for whom "trigger warning: trigger warnings" would actually make life less stressful, then I'd endorse people including that warning.

I don't think that population is very large. For that matter, I don't think it includes you.

<comment><USER9> > If there's a largish number of people for whom ... make life less > stressful...

This kind of thinking, that society should accommodate a populations likes and dislikes, is why we get groups that want to forbid Mohammad cartoons and others in the same country that want to forbid religious clothes like Burqa. No matter the combination, forbid one, forbid both or neither, you will always end up with one or both groups being offended and wanting government to intervene.

The alternative as I see it is to not acknowledge the problem, making it a point that what ever people like or dislike is their own problem.

<comment><USER10> I couldn't agree more! Socialism and equality are among THE most dis- empowering and evil ideas to come out of humanity. Unfortunately, these ideas have taken over reason so completely that they are now universally hailed as virtues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm sure the Wednesday issue will sell out in no time, despite its edition of 3 million, and become a "collector's piece" for those opposing terrorism and violence (as well as for those who want to resell it on Ebay for a profit ;)).

I really admire the courage of the Charlie Hebdo staff, who, just one week after the attack, publish a new issue of their journal.

For me, the main problem now is how we deal with the political consequences of this tragedy: Many politicians already bring themselves in position to create new laws that will allow them even more wiretapping and surveillance. British prime minister David Cameron was arguably one of the first here, as in his recent speech he even puts in question the right of anyone (terrorists included) to communicate in private [1]. Other politicians from (mostly) right-wing parties all over Europe are seizing this opportunity as well and demand stricter anti-terror laws and more government surveillance. I think we need to be very watchful now if we don't wanna loose even more of our democratic freedoms for the sake (or the illusion) of more security.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/david- cameron...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/david-cameron- pledges-anti-terror-law-internet-paris-attacks-nick-clegg)

<comment><USER12> Here's a great interview with Luz, whose signature you can see on the cover drawing. The interesting thing is that Charlie was at heart an iconoclastic magazine, and yet ironically has now become an icon of free speech - <USER2> the staff aren't particularly happy about.

[http://www.lesinrocks.com/2015/01/10/actualite/luz-eyes- us-w...](http://www.lesinrocks.com/2015/01/10/actualite/luz-eyes-us-weve- become-symbol-11545347/)

<comment><USER13> That interview should be read by everyone who cares about the attack on Charlie Hebdo and subsequent "Je suis Charlie" worldwide movement. Many people, for all kinds of reasons (many good) are trying to make Charlie Hebdo into what it is not, and never will be, some kind of reluctant messiah of free speech.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I used to think society would, at some point, grow up and leave religion behind.

But lately, it just feels like a far 'lower' form of religion is just taking over. I think that western christianity has made some big strides. For example, by leaving all the violence behind.

Now the violent ones are winning. This makes me sad for the future of Europe.

<comment><USER15> Coverage of these events, with or without anti-Muslim sentiment, almost never takes the point of view that it is the fact that people are brought up to _really believe_ that there are invisible, magic beings in the ether who care about the state of affairs on earth that is at least in part the root cause here.

And that is a terrible shame because not drawing attention to that fact is a tacit endorsement of extremist beliefs, as Harris, Hitchens, et al. have pointed out many times. You can't have it both ways. You either believe there are invisible, magic beings or you don't. There is no "tolerance" in between. If you think they exist, then you can hardly be surprised when someone takes this ludicrous proposition and bends it to their own political, social, or economic goals -- because you can bend it any way you want, by definition, since it's all made up.

I don't think it is at all obvious that if there were not implicit endorsement of religious beliefs of all kind all over earth, that it wasn't OK for grown- ups to walk around saying they _actually believe_ this nonsense, that this violence would manifest itself in some other way. It's important to at least consider the possibility that religion itself is the problem here.

<comment><USER16> _You can 't have it both ways. You either believe there are invisible, magic beings or you don't._

Well, yes and no. A lot of people (most?) kinda-sorta believe, but have doubts about the weirdness of some of the more unlikely and/or extreme beliefs. The vast people don't have enough faith to strap on a suicide vest or behead someone, even in Islam.

For most "believers", religion is a consolation when you think about Grandma in heaven or a way to be socially connected to your community.

<comment><USER15> This is exactly the sort of wishy-washy point of view that is as culpable as the extremist one.

Here is a fact: there is no reason -- none -- to think that there exists an invisible, magic being in the sky that concerns itself with things going on here on earth.

Unfortunately, for reasons that are hard for me to understand, it has become _pro forma_ to pretend that it's just fine if adults talk and act as if it is, even if they only "kinda-sorta" believe it.

Well I say that it's time to start saying out loud that it's not fine, and that the judgement of anyone who says they believe it in any sense at all might need to be questioned. Just like you would question the judgement of someone who "kinda-sorta" believed anything that's obviously nonsense, like astrology or numerology or fairy tales.

And the reason that it's _important_ to question the judgement of people who believe things that are obviously false is because they might have guns, and they might decide that it's time for someone to be shot in the head because they have offended their magic deity in the sky. And there are worse possibilities that I don't need to enumerate here.

These absurd, magical points of view won't go away until they are laughed out of the room, so let's start. Comfort and community don't trump safety.

<comment><USER17> > Unfortunately, for reasons that are hard for me to understand, it has become > pro forma to pretend that it's just fine if adults talk and act as if it is, > even if they only "kinda-sorta" believe it.

We act like it's just fine to believe in make-belief things because our society is built upon the concept that it is; you're free to believe in anything you like, be it a God, Santa Claus, or pixie-dust unicorns. Our society functions as well as it does because of the presumption that you're free to think and feel whatever you like. Otherwise, trying to prevent people from believing in magical sky fairies quickly transforms into preventing them from believing in forms of government other than democracy, to creation theories other than the big bang, to the political ideologies of any party other than the one in power- and the progress and betterment of society in all areas grinds to a halt.

We've built a society predicated on the notion that you can't prevent people from having stupid ideas without preventing them from having brilliant ones as well- and it's proven an overall good approach so far.

The problem isn't with ideas, it's with the way you apply those ideas to your behavior in the physical world. You're free to believe in unicorns as long as you don't try to stab an aluminium horn into a horse's snout in an attempt to coax them out of hiding, just as you're free to believe in Jesus as long as you don't use it to force me to denounce the teachings of Buddha.

You're free to mock silly ideas people have -- including the concept of an omnipotent deity, if you find that idea silly; but the reason we pretend it's fine for those people to _hold_ those ideas is because it IS.

<comment><USER15> I agree that it's "fine." I wasn't questioning the right to hold any particular view. I'm just arguing that it would be better if we held belief in fairy tales and belief in traditional god(s) to the same standard.

It would be disingenuous to say that you would be willing to hand over the keys to a nuclear reactor or have brain surgery performed by a person who claims to genuinely believe in fairy tales, without pause. Religion should be no different. It is equally ludicrous, no more, no less.

My point is that religion is held to a very different standard, in a sociological sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Charlie Hebdos fight is not a fight for freedom of expression but against self-censorship. I think a lot media and politicians forget that.

We all deal with self-censorship every day as we live amongst each other. Some people have more courage than others and dare take it "behind enemy lines" where other rules apply.

Freedom of expression is a legal right to express yourself without fearing those in power is going to shut you down or prosecute you. We mostly have that and the only people who can threaten it is the politicians which unfortunately is exactly what some of them are going to do.

We already see the first reactions like this [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/news/whatsapp-and-snapchat-could-be-banned-under-new-surveillance- plans-9973035.html)

And all over Europe there are people taking advantage of the situation and proposing laws that will actually threaten freedom of expression.

<comment><USER19> There are already plenty of laws in France and most (perhaps all) other countries that restrict freedom of speech.

Examples of censured expression include but are not limited to: Holocaust denial, hate speech, some forms of pornography, leaking state secrets, harassing communication, copyright infringement, libel and slander.

I don't think that freedom of expression is absolutely permitted anywhere. There are so many exceptions to it - many of which are necessary for a cohesive society - that it's pretty much an invalid concept in real terms.

<comment><USER18> I agree. My primary point is just that it's not "the others" that threaten our freedom of expression its ourselves.

<comment><USER19> My apologies, I misread your comment as saying that freedom of expression was only just beginning to be under threat. I do agree with your primary point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm rather curious why this depiction is considered to be that of the prophet Muhammad. Is it said so somewhere in their paper, or do we all just accept whatever interpretation is handed down to us by the fundamentalists?

<comment><USER21> Because the character is depicted similarly as in a previous cartoon by the same cartoonist: [https://i.imgur.com/Lm4p71F.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Lm4p71F.jpg)

I don't get why you're being downvoted though. Have an upvote.

<comment><USER20> Thank you for the upvote. If the downvotes were due to religious reasons, then I have to admit it is rather sad to see them on HN. On the other hand, if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them.

From the link and history of the cartoons, I've reached the rather odd conclusion that _anyone_ named "Mahomet" or "Muhammad" in a cartoon is automatically assumed to be the prophet Muhammad.

<comment><USER22> > _if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them_

You were just asking an earnest question. What's actually stupid is the downvote feature itself. Upvotes can help promote good content and flags can call attention to inappropriate or problematic content. Likewise, comments can be used to express disagreement.

So, what's the purpose of downvotes? Are we in preschool?

<comment><USER23> If users should be trusted to push comments up, then why _not_ down also? A down vote doesn't have to mean "this comment should not be on HN", it can be "I disagree with this comment" or "I think this comment should be lower down".

<comment><USER24> > I think this comment should be lower down

You actually get _two_ downvotes: if you think a comment should be lower down you can (but shouldn't) upvote all the other comments _and_ downvote the one you think should be lower.

Downvotes are an optimization.

<comment><USER23> Good point - and I think while you're right in saying "but you shouldn't" there are exceptions. I've done this a couple of times, only if two users made the exact same point, one a while before another. Maybe you'd argue I shouldn't have upvoted one and downvoted another as unfair karma wise to the later poster, but my decision to do so was based on improving where the comments are positioned (readers don't need to see the same view twice high up), not based on rewarding or punishing users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Yesterday the Guardian published the best opinion I've read so far about satire, Charlie Hebdo, the terrorist attacks and our reaction to them. And it's a short comic strip by the cartoonist Joe Sacco: [http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng- interactive/2015/jan/09/...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng- interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks)

<comment><USER26> While I respect Secco and his work as well it's also wrong and out of context in some regards.

Ruben Bolling: [http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2015/01/in-...](http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2015/01/in- non-satirical-defense-of-charlie-hebdo.html)

<comment><USER27> I'd never heard of CH a week ago, and Bolling's interpretation of CH's cartooning may be more accurate than Secco's, and it was an interesting perspective.

But I think that Bolling's conclusions are wrong, except perhaps when he rebuts Secco's use of the word "vapid".

Bolling says that the only reasonable reaction to the murders is to defend free speech. No. Defending free speech is necessary, but it's not at all clear that it's sufficient. Freedom of the press isn't the only issue here.

There are also issues of what to do about violence/security, what to do about racism, what to do about freedom of religion, etc. Those issues aren't any more important post-murder, but they were important before and they still are, and this is an opportunity to put some eyes on them.

I don't interpret Sacco's piece as saying "CH is unworthy of our defense". I interpret it as saying "Let's defend CH, but also notice that they were missing the point, here's the point". Bolling argues that CH wasn't missing the point. But Sacco's proposal for where our greatest attention should lie is still a good proposal.

<comment><USER28> What exactly do you see as Sacco's proposal? Maybe it's over my head, but as far as I can see his comic basically says that in response to the murders we should focus on not offending muslims.

<comment><USER27> I don't see anything in Sacco that says "we should not offend". I think Sacco's piece as a whole says three things, and I think that Bolling agrees with the first, rebuts the second, and ignores the third. From the tone of your question, I infer that you're asking me about that "third", but I'll just get the first two out of the way first.

First: Of course we should defend free speech! (Okay, good, glad we got that out of the way. We all agree, yay.)

Second: CH is "tweaking the nose of muslims", and that's "vapid". (Bolling says that's not what CH is doing. I have no idea if Bolling is correct, but it seems plausible. So let's assume Bolling has rebutted Sacco on this.)

Third:

Thinking critically about geopolitics would be more interesting and constructive than "tweaking .. noses". There might be geopolitical and sociological reasons why there exist so many more Muslim-affiliated suicide bombers than there are first-world/modern/white/Christian/etc suicide bombers.

Maybe the issue isn't that Islam teaches violence. I mean, there are plenty of exhortations to violence in Christian history, in Western history, in "modernity". And my understanding is that much of the Quran and the Hadith is calls to peace and non-violence. So what's the deal? Maybe the issue is that there's a lot of inequality in the world (and the inequality is actively pursued by the empowered, not just an accident), and this breeds resentment, and breeds tribal thinking, and Muslims as a group have relatively little overlap with the empowered class (House of Saud notwithstanding). Maybe that sort of us-vs-the-West tribal thinking is the only source of empowerment that certain people can find in their lives, and some tiny fraction of them are borderline-insane young men who jump over the cliff into insanity and strap on vests. And if that's all true, sure it's easy and correct to say "no matter what their excuse, suicide bombing is evil". Fine, I agree. So what? Given the choice between labelling a past murderer as "evil", or preventing a future murder, which is more important to you?

If we agree that violence and terrorism are a problem to which we'd like a solution, what forms of solution can you imagine? Can we realistically eradicate a religion? Alternately, can we realistically eradicate the spectrum of extremism within a religion? How about can we build a police state that will actually prevent this kind of thing, and if we can should we? Or can we just wall off all the crazies and not let them into our countries, and if we can, should we (with the collateral effect of maybe walling some innocents in with the crazies)? Personally I think the answer to all four of those is a very obvious "No". So do we have an alternative? I don't know if an alternative exists, but I suggest that if it does exist, then reducing inequality seems likely to be a prerequisite.

The last two paragraphs of mine are an attempt to spell out the last two panels of Sacco's strip. "We can try to think about why the world is the way it is, and what it is about Muslims in this time and place that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image. And if we answer 'because something is deeply wrong with them' \- certainly something was deeply wrong with the killers - then let us drive them from their homes and into the sea. For that is going to be far easier than sorting out how we fit in each other's world".

So, in summary, Sacco's third point as I see it: Yeah yeah we all agree in free speech, but maybe if we stop foaming at the mouth about how evil a group is, and cultivate some empathy, we can find a solution that doesn't amount to genocide.

On a personal note, I find it very hard to have empathy with religious people of any stripe. But I am well aware that my position on religion makes me a very very tiny minority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It takes a great deal to stand up against the advance of political correctness on free speech. Other countries haven't nearly done as well as France.

At the end of the day the situation was tragic but the defence of free speech against prevailing winds is incredibly important.

As for religious extremism... I don't think we will see an end until enlightenment spreads and religion fades into historic irrelevancy.

This is happening faster than people think, especially religious people as they can't see out of their bubble. At least here in Australia the vast majority of people may "identify" as Christian but they don't actually practice any semblance of faith. That being said the Christian lobby parties still have an unreasonably large amount of sway due to being a very vocal minority that leverages this weak "identity" of Australians to further their conservative agenda.

Nevertheless there is less and less children becoming indoctrinated into this nonsense and gaining access to real information sooner through the Internet that by the end of my lifetime I expect religion (in it's current form) in developed countries to be all but extinct.

I think extremism will still be around, it will just be over more real issues and less fairy tale beliefs.

<comment><USER30> I don't think that the religion is the issue, I think that desperate people with desperate lives will always find something irrational to fill their life with and kill for.

As an example on a smaller scale (smaller as in less desperate) in Italy we have people whose life revolves around going to the stadium on Sunday to watch their football team and getting into fights with the fans of the opponent team. That's the only thing that keeps their life together. And they are ready to kill other teams' fans, we have people killed every year.

Likewise we have extreme right or extreme left groups who fight and kill each other... desperate people filling their life.

Religion, political faith, football team, doesn't really matter, the issue is the people, not the ideas.

<comment><USER29> True, which is why I went to to explain that I don't think all extremism would go away - just religious extremism.

I just think it's harder to incite organised extreme violence without some highly charged agenda and removing religion goes a long way to making our world a better place.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The meaning of satire has lost its edge. People today think satire = political humor, but satire is supposed to be daring, edgy, and in its highest form be:

a) virtually indistinguishable from reality

b) expose the author to real danger and reprisal

c) nearly impossible to reverse on the satirist

Satire has very often been very dangerous to produce, and I think we're being reminded of this right now. It's why satirists take their work so seriously, because it exposes malformed thinking by people who've built their power bases on such thoughts.

In my opinion satire is one of the highest forms of free speech and one of the most powerful tools available for parsing people capable of rational thought and those who aren't.

It's a kind of _gom jabbar_ test and is not for the faint of heart. It's almost a true battle of the pen vs. the sword.

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm nervous about the response that these attacks will conjure from the far right. There have already been a good deal of attempts on the lives of innocent Muslims [1] since the attack on Charlie Hebdo, and I find it very concerning that I have heard none of this from the national/international news media. Would these not as well be considered acts of terrorism? Why not report on them? Doing so would seem to unfairly advance the anti-Islam sentiment in France by effectively silencing the acts of terrorism from non-Muslims.

[1] [http://mic.com/articles/108206/how-bad-is-france-s-anti- musl...](http://mic.com/articles/108206/how-bad-is-france-s-anti-muslim- backlash-to-the-charlie-hebdo-attack-check-this-map)

<comment><USER33> How do you know those attacks were done by the 'right'? What you have done is no different than people saying all "Muslims are terrorists".. Yet you get upvotes.

People that harm people have one thing in common. It is not the 'right' or religion. They are loony and mis-guided, and have their priorities severely out of place. Plain and simple.

Such polarization will never lead to any kind of peace.

<comment><USER32> That's a fair point, the article I quoted does not mention if these people were on the 'right' or not. However, by saying "far right", I was trying to imply that extremists from that side would carry out acts on Muslims, much like extremist Muslims attacking the Hebdo.

I assumed these attacks would come from the right because of a culture of Islamophobia that I've seen on places like Fox news, which I consider to be a far right media outlet. For example:

[http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7533159/fox-news-pirro- rant](http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7533159/fox-news-pirro-rant) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims- are...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslims-are-evil- lets-kill-them-all-us-tv-commentator-erik-rush-provokes-furious-reaction-with- boston-bombing-twitter-rants-8575176.html) [http://www.salon.com/2014/08/20/foxs_andrea_tantaros_you_sol...](http://www.salon.com/2014/08/20/foxs_andrea_tantaros_you_solve_it_with_a_bullet_to_the_head/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> If only the governments wouldn't use this "attack on free speech" to umm... _restrict free speech_. If the terrorists change your way of life, they've won. I thought the _whole point_ of the march was to say that "We are not afraid! And we'll continue to be just as free as ever! Your violence will not scare us!" \- and so on.

But nope. Apparently what it meant is that we need more censorship _and_ self- censorship caused by increased and more intrusive mass surveillance:

[http://www.zdnet.com/article/europes-answer-to-terror- attack...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/europes-answer-to-terror-attacks-on- free-speech-is-to-double-down-on-internet-censorship/)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-it-means-to- stan...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-it-means-to-stand-with- charlie-hebdo/2015/01/08/ab416214-96e8-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html)

If the alternative to once in a while terrorist attacks is turning every democracy into Russia or China, then I'd rather stick with the risk of terrorism.

</comment><comment><USER35> As the article points out, this is essentially the only viable move for Charlie Hebdo. To have so often depicted Muhammad in the past, have most of their staff killed for it, become the focus of a worldwide movement that promises not to be intimidated or cowed by terrorism, and then not publish Muhammad in the next issue? An admission of complete defeat.

That said, bravo.

</comment><comment><USER36> First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam.

But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wished for those people to get hurt (there is specific mention of this in Islam). It is against the moral of our religion to engage in such "eye for an eye" notions. Yet people (like the 4 suspects) who are not aware of their own religion and the finer lines tend to do these things when agitated or pushed in a corner.

On the other hand, Religion is a personal affair. People are serious about it, be it any religion. People live and die by the religion, it is the very guide of majority of the people in this world. And if someone portrays something so closely associated to people, it is a kin to playing with their feelings. And that is where things start to get ugly, and such mishaps happen.

Satire is accepted in Islam, as evident from the semi-fictional writings about Mullah Nasruddin.

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

But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much. Besides the additional fact, that impersonation/impersonification of Prophet Muhammad is highly condemned in Islam. Even if we are to write a play on factual things about him, it is prohibited to have someone portray him (even for a good/just reason). To say that in other words, to Muslims, a graphical satire is acceptable on anyone except the prophets, which includes Moses, Jesus, Abraham, etc. Yet, if someone does want to amuse himself or exercise his liberty knowing that it is something that hurts us, we simply have to ignore him. Things should not go further than that.

People in the west have indeed respected this, as seen in the movie:

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074896/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074896/)

Let us understand each others liberties as well as sensitivities, so that by standing firm together, we will all make a better society, both in France and the World.

<comment><USER37> As a an atheist, who spent nearly all of his life in a country with 99% Muslim population, I do not understand how people who live in such society and got an education defend the religion.

>> First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam.

First of all, this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Islam, after Christianity, has the bloodiest history we know. The only reason it is the second biggest religion is because it expanded by violent conquers. Even in the off chance that the host is being decent, they imposed so much regulations on non-Muslims that they would end up converting. So this is exactly what Islam is.

>> On the other hand, Religion is a personal affair.

No one who has laid their eyes on Qur'an can say that. It is very explicit about how you need to treat non-Muslims. I don't know where the entire notion of "personal affair" came from.

>> But the level of Satire in question here, was perhaps too much.

Who says so? Who is the divine power that decides on what satire is too much in the absolute scare?

>> Besides the additional fact, that impersonation/impersonification of Prophet Muhammad is highly condemned in Islam.

It is free in the Western world for women not to wear head scarves, drive and have sex with whoever they want, by extension of this logic would it be okay for woman to go to Saudi Arabia and do any of these things?

>> Let us understand each others liberties as well as sensitivities, so that by standing firm together, we will all make a better society, both in France and the World.

No, you don't get it. Objectively France is the better society here. I am half-french and I can criticise France on various issues for many hours but it is insulting to do a comparison between France and a "serious" Muslim country.

<comment><USER36> First of all, this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Islam, after Christianity, has the bloodiest history we know. The only reason it is the second biggest religion is because it expanded by violent conquers. Even in the off chance that the host is being decent, they imposed so much regulations on non-Muslims that they would end up converting. So this is exactly what Islam is.

>> Let me put it this way. There are only a couple of hundred thousand/million of people who follow Bahai Religion. Can they have the bloodiest history? Both Christianity and Islam, are among top 3 in terms of people who follow a religion. Of course with nearly half the planet following Islam and Christianity, if people stand up for the right things, they will end up with a bloody history. (In no way I support violence, but what I say is for the sake of the argument).

No one who has laid their eyes on Qur'an can say that. It is very explicit about how you need to treat non-Muslims. I don't know where the entire notion of "personal affair" came from.

>> And I agree with you, Islam specifically says that Non-Muslims are to be treated with respect and dignity. As you say, no man who has laid eyes on Quran can claim that such terrorism is justified.

Who says so? Who is the divine power that decides on what satire is too much in the absolute scare?

>> Who says it is too little? Which Divine power will decide it is too much or too little?

It is free in the Western world for women not to wear head scarves, drive and have sex with whoever they want, by extension of this logic would it be okay for woman to go to Saudi Arabia and do any of these things?

>> Is this in someway becoming, tell me what Islam is? If you have questions, about "What Islam actually says", then go read a genuine English Translation of Quran.

No, you don't get it. Objectively France is the better society here. I am half-french and I can criticise France on various issues for many hours but it is insulting to do a comparison between France and a "serious" Muslim country.

>> You seem to have a delusion about "Serious" Muslim Country. No one can clearly say which country is better. Isn't it peaceful to say all religions are good, all countries are good? Which side are you really on? Of a peaceful mindset or I want to work out my issues about Islam on HN?

<comment><USER24> Your way of quoting the parent here in reverse is highly confusing, it is as if you are now contradicting yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Much better than expected: It's defiance and almost turning the other cheek at the same time.

<comment><USER39> It's forgiveness and turning the other cheek. It's surprisingly Christian for such an anti-religious magazine.

Also check out the beautiful cover they had after the 2011 firebombing: [http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/static/world/charlie_...](http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/static/world/charlie_hebdo/kissing_hebdo.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Edit: actually this is wrong: the Guardian and Independent (left) have published, Sun, Times Telegraph and Mail (right) have not.

Original: it's also worth noting that all the UK newspapers, from both sides of politics, have republished the relevant cover.

</comment><comment><USER41> The article and many peoples reaction comes across as if these two 'individuals' actually represented the Muslim community. This is quite obviously not the case if it is looked at objectively.

And to say that somehow the Muslim community must bear responsibility for the individuals actions is like saying that all the people of France must bear responsibility for every wrong committed in their neighbourhood, or their city, or by their government, were those wrongs not commit by French men and women.

<comment><USER42> No, it really doesn't come across as that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Radical murderous bastards with long toes will use any excuse to ply their trade whether they're anti-abortionists or Islamists doesn't really matter.

What _does_ matter is that:

\- this will rub off negatively on all those in Islam that don't distance themselves unconditionally from actions like these

\- that it will be used to erode the rights and freedoms of people that had nothing to do with these attacks by railroading laws against the public interest while the anger and the fear are at high tide

\- that actions like these make people of _all_ religions look bad, especially those who are more fanatical about their religion.

On the whole, everybody loses.

If your imaginary friend can't be made fun of or you'll flip then you should see a shrink, and if you think there was anything 'ok' about these murders then I'd invite you to join in.

Other than that this is a police matter and politicians trying to use this to push their agenda should be voted out of office by all those who today think they too are 'Charlie'.

</comment><comment><USER43> It is not about Islam but about a school of thought which is not only 100% certain in its beliefs (Quran is the literal word of God) but also likes to impose it on others under the banner of "don't hurt our feelings". I've seen examples coming from Budhism (Burma-Sri Lanka), Hinduism (India), Sikhism (India), Christianity (UK-middle age Europe-African countries). People from even non-islamic religions regularly kill each other for hurting 'religious feelings'.

When someone 'hurts' your religious sentiments, you can't be sure whether it was done deliberately or for deeper reasons. I can see deep reasons in why those cartoons were published.

Anyone against free expression is kinda against science itself. Certain religions will never grow (the word of god is limited to Quran/Bible/Whatever) but science will keep growing. What happens when science ends up infringing on religious feelings? Will we be allowed to publish potential treatment for HIV found in a pig's liver in a sharia state? Even saying that "Charlie Hebdo" did something wrong is taking a step towards a world where science starts becoming bound. This sentiment can easily go out of hand in a matter of 100 years. A perfect example would be Pakistan. A supposedly liberal place 100 years ago ended up forcing its only nobel prize winning physicist into exile, defacing his grave and making sure more awesome scientists are not created. Because apparently, Dr. Abdus Salam (the nobel laureate) wasn't Muslim enough!! I wouldn't take even one step towards intolerance for the sake of our great- great grandchildren.

</comment><comment><USER44> I found it quite moving that the theme of the cover was forgiveness. Fighting extremist hate with more hate has a best case of only shifting which people suffer because it, and a worse case that is truly horrible to contemplate.

I know saying you forgive your attackers will almost certainly not make the world a better place. But there were so many reactions that could have added to the fire. It's very hopeful to see people struggling to break the cycle even in the face of such loss.

<comment><USER45> I agree with you almost completely - except I do think that forgiveness definitely will and does make the world a better place. It just did - you and I and countless other people have been moved and inspired by this gesture of forgiveness. How can that not make the world better?

If they had instead requested vengeance - it would continue the cycle of misery, hate and destruction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> One thing I fail to understand is the general reaction - or, rather, the absence of such - of 'Islamic authorities' on this and other acts of violence in the name of their religion. There are many complaints about those who point fingers at all Muslims when these things happen, something which would be easily defused by a fatwa (a legal opinion) from some high-placed muftis declaring such acts as 'haram' \- sinful. I do not know enough about Islam to know whether there is something resembling 'excommunication' in the Roman Catholic church, but if there is it would make sense to apply it to those who commit such acts of violence. If the perpetrators can no longer claim to be defending their religion they might start to realise that their acts of violence are criminal acts, pure and simple, without any religious excuse.

Such a fatwa - or series of fatwas, as there are many currents in Islam - would take away the cause for the general blame which is aimed at Muslims when atrocities are performed in name of their religion.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's difficult to be surprised by this turn of events.

It's in poor taste, in one sense, but overall it's the only appropriate response that a satirist magazine could take in the wake of this tragedy.

Followers of Islam the whole world over will continue to ignore these publications nonviolently, though a few extremists might be further radicalized by this decision.

Meanwhile, David Cameron is trying to outlaw cryptography after these attacks. Surely that deserves more of our attention right now?

</comment><comment><USER48> We're allowed to talk about this now? I thought all the stories on it were getting flagged off the front page?

</comment><comment><USER49> These events have really solidified an idea for me that I've been mulling for a while: I don't think I'm in favor of religion as a protected class[1].

Islam believes in inerrancy of the Qur'an. The Qur'an encourages violence. The faces of organized Islam in the west engage in apologetics and argue that this isn't so, but anyone can read this for themselves. Claiming that the Qur'an doesn't encourage violence is just doublethink. Most Muslims believe that the Qur'an espouses peace, only because they haven't read it. But if they actually do read it and realize it espouses violence, then they are faced with a choice: either give up the idea that the Qur'an is inerrant, or begin spreading Islam through violence. All it takes to turn a peaceful Muslim into a violent Muslim is that they actually read and understand their holy book.

Even peaceful Muslims aren't great. Even in its milder incarnations, Islam is sexist and hostile to science.

The interests of Islam are not aligned with my interests. They are, in fact, directly opposed to my interests.

I believe that one of the most powerful ways in which I can act politically is through economics. There is a diner in my town which is well-known for its owners being racist. I don't go there, because I don't want to support racists monetarily. Similarly, I wouldn't hire a person who made racist comments. I believe that there should be significant repercussions for that kind of behavior.

Likewise, I don't want to go to Muslim businesses or hire Muslims. Islam is every bit as harmful as racism, and I believe that there should be significant repercussions for that behavior.

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

</comment><comment><USER50> I'm offended by the fact that there is a warning at the top of this page...

Shouldn't it be there all the time then?

How about, we don't believe in anything anymore, or we don't have any integrity?

</comment><comment><USER51> My one and only question: How can a religion be based mostly on one book? Surely the book isn't wikipedia or google.

This question applies to Christians, Muslims and Jews.

</comment><comment><USER52> Read news about the biggest gathering in paris ever as a tribute to the legendary cartoonist, terrorists are failing in their objectives.

<comment><USER53> Nope. Terrorist have won again. The aim of Islam terrorism is not to cause direct damage, but to install fear in all of us and reduce our freedom/democracy. Here's one of example that's relevant to people here on HN:

"In wake of Paris shootings, Prime Minister wants to ban encryptions that government can't read in extreme situations"

[http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/new...](http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and- tech/news/whatsapp-and-snapchat-could-be-banned-under-new-surveillance- plans-9973035.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Is there anyone in France willing to take a paypal payment to buy me a couple of copies and mail them to the USA?

<comment><USER55> I've heard that this issue will be translated in something like 16 languages, I would be surprised if it wasn't officially distributed abroad, especially in the USA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Offering forgiveness in the face of such brutality is very powerful and meaningful to me. It is moving and inspiring. When something so brutal like this happens, I can get depressed and not understand. It is easy to feel a lot of anger about it.

But then in the face of this brutality, when their co-workers and friends were murdered in cold blood, to offer forgiveness - it really does a lot to restore my faith in humanity.

</comment><comment><USER5> How do we obtain a copy in the US? Anyone have a good source?

</comment><comment><USER56> A very interesting cover. I was thinking about drawing a cartoon: a bunch of Muslims sitting around saying "I hate freedom soo much!..."

Note this wouldn't be satirizing Muslims, but rather the fact that we rush to draw these comical worldviews even in the face of such tragedies.

Let's just label it Radical Islam & call anyone that doesn't agree with our definition of "values" a Radical. The Islamic world is in deep shit, not necessarily because of the west. Meaningful change often isnt even a remote possibility in many of these places. The "extremists" are just another group vying for power and legitimacy in a dystopian Muslim world & something like Charlie Hebdo is a PR opportunity.

Religious injunctions aside, what makes criticizing Islam is not just the beliefs that some hold. What makes it dangerous is you're likely painting a target on your back. They won't take on the U.S. army, or the seriously oppressive armies of dictatorships. A journalist, celebrity etc is a great opportunity.

It's not fucking about free speech, unless you believe in a comical worldview where you depict what doesn't match your worldview as I did earlier. The cartoons are funny. I'm all for freedom of speech. But our principles don't make ground realties any different. We should think of the fact that at least we have the luxury of having principles.

In principle, nobody should rob me while I'm going walking down the street. But it's a whole different thing if it's in a rough neighborhood & I'm standing out like a sore thumb.

What happenned was wrong, and my heart goes out to all who are directly involved. And I mean that (A close family friend was recently shot by a deranged lunatic on a shooting spree, leaving him permanently disabled). The violence is senseless and irrational.

Let us them not rationalize it away with a little bias thrown the other way. It's not what I expect on HN. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking it was about freedom of speech. Yes, it has caused fear. Which is why I thought the cover was interesting. It's saying to us: we are not afraid & it's not hurling hate back with a message of forgiveness, which is atypical in the aftermath of a terrorist attack.

Surprisingly Charlie Hebdo's cover is more thoughtful & less comical than the inane chatter of people saying "why do they hate us". And that is Brilliant. Alas this attempt at communication is probably lost on a majority of the Muslim world. In truth, everyone wants freedom. Let's take a second to think about what's really at play here.

For the perpetrators of these acts like to win, it requires us to becomes irrational & start becoming hateful and shortsighted. Let's not give in to that

</comment><comment><USER57> _Speaking on Today, [Omer el-Hamdoon, president of the Muslim Association of Britain] said causing offence "just for the purpose of offending" was not freedom of speech._

Distancing yourself from the extremists [FAIL]

<comment><USER41> Just because someone doesn't take your side in debate does not necessarily mean they took some other non affiliated point of view.

<comment><USER58> One could argue that he did, indirectly. Freedom of speech means exactly that - the freedom to say whatever you want, within the margins allowed by the law, regardless of how it could be perceived by some specific group of people. Somebody is always going to be offended, I think el-Hamdoon missed the whole point.

What he could have said instead, but didn't, is this: "While I find the cover disgusting, freedom of speech protects their right to publish this, and they should not fear for their lives because of it."

<comment><USER59> > _Freedom of speech means exactly that - the freedom to say whatever you want > ... regardless of how it could be perceived by some specific group of > people_

No. You can't publish porn freely. Why? Because some people find it offensive. It's not that simple.

<comment><USER57> Or maybe it is. What makes you uncritically accept those restrictions as not violating free speech? Just because the countries that impose them happen to claim they support free speech?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Y HN become political?

</comment><comment><USER61> The face and turban is shaped like a penis

</comment><comment><USER61> Test</comment>


Widely-advertised VPN provider, NordVPN, deploys dubious cryptography - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/CiPHPerCoder/status/1044625129278443522 <comment><USER2> Well, you mentioned that the flawed code is from a really old version of NordVPN. Judging from your tweets it seems that it is fixed.</comment>


EFF is countersuing a patent troll that wants its name removed from a blog post - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/14/eff_countersues_patent/ <comment><USER3> Can we change the link to the EFF press release?

[https://www.eff.org/press/releases/patent-owner-cant-use- for...](https://www.eff.org/press/releases/patent-owner-cant-use-foreign- court-order-block-eff-speaking-out)

<comment><USER4> I prefer the information to be given by a neutral third party.

<comment><USER5> Ad supported news is not neutral - it is beholden to whatever it thinks will get the most attention (whether that be quality journalism or clickbait - <USER2> don't know where the register stands on that). Just the concept of neutrality in any media is inherently false.

<comment><USER6> Yet if it was subscription supported you can guarantee there would be people complaining about posting paywalled links. We need to get news somehow.

Leave it to the reader to judge any bias or otherwise - but a media source is less likely to have a firm stance either way than one of the parties to the lawsuit.

<comment><USER7> We almost need a kind of multiplex blogspam posts. A post saying as little as possible to maintain neutrality: 'Patent troll makes case vs EFF, EFF counter sues.' Then list in alphabetical order source material (Patent troll's claim, EFF's claim)

This does have the issue of giving minority positions more exposure. ie climate change denial links may be split 50% despite strong preference in the scientific community. The reader has to recognize which links have substance for themselves

<comment><USER6> Sounds like you just described Techmeme.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > We further demand that you make immediate arrangements for any links to the > article to be removed from the world wide web including any and all other > websites which references the infringing material. If you do not do this, we > will be forced to do so at your expense.

Does that... involve paying Vupen to break into my web server, or what? Because I'd love to see them try to "remove links from the world wide web".

<comment><USER9> Likely it'll mean paying lawyers to file false dmca requests in the end. Or something similar with cease and desist. I think the intent is they're saying we'll sue everyone and make you pay for it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Time to renew my annual donation to the EFF. [https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button](https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button)

</comment><comment><USER11> Why is there not more media coverage on that district in eastern texas that allows all these patent trolls to exist?

<comment><USER12> I don't know that it would ever be stated so explicitly, but at the end of the day there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about the EDTX courts without major legislation, so there's no news there.

<comment><USER13> Actually it's presently before the supreme court: [http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/argument-analysis- justices...](http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/argument-analysis-justices- hear-horror-stories-venue-patent-litigation/) But the argument report doesn't look promising.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> While this judges ruling is patently inapplicable to the EFFs website (different jurisdiction, different rules), I wonder if it could cause problems personally to any of the staff (more likely: the directors) if they wished to visit Australia in the future, can they be held responsible when entering the jurisdiction?

</comment><comment><USER15> The SEO on this article is going to be fabulous. The words "patent troll" will be forever tied to this company. Good work.

</comment><comment><USER16> Does anyone know anything behind the injunction from the Supreme Court of South Australia?

[https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/04/14/eff-lawsuit-oz-judge- injun...](https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/04/14/eff-lawsuit-oz-judge- injunction.pdf)

<comment><USER17> It's an interlocutory order, made on the same day its application was heard, with no representation for the defendant appearing.

It's the kind of order that's made before a case is actually decided, to limit some ongoing harm until the case can actually be heard. The plaintiff agrees to compensate the defendant if the final judgement doesn't uphold the interlocutory order.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Modest proposal: put all patent license fees into a 17 year escrow. Fees returned if patent overturned. Publish a list of patent #'s and escrow amounts. Allow for class action suits to represent the licensees. Sever and nullify any clauses in existing agreements that would prevent a licensee from participating in a class action suit. IANAL; merely a defensive patent holder.

<comment><USER19> Downside: an individual who made an important discovery and patented her invention and licensed her technology to large companies would not be able to access her money for 17 years.

<comment><USER17> Presumably you'd be able to get a loan secured against the escrowed revenue. If this actually happened you'd no doubt see specific tailored financial solutions for this.

<comment><USER20> Like you can get a loan or advance against annuities and settlements now?

Where the _best_ of these will take fifty per cent as a fee?

Sounds a great deal.

<comment><USER21> If half of all patents are known to be bogus then yeah, that'd be a fine deal.

<comment><USER7> So as an escrow company I should also fund the creation of bogus patents to increase the rates of my business model

<comment><USER17> This makes no sense, because the only reason a higher proportion of bogus patents would increase the interest rate charged is because it would increase the risk that the patent returns very little in revenue (the higher interest rates aren't increasing profit, they're covering higher risk).

I think what'd you'd actually see is specialist patent funding actuaries and patent evaluators making an interest rate bid dependent on the actual patent and inventor in question, much the way insurance industry works. The direct competition would be business loans, and maybe that'd be essentially what they were - secured business loans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The original EFF blog post: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid- patent-month-st...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/stupid-patent-month- storage-cabinets-computer)

</comment><comment><USER22> On the surface of seems that the stupid patent, filed in 1999 has plenty of prior art... How did the patent not get overturned?

<comment><USER23> Unfortunately this story is the start of the process for how patents get overturned...

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is one of the reasons I support the EFF.

</comment><comment><USER25> Do they not know of the Streisand effect? Well, maybe this company will become known as the Australian version of it.

<comment><USER26> I suppose it could hurt them (and no amount of shell companies would make a difference) if the individuals behind this were to be exposed.

I didn't want to pay the $40 to pull the company record, but all their info is super public on linkedin anyway: [https://imgur.com/a/SVVYK](https://imgur.com/a/SVVYK)

So they either don't care or they're idiots.

<comment><USER27> Looks like it is a family business of sorts (at least according to the names of the various C-something titles)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > [the troll] asked for [EFF's] "Stupid Patent of the Month" post to be taken > down. Remarkably, an Australian judge agreed

Does anyone know why the judge agreed? I'm all for taking down trolls, but if a judge agreed, maybe there's more to the story than meets the eye.

<comment><USER29> I think it was a default ruling. People are speculating that the EFF didn't bother with defending on this one, since it was in Australian courts.</comment></comment>