How CGA Graphics worked [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsDssW5dIqM <comment><USER2> This wouldn't be complete without mentioning the enhanced CGA version a lot of Europeans experienced via Amstrad/Schneider PCs in the 80s (they tended to be the cheapest way to get a PC here, back then).

"The Amstrad used an "enhanced" CGA graphic mode, which could display 640x200 pixels with 16 colors (or grayscale)."

[http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=183&st=1](http://www.old- computers.com/museum/computer.asp?c=183&st=1)

[http://www.nostalgianerd.com/amstrad- pc1512](http://www.nostalgianerd.com/amstrad-pc1512)

There were probably at least five pieces of software released which supported this mode. :)

The PC1512 came bundled with the GEM windowing system from Digital Research, including a paint program: [http://www.reenigne.org/computer/gempaint.gif](http://www.reenigne.org/computer/gempaint.gif) as well as a fairly state of the art graphical BASIC: [http://www.reenigne.org/computer/basic2.gif](http://www.reenigne.org/computer/basic2.gif), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDL8w_Mi49A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDL8w_Mi49A) (video in EGA though).

<comment><USER3> Ah GEM and Basic 2 Plus! My parents wrote a retail system (cashier, stock, orders) for their store with this and it's still running today (via DOSBox, the hardware is long gone)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This link is dead.

I assume this is the same video.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niKblgZupOc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niKblgZupOc)

</comment><comment><USER5> Speaking of CGA... did you know that an IBM PC 5150 (4.77 MHz Intel 8088) with a CGA card can display full framerate video?

[http://trixter.oldskool.org/2014/06/19/8088-domination- post-...](http://trixter.oldskool.org/2014/06/19/8088-domination-post-mortem- part-1/)

This is accomplished by _compiling_ the video into _branch-free code_ that sends minimal updates to the CGA.

<comment><USER6> The same demogroup did this around a year later:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9338944](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9338944)

[http://8088mph.blogspot.com/2015/04/cga-in-1024-colors- new-m...](http://8088mph.blogspot.com/2015/04/cga-in-1024-colors-new-mode- illustrated.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I often thought that CGA could have been much better with very little change at the hardware level.

If the colour displayed onscreen had the red level inverted the options would have been much more erm... palatable.

For an output of (1-r,g,b) you would get some lovely options [http://i.imgur.com/rMAr9mU.png](http://i.imgur.com/rMAr9mU.png)

If done at the Digital level flipping the R line of the RGBI You would remain in the standard 16 colours but with better combinations

[http://i.imgur.com/2AWs9E7.png](http://i.imgur.com/2AWs9E7.png)

You get a nice blue gradient palette and an earth tone palette (brown,black and green).

<comment><USER8> Yes but wouldn't 16 colors in composite mode look worse then?

It seems like these colors were chosen exactly because when you mixed them you would get nicer colors.

<comment><USER9> The video is a bit misleading here - most CGA composite games didn't use the 2bpp mode at all but instead used the 1bpp mode. This gave 15 reasonably nice colours distributed roughly evenly through RGB space, and was also more consistent between different versions of the CGA card.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> TIL: dosbox can emulate CGA composite mode.

Of course, Hercules Graphics Adapter is the one true graphics adapter :-)

<comment><USER5> CGA 4-color mode was extra "fun" after SIMCGA munged it to black and white pixels with a different aspect ratio.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Great video, but missing from the palette discussion is the cyan-red-grey option, which was by far the best one and only used in a handful of games.

Be sure to check out the game Round 42 for another great demonstration of the 160x100x16 mode.

I had access to that Tandy portable - it had the WORST screen ever, but for some reason I have a soft spot for it.

<comment><USER12> Round 42! What a blast from the past. I don't know how well-known that game is, but when it ran (on our IBM PCjr with the memory expansion), it was great fun and a graphical treat (for the time).

<comment> T-hawk Another Round 42 fan here from way back. This was one of the first of original PC games to start failing on newer hardware; even most VGA cards weren't compatible with that funky CGA mode. I wonder if Dosbox can handle it at all...</comment></comment></comment>


How becoming a Stoic can make you happy - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2010/09/20/how-becoming-a-stoic.html <comment><USER2> I have a feeling this book will change my life. Thanks for posting the link.</comment>


Forbes: 7 Things To Consider Before Registering A New gTLD; What Is Right - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedomains.com/2014/01/30/forbes-7-things-to-consider-before-registering-a-new-gtld-what-the-author-got-right-wrong/

<comment><AUTHOR> I am aware that original articles should be submitted, but I think there is a whole new article with added value from a domain expert. So I hope, in this case it is OK to submit article from thedomains.com instead from the forbes.com.</comment>


Security disclosure about a Bluetooth toilet - <AUTHOR> https://www.trustwave.com/spiderlabs/advisories/TWSL2013-020.txt <comment><USER2> According to this[0] the flush volume of this toilet is 5 liters. If it takes two minutes to flush and refill then the amount of water you could waste in an hour is:

30 * 5 = 150L

If a family is away on vacation, you could theoretically flush for days.

24 * 150 = 3600L per day

In Seattle the water costs about 4.5 cents per cubic foot.[1] (If it costs 4.50 _dollars_ for one CCF (which is 100 cubic feet) then I move the decimal place over two times.)

According to this[2] "1 Liter = 0.0353146667 Cubic Foot"

If that's the case then at 3600L per day you can flush 127.1328001 Cubic Feet of water.

127.1328001 * 4.5 = 572.0976005 cents

Round down to 572, divide by one hundred:

You can grief somebody for $5.72 a day in Seattle with this exploit. If you were to constantly flush all year it would cost you:

$5.72 * 365 = $2087.8

One way you could exploit this is if you obsessively watched out for the neighbors to see when they came and went and flushed when they aren't home.

[0]: [http://www.inax- usa.com/download/catalog/pdf/0008-2.pdf](http://www.inax- usa.com/download/catalog/pdf/0008-2.pdf) (Page 18, flushing volume)

[1]: [http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/Rates/WaterRates/Resi...](http://www.seattle.gov/util/MyServices/Rates/WaterRates/ResidentialRates/index.htm)

[2]: [http://www.asknumbers.com/LiterToCubicFeet.aspx](http://www.asknumbers.com/LiterToCubicFeet.aspx)

<comment><USER3> In some parts of the UK water is unlimited - you only pay a yearly fee for access, but you can literally use as much as you like - it's not metered. So flushing your neighbour's toilet would be at most amusing,but not costly.

<comment><USER4> I live in St Louis, MO, where in many parts of the area the water system is old enough that they don't even have meters.

The water division charges a flat rate based on the number of rooms and toilets/showers in the house, as that information is on file with the property tax assessor's records. If you ever add or remove a room or water fixture, you have to get a permit, which would get those upgrades reflected on the assessor's records.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Although not mentioned in the advisory, this particular model also allows you to play sounds through the toilets internal speaker.

Any exploit should surely consist of the lid flapping open and closed while the toilet whispers to you, beckoning you to come closer, and finally squirting you in the eye with the bidet.

<comment><USER6> "Didn't your parents tell you never to listen to toilets?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm going to go ahead and file this away as an example of how needless complexity can bite you in the ass. In this case, _almost_ literally.

</comment><comment><USER8> Here's the app that goes along with the toilet: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jp.co.lixil.re...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jp.co.lixil.remotesatis201210&hl=en)

At least the poop journal aspects shouldn't be compromised even if your toilet is :)

</comment><comment><USER9> Toilets are awesome. We rarely talk about them (or sewers), but they are a VERY important part of disease control. Toilets save lives, we just don't realise it.

<comment><USER10> And electronic bidets are the most awesome of toilets. Once you get used to them (and they are fairly affordable as long as you don't go for Toto), using paper feels so... primitive.

<comment><USER11> Almost eleven years ago, one Stana Claus contributed† the following factoid to history:

        Just so you know, some varieties of corn have a dark reddish cob
        while others have more of a whitish colored cob. When I was but a
        wee child I was told by my beloved grandfather that the proper
        outhouse technique required "two reds and a white". The red cobs
        (apparently more readily available, at least in that locale) were
        used for bulk removal, and the white was used to determine if the
        job was sufficiently done. Surely, my grandfather wouldn't have
        lied to a small impressionable child about such a thing!

†[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2363912&p...](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2363912&postcount=13)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> .. so you can flush without touching the toilet? .. brilliant :P

<comment><USER3> But that means you have to touch your phone, probably before washing your hands first. Less than ideal.

<comment><USER13> Not with the Moto X, "OK Google Now, flush toilet"

<comment><USER14> "Siri, spray shiri," in this case.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who wants to help build a home inventory tracker? - <AUTHOR>

My idea is simple: built a Web 2.0 app that allows people to track the stuff in their home/garage.  That way if/when it gets lost/stolen/burned up they know exactly what they had.  You can use the info to file an insurance claim faster/better.  Or you can use it when you sell your house.  Or we can build a system to update you when/if there is a recall on an appliance you own.  etc...<p>I can do the programming (I ♥ RoR) but the design side leaves me befuddled.  :)  Any budding design wizards want in on the action? <comment><USER2> Ouch, no thanks. I can't think of anything more mind-numbingly boring than trying to catalog all of my possessions for insurance purposes. I'd much rather just walk around slowly with a videocamera, and leave it at that. I can't think of anything on the design-side that would make this a winning proposition.

Sorry!

<comment><USER3> ... But it could tie into an idea I had for people trying to simplify their lives and sell their excess posessions:

If the inventory could be tied to either a custom sales/swap site, or even craigslist or e-bay, it could actually manage your possessions and help you make money off the stuff you no longer need.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, there are all kinds of integration you could do. A mashup with Craigslist is a great idea. Want to sell an old microwave oven? Just click the "List this item on Craigslist" button, give some details, and your good to go!

Additionally you could find a replacement item for something that is broken. Need a new couch to replace your old one? Just click the "Find something similar on eBay" button and your golden! I like it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am not interested, but I know of another hacker that you might want to be introduced to that made an app with a similar purpose for the iphone.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. I was actually thinking that an iPhone app would be great. It would really help out with the inventorying process: enter some details; take a picture; file it away. Sweet!

</comment></comment><comment> eric-85255 Yes, inventory tracking and amortization is simple</comment>


The Etherkiller (2002) - <AUTHOR> http://www.fiftythree.org/etherkiller/ <comment><USER2> *smugly slap suspenders

amateurs. that is no more fun than a hammer.

what is beautiful is adding a relay triggered by data passing trhu. everything will work until one string is typed on telnet or a certain site is accessed. and more importantly, with the user in the middle of something.

that is art.

</comment><comment><USER3> I mean really all you need to show is the picture: [http://www.fiftythree.org/etherkiller/img/etherkiller.jpg](http://www.fiftythree.org/etherkiller/img/etherkiller.jpg)

My favorite though is the etherkiller hub, which is just diabolical.

<comment><USER4> It's just "Power over Ethernet"....

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3_gnnz6Bkw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3_gnnz6Bkw)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Am I the only one that doesn't find this the least bit funny? It just seems stupid to me.

<comment><USER6> Nope, this is one of the dumbest things I've seen. It's not even clever...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Funny.

This remind of story I heard about how to destroy a PC with Floppy/CD drive long time ago.

Grind match stick into powder carefully, mix with lipstick oil, spread to Floppy/CD and insert it into a system.

<comment><USER8> I still have a 3.5" floppy disk that a friend of mine made in middle school in which he replaced the magnetic medium with a sheet of black fine-grit sandpaper. I don't think anyone ever used it, fortunately.

<comment><USER9> "Emergency Boot Disk"

<comment><USER10> New meaning to "formating".

p.s: I solemnly swear that I am up to no good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Love it. My first thought was "this is old, and I've seen it 10 years ago". But they have added a few things. Love the devices for "assuring" the telco that they do indeed have a problem :-)

<comment><USER12> The V.35 killer will only fry equipment at your end of the line. For telco- style copper circuits, voltages around 110V are essentially within normal operational conditions ("correct" analog ringing signal has about 120V peaks) and voltages around 250V are fault conditions that are expected and protected against (most of the hardware on line card from large phone switch is for detection of and protection from various faults on the wires).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> What exactly does it kill? Does it fry the whole circuit or does it simply prevent any form of ethernet connectivity while plugged in?

<comment><USER14> Any long-distance-capable wired networking will have electrical isolation requirements, so that connecting systems that have different ground voltages won't melt anything (this can apparently be a serious concern if you're networking outside a single building).

So, the worst it _should_ do is fry the network-facing side of the isolation part, and b0rk your network card.

...it looks like ethernet in particular mandates magnetic (rather than optical) isolation. So there's at least a possible mechanism for feeding too much AC power across the isolator, even if I'd expect the losses from trying to stuff such a low frequency (60 Hz) thru a component designed for MHz to make it rather harmless.

I'd guess that feeding in much higher frequency power (say, around 1 MHz) would be much more likely to do interesting things than would the near-DC coming out of the wall.

<comment><USER15> Indeed, here is a typical schematic of an Ethernet interface:

[http://www.micro-examples.com/pics/094-EP2-ETHERNET- schemati...](http://www.micro-examples.com/pics/094-EP2-ETHERNET- schematic.png)

So the part that's likely to get fried by excessive current is the isolating transformer, if mains is applied across either of the RX/TX pairs. If it's applied between one RX and one TX, then unless the insulation breaks down there is unlikely to be any current flow - and the isolation transformers are rated to 1.5kV as per the spec, so 120V or 240V won't do it. The 2kV cap for the TX ground reference also stops any current from flowing that way.

I wonder if there's market for NICs with fuses or other protective circuitry on the inputs...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> We need a wifi version of this.

<comment><USER17> microwave ovens without the cage? :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Contemplated as early as 1987: [http://yarchive.net/risks/network_fry.html](http://yarchive.net/risks/network_fry.html)

</comment><comment><USER19> I always conceived connecting a tazer to inject high voltage electricity to ethernet ports would be the ultimate fun. Try protecting that with your firewall.

<comment><USER20> I don't think that would do much. Ethernet is designed for low voltages so you would arc across almost every connector type (for example, RJ45 pins) before the power actually got anywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I actually built one of these. I've never had the guts to actually use it though; it just hangs on my wall and looms.

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't get it... He's deliberately destroying equipment? And possibly killing people? Is it meant to be funny?

<comment><USER16> It is meant to be funny. It's unlikely that he's killing very many people with it.

<comment><USER23> If he was in NZ where its 230-240V you might get a bit more punch, but the Hz is less.

<comment><USER24> I was accidentally zapped by NZ mains once, when I was a teenager. That hurt.

<comment><USER25> When my Dad worked in a power station, one of his colleagues got blasted by 66,000V, directly from a multi-megawatt generator. Severe burns, but he lived. That's quite amazing, given the low impedance of the source.

The scariest situation I've been in is doing measurements on the live busbars at the entry point of a skyscraper. The electrical cabinet contained a wall full of uninsulated high-voltage gear emitting an ominous 100Hz hum, as the bus bars vibrated in the EM fields. All I could think of was "don't fall forwards".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I always wondered where the BOFH went...

</comment><comment><USER27> Despite its technological demeanor, we should recognize this for what it is – an act of destruction for destruction's sake alone – pure savagery. It seems to me that society has better places for this than in its technologists and IT infrastructure.</comment>


Show HN: D3D11 Port of Advanced Visualization Studio for Winamp - Const-me https://github.com/Const-me/vis_avs_dx <comment> Const-me I have not used any frameworks or game engines, just Direct3D 11 and a few libraries like DXTK and GTEngine. Here's a complete list: [https://github.com/Const- me/vis_avs_dx/blob/master/legal.txt](https://github.com/Const- me/vis_avs_dx/blob/master/legal.txt)

Because it's Direct3D, the compatibility is good, runs fine inside VMWare, I've also tested on a couple of Windows laptops I have here. Not achievable with OpenGL: [https://github.com/Const-me/GL3Windows#building-and- running](https://github.com/Const-me/GL3Windows#building-and-running)

See also "Interesting Pieces" section of the readme on the front page of the repository. The project contains quite a lot of interesting stuff: compiler of a custom language, GPU profiler, etc.</comment>


Zero Hedge Says Facebook Banned Users from Sharing Its Posts - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-12/zero-hedge-says-facebook-banned-users-from-sharing-its-posts <comment><USER2> I read their stuff, though most of what I read comes out of the weekly emails. There is some actual good content, though like all other outlets, I'm sure there's some bad. Here's some of the stuff I see on their front page right now:

* China's belt-and-road

* Venezuela (worth noting they were an early reporter on the aid-burning)

* Anti-Tesla stuff

* Anti-SEC, pro-Elon Musk stuff

* Stop Brexit

* Boeing

* China's massive debt load

* They still like gold

Yes, it's clear they have their own set of biases, again like every other outlet. But they don't seem to be super far left or right, and certainly don't seem to be "russian propaganda".

<comment><USER3> They definitely pick up a lot of Russian talking points (see their virulent skepticism over the Skripal attack), but they serve as a very useful counterbalance to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, et al.

I shudder at whatever Orwellian hellscape we've landed in when people celebrate the censorship of a differently minded news source instead of utilizing it: read both it and your mainstream sources with a filter, apply your own independent thought and judgment and arrive at your own conclusion.

<comment><USER4> >a differently minded news source

What else falls in this category? Flat Earthers? Anti-vaccine advocates? Holocaust deniers?

It's clear that the majority of people have poor information literacy skills and one consequence of that poor information literacy results in measles being an actual problem in 2019.

<comment><USER5> >The [vaccine] court -- and the law that established it more than two decades ago -- buffers Wyeth and other makers of childhood-disease vaccines from much of the litigation risk that dogs traditional pill manufacturers and is an important reason why the vaccine business has been transformed from a risky, low-profit venture in the 1970s to one of the pharmaceutical industry's most attractive product lines today.

>...the vaccine court limits compensation in death cases to $250,000.

>Even if they had won their cases, the families of autistic children wouldn't have been paid by the companies that make the vaccines, as is common in other pharmaceutical-liability cases. Instead, the government would have footed the bill, using the funds from a tax levied on inoculations.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123535050056344903](https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123535050056344903)

You won't hear any of the popular news outlets (who rake in big $ from pharma advertising) talk about this side of the "anti-vax" story. All this anti-vax nonsense is a smokescreen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Whether Zero Hedge is trustworthy or not is a far less important question than whether _Facebook_ is trustworthy.

Even people who want someone to censor social media should be concerned about who the censor is.

<comment><USER7> I agree, and disagree.

How trustworthy Facebook is as far as their choices on what to filter is somewhat related to if ZH is in fact trustworthy too... same goes for other sites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In line with this: [1] Senator Warren gets her anti-Facebook ads blocked, too.

It seems like Facebook just feels threatened by everything right now, and that they recognize that they're dependent on people being on their platform to stay alive.

I would like your thoughts on this: What has to happen to get everyone to migrate to a new platform, or is that even possible?

[https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/03/12/blocked-ads- pro...](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/03/12/blocked-ads-proving-her- point-warren-says-facebook-shouldnt-have-power-decide-what)

<comment><USER9> I don't like Facebook, either for its personal impacts on my mental well-being or its broader societal impacts. That being said, they have a pretty reasonable policy against mentioning Facebook in ads generally, because they had lots of ads that attempted to seem like official Facebook content ("Facebook releases new game!"), and they allowed the ads subsequently upon appeal

<comment><USER10> ... Which these ads pretty clearly weren't attempting.

I can understand the first line review flagging them via rigid application of "the rules".

What I have trouble understanding is how they apparently don't have a mechanism for handling "high risk" placements, or if they do, it missed ads from a presidential candidate known to be critical of them, exactly the sort of placement such a mechanism, you know, is for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> We need gadfly news sources like ZH. We need people who take a contrarian view.

The only people who shouldn't be reading ZH are people who believe everything they read. Those people also shouldn't be reading MSM.

<comment><USER12> Just because something has a contrarian view doesn't make its good. What use is a contrarian view if their bar for quality is that low? Something like WSJ makes sense as a counter balance to NYT, not some 3rd tier blog. The desire to see "both sides" causes people to lift up sources that are otherwise ignored for a reason.

This isn't a justification for Facebook blocking them, but we sure don't _need_ them either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Do what you want, but all this censorship is just making me shake my head when censorship is brought up in other countries.

<comment><USER14> For the ten-thousandth time: getting banned on Facebook is not censorship. When it gets brought up in other countries, it is the governments of those countries doing it.

Facebook can do what it wants here. If you don't like it, divest.

<comment><USER15> And there it is. The ubiquitous defense, that as long as it's done by the left, it's not censorship because it's not done by a country. That never made any sense

<comment><USER16> > And there it is. The ubiquitous defense, that as long as it's done by the > left, it's not censorship because it's not done by a country. That never > made any sense

What makes no sense is thinking Facebook is on the left.

Facebook will be standing right in with the tighty-righty GOPpers when it comes to regulating or taxing it.

<comment><USER17> Robert Mercer's SCL Group, owners of Cambridge Analytica who worked on the Trump campaign, and campaigns for Cruz and Romney before that, is supposed to be very rightwing. Which made me wonder if the FB/CA deal wasn't the first case but the first one called out, and could Murdoch's myspace have ever been played with comparably, earlier?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder what took them so long. Zero Hedge is more insidious than Infowars, where they are at least up front about the lizard people conspiracy.

<comment><USER19> What's really insidious is that they mix well-sourced, real news with absolute trash, so if you're just looking at the headlines it's not unreasonable to think that they're all real. That is, until you click on one of the trash articles and find that the "source" is a blog that sources another blog, which sources yet another blog and so on.

<comment><USER20> Kind of like what news papers do in their OP-Ed sections.

Worth noting, it took the NYT until March 10th [1] to finally come to the conclusion that ZH had come to on Feb 24th [2], regarding the burning of AID trucks being sent to Venezuela. ZH has an anti-establishment bend, and will take a critically hostile point of view against the main stream, it's interesting to read that perspective when most established news organization are aligned one way in their reporting.

Glenn Greenwald had a great piece on the spread of fake news surrounding the AID truck event, worth reading for anyone who is somewhat skeptical of establishment narratives. [3]

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela- aid-fire-video.html)

[2] [https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-23/venezuela- border-t...](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-23/venezuela-border- tensions-soar-guaido-mounts-aid-convoy-attempt-cross-blocked)

[3] [https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the- lies-...](https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about- burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread- fake-news/)

<comment><USER21> > Worth noting, it took the NYT until March 10th [1] to finally come to the > conclusion that ZH had come to on Feb 24th [2], regarding the burning of AID > trucks being sent to Venezuela.

The latest update to the ZH article says:

ZH> True to his word, it appears the humanitarian aid trucks being sent from the west into Venezuela have been repelled by Maduro's guards as reports come in from social media that they are all now on fire.

I don't see anything that says that the protestors set them on fire, but might have missed it. The way that is written makes it sound like Maduro's guards did it. The only mention I see of protestors setting anything on fire is the burning of a bus covered earlier on the page.

<comment><USER20> You're correct, I cited the wrong article. It was rather on Feb 28th [1] that they published an article which posited that the opposition to Maduro's government may have been responsible.

[1] [https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-28/burning-aid- interv...](https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-28/burning-aid- interventionist-deception-colombia-venezuela-bridge)

To also clarify my position, ZH is not very reputable, but they provide interesting insight into current events and will sometimes post contradictory views from different blogs/news sites. It's up to the reader to determine if the "news" they produce is verifiable or merely conjecture. It should not be up to facebook to make the decision for the reader.

Also it is worrying that a company with the reach of NYT doesn't produce this information till weeks after the event. It allowed for the false version of the incident to complete its cycle in the news without interrupting the narrative being formed, and thus creates and incentive for people to seek-out ZH as a source of info. ZH isn't reputable, but their reputation is improved when they are stacked up against poor reporting from other agencies, which is unfortunate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder how many of the ZeroHedge fans missed the greatest stock rally of all time and are stuck with gold bars under their floor...bought at 2500USD an ounce from a website peddled by Glenn Beck. Just thinking about this I'm getting a smile on my face.

<comment><USER23> Not a good reason for willingly and smilingly accepting censorship of any kind

<comment><USER4> Censorship is never justified?

<comment><USER11> Only if it represents a clear and present danger.

You know what? I bet If you let me control everything you read I can help you understand this better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> A lot of the comments here are missing the real issue here which is that while you may not agree with the content of ZeroHedge this sets an eery precedent for future Facebook policing of what is & isn't allowed on its network.

</comment><comment><USER25> There is a ton of 'news' on Zero Hedge and many times I hear about things there first before the mainstream news sites which sometimes never cover the story (Yellow Vest protests in Europe, US taking gold from ISIS in Syria, reasons for what is going on in Venezuela, etc). You need to critically think about what you are reading and understand what biases the writer might have. I'll read 1 out of 20-30 headings and there is some absolutely solid content there.

</comment><comment><USER21> Zero Hedge is the only site I've ever run into that gets zero checks on NewsGuard [1].

For comparison, InfoWars gets 4 out of 9 [2], and Breitbart gets 5 of 9 [3].

National Review, Wall Street Journal, and The Daily Signal all get full check marks [4][5][6], for examples of conservative sites with top ratings.

[1] [https://api.newsguardtech.com/1B10A8FE3FE38166041EF99B6BDE6C...](https://api.newsguardtech.com/1B10A8FE3FE38166041EF99B6BDE6C3DBB841FCEEEDFD4175C9CAF9BCEAB07ABCF99012502C3C4DC775C724D81F8BD39F653709C2AAD5B56?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab)

[2] [https://api.newsguardtech.com/86BCB950AC90212617C8328B3BDC7B...](https://api.newsguardtech.com/86BCB950AC90212617C8328B3BDC7B68B20BDD33FCD248691B93109E197C9F9E44BB50D873BA900AB8C95E905C656BA7E5440692C50C963E?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab)

[3] [https://api.newsguardtech.com/A7F7BCBA597324801963CA38B46F4E...](https://api.newsguardtech.com/A7F7BCBA597324801963CA38B46F4E412279EF2B902F6DC69519BDCAAD2B71BAF9F8D5C50F7BB8F76C53E4F28607DA131F85A3448CB7BA9D?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab)

[4] [https://api.newsguardtech.com/5D044567246813D305EF4CFAC2D797...](https://api.newsguardtech.com/5D044567246813D305EF4CFAC2D797885F0AD82B58B017BEAC4882842FEF7AF951596F1DE857E4E8478486785BD6092F5E928D82048DE090?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab)

[5] [https://api.newsguardtech.com/BBB6E27D9A686CF806D035DCEC50B4...](https://api.newsguardtech.com/BBB6E27D9A686CF806D035DCEC50B4E8B75DA217FFC99423D0825D54D859A811DE4BB78A2523A95B1C3CD32E927C399CD597E709A757BD15?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab)

[6] [https://api.newsguardtech.com/DCFD64CB17AE2BBCC342F9FFD70DB8...](https://api.newsguardtech.com/DCFD64CB17AE2BBCC342F9FFD70DB8938BAEE877072465D534DD5A9F1987AEDDE283C08E9B627EDC73D5AE161851EDFC7563BE2C45FA04C4?cid=44cf118c-b843-457c-9ee3-c373012ce0ab)

<comment><USER11> Have we as a community decided that newsguard is anything but trash? Why would any of us be willing to submit ourselves to "censorship as a service"?

If anything, we need to be breaking apart these types of technological control software. I don't want anything to do with "newsguard" and I urge others to take a critical eye on that idea as well.

<comment><USER18> Indeed, why trust any experts on anything? We should do the legwork, all of it, for every decision we make. Vaccines? I want to see it kill a polio and then _not_ make an autism. The earth? Sure looks flat to me. Can you prove it's round? Then show me how to do it, so I can prove it to myself? Taking other people's word for it is just censoring alternative points of view. This is America. I don't want anything to do with censorship.

<comment><USER11> Newsguard is a technology meant to control what people see, read, and ultimately think. If you don't immediately see the dangers of that type of technology then I'm not sure what will convince you otherwise.

<comment><USER18> That is exactly what antivax people say about vaccination campaigns.

I'm not saying you should trust NewsGuard. I don't know much about them! But the categorical alarm you take to the entire concept of independent news vetting is problematic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I was a regular reader of ZH for a long stretch leading up to the 2012 election and in my opinion their content is toxic and fuels paranoia. Lots of "end stage capitalism" and "prepper" type content. From my perspective now it definitely seems like the type of content that could be considered intentionally manipulative in a very negative way. It was very fear driven and I don't think that is healthy.

<comment><USER27> Yeah, I had seen links to ZH from top-notch economic blogs I followed during the recession, so I was surprised when they started popping up as sources for all my favorite crazy conspiracy Youtubers.

Their content at this point spans the gamut from needlessly contrarian to peddling propaganda. I gather ZH is doing it for the page views, because stories like that get plenty of traffic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Zerohedge is unbanned from facebook now. Trump Jr and other high profile folks commented on it. They had to turn that around.

</comment><comment><USER29> ZH, circa 8 years ago was half decent, lots of conspiracy nonsense but also lots of market rumours, since then it has become a Russian propaganda page full of nonsense.

<comment><USER30> Ah come on. ZH is a primarily contrarian financial news site. They often break important market-moving news faster than other mainstream media, aggregate better by considering all sources (including Twitter), and criticise just about everyone. Sure, they are often bearish (predicting crashes that then don't happen), but that's an easy bias to filter for, and not really that different from the general negative-news bias of most media (i.e. clickbait). Simply because they _also_ criticise the West (politicians, governments, media, policies) (because _the West_ is included in _everyone_ ) doesn't immediately make them Russian trolls. I can't believe this is even still a serious accusation, for me it's in the realm of conspiracy theories.

<comment><USER31> Well, God knows I am opposed to the current anti-russia madness but I stopped reading zh a few years ago when they were systematically taking Russia' side including when Russia was so obviously red handed. I think the drop for me was their defense of Russia in the MH17 crash.

<comment><AUTHOR> What convinced you that it was Russian forces and not Ukrainian?

<comment><USER30> It was pro-Russian / separatist rebels (they bragged about downing the plane on vKontakte), armed by Russia; most people thus put blame on Russia.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Facebook, Twitter, Patreon have all been censoring right-wing lately.

This is just another example.

From my point of view, the left wing is calling the right wing nazis and trying to get them banned.

<comment><USER32> If the right wing associates themselves with ZH and Infowars, maybe they should reevaluate who they keep close company with

<comment><USER28> >If the right wing associates themselves with ZH and Infowars, maybe they should reevaluate who they keep close company with

I cant say I've ever been on Zero Hedge that many times; just looking through their site now I'm not really seeing anything objectionable.

They do have a ton of content so perhaps I'm not seeing what you see as bad. Could you provide examples?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> it's a scam of website, i'm ok with this.

</comment><comment><USER34> Banned for using "Tyler Durden" as a pen name.

</comment><comment><USER35> And nothing of value was lost. ZH went into propaganda and fake news mode a long time ago.

<comment><USER36> Better or worse than Paul Krugman?

<comment><USER37> I'm not a huge Paul Krugman fan. That said, Paul Krugman is a Nobel-prize winning economist, whereas Daniel Ivandjiiski is a convicted financial criminal.

<comment><USER36> More proof that the Nobel-prize can be a meaningless metric.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I made it to page two, and after reading about how apparently democrats hate Jews, and entitled millenials "the helpless generation" want the impossible dream of universal healthcare, I'm not entirely sure why anyone would die on a hill for this publication.</comment>


Show HN: Pdftilecut – cut PDF pages into tiles - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/oxplot/pdftilecut <comment><USER2> _Cut my doc into pieces_

 _This code is open souce_

</comment><comment><USER3> very cool</comment>


Section 215 Expires For Now - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/section-215-expires-now <comment><USER3> >The law that the NSA used to authorize its collection of vast amounts of information about the telephone calls of ordinary Americans is no more.

But the US can still snoop on my internet traffic if it happens to parse through the US, because I'm not an American. For the majority of the world the issue was never that the NSA spied on US citizens, but that they pretty spy on everyone else as well.

Don't get me wrong, I think it should be illegal for the US, or any other nation, to spy on its citizens, but it still only half the problem.

<comment><USER4> In fact I have seen several articles in major european newspapers claiming that big countries are going around restrictions on spying on their own citizens by letting friendly countries do it, then exploit the data. I don't know if there is any substance in these allegations but they seem plausible.

<comment><USER5> If you have a proper Data Protection Act(s) passed, it should be illegal for people in a country to obtain or use data stolen against the country's laws elsewhere. Not ideal, but it would make illegal the circle of spying you describe.

(not that the authorities, particularly here in the UK, give a flying F about whether they're breaking existing laws...)

<comment><USER6> I hate playing devil's advocate on this topic, but here goes.

There are _real_ terrorists out there, and also agents of other states. These folks need observation for a free country to be able to do the various things it has to do. (Or, if they don't, it remains to be shown how such a setup would effectively work).

I am completely against maintaining files on your own citizens which can then be "mined" to find illegalities or improprieties later on. However -- that doesn't mean that some folks shouldn't be watched. Heck, in a country with 250M people, the odds are that there are a heckuva lot of borderline crazy people who should be monitored. I seriously hope the local constable has a good idea of the top people in his area that he should keep an eye on.

I think we make a mistake when we focus on the NSA exclusively and talk as if all data collection is wrong. We need a principle that allows for nuanced collection -- not one-size-fits-all slogans.

So sure, I hope the other agencies are collecting info on folks in my country, and I hope they share that information with my own country's security services -- under the right circumstances and with the right protections in place. What I don't want to see happen is the creation of a data pool where crimes can be "discovered" that normally wouldn't matter.

(Really hated writing that, but somebody had to do it)

<comment><USER7> It was never the case that _all_ collection was wrong.

However it is still wrong to just collect all the data you can on everyone, even if everyone now doesn't include your own citizens.

>> So sure, I hope the other agencies are collecting info on folks in my country, and I hope they share that information with my own country's security services -- under the right circumstances and with the right protections in place.

This is no different from having your own guys do it. Possibly it's worse.

<comment><USER6> I think, perhaps, the way out of this is a universal moratorium on the commercial collection and retention of data, along with safeguards for data mining by government agencies for criminal (not intelligence) purposes.

We must remember that as far as I can tell, governments have always wanted to collect whatever they could about anybody -- citizen or not. I do not agree with this, but the tendency is not limited to one government or another. What's new in the equation is the vast numbers of commercial applications/services that _also_ want to track your every move online in order to keep you as a customer. It's this collection/retention of data that governments are now tapping into. If nobody had kept anything past 2 or 3 days, there wouldn't be much to mine.

<comment><USER8> The distinction you are looking for does not exist. The primary justification for what the NSA is doing is crime: namely terrorism. The entire purpose of the NSA is to find criminals, which is a problem, because the definition of criminal can be anything the people in power want it to be.

For instance in the UK they're busy trying to crack down on "extremism". The Prime Minister has given a speech about extremism where he actually said words to the effect of "For too long we have been a passively tolerant society where if you follow the law, we leave you alone". GCHQ is absolutely being mandated to find extremists. It's merely the next chunk of the slippery slope that started the moment the law changed to try and fight terrorists.

<comment><USER9> >The primary justification for what the NSA is doing is crime: namely terrorism. The entire purpose of the NSA is to find criminals

Is it? My understanding is that NSA was founded for intelligence and counter- intelligence purposes. Cold war. SIGINT. And that is what it still does, although the capabilities of international terrorist/criminal organisations have become comparable to the capabilities of many nation states.

CIA is also an intelligence agency, but human intelligence (HUMINT), not signals intelligence. FBI, on the other hand, has a primary justification of fighting crime. DEA is quite similar but focuses on drug crime, and ATF on alcohol, tobacco and firearms. CSI conducts mass campaigns against people with some intelligence in all countries, with sub-offices in CSI (NY) and CSI (Miami).

(I'm not American, but have learned this much about the American three-letter things, mostly from popular fiction.)

<comment><USER10> It could be interpreted that the NSA exists to catch criminals. Spying on the US government is a crime in the eyes of the US government, no matter where you conduct said spying. Counter-intelligence is an effort to catch those that spy on the US government, despite the fact that is likely illegal in the country of the person being spied upon. Although, what they do in terms of counter- intelligence doesn't always turn into criminal proceedings.

<comment><USER9> I think that the role of counter-intelligence is most of the time not really catch anyone, but to 1) get information from an adversary, and 2) develop methods which allow to protect own information against adversaries.

<comment><USER10> Hence, my last sentence.

But I've always understood a part of counter-intelligence is to counter the intelligence gathering of an adversary, or I suppose ally as well depending on circumstances. Which is what you are saying with your second point. Therefore, there is someone to catch doing it, just in a broad definition of the term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "permit authorities to target "lone wolf" suspects with no connection to specific terrorist groups, and make it easier to seize personal and business records of suspects and their associates"

If I search lots of technology and military related topics, or do any system- admin work, or use any privacy-enabling services (VPN / TOR), then my friends/family/associates and myself would likely fall under those categories.

My concern is there should be a data-retention policy due to constantly changing laws.

If 20 years from now I want to run for president, then all it would take is to search for records in one of the many caches of NSA collected data that other agency, state, local, and even foreign law-enforcement have collected over the years. That would allow a large number of people to have the power to easily find something that would distract me enough to pull me out of the race, such as inappropriate text-messages/emails that a cheating spouse sent in the past.

<comment><USER12> Keeping a log for 20 years for each and every person is practically impossible at the moment, regardless of how advanced you think to seem technology is. Storage is not free and i think its stupid to keep tracking everything without a reason. If you keep logging on everything in the hopes that you may find a connection or something of that sort in the future, you'll need a lot more people to go through that sort of stuff to begin with.

<comment><USER13> Don't underestimate how deep the pockets are of government defense funds. The NSA has a gigantic datacenter in Utah that's estimated to be storing data on the exabyte order of magnitude (thousands of petabytes). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center)

edit: Even if they only have 1 exabyte of storage, that's enough to keep 3.3 gigabytes of data for every single person in America (~300 million). I would wager that's more than enough to store the text from everyone's email for many years.

<comment><USER14> In fact, 3.3GB is also enough to store about 4 hours worth of speech recordings per day for a year for every single person using the best available compression. Double that since you don't need both sides of the call, and consider that the average amount of time spent on the phone is substantially less than 8h, and they can already store full voice for all US calls for many years in an exabyte.

Given that the 1 exabyte is a low order estimate given the size of the Utah data centre, you have to wonder just exactly what they are actually storing or planning to store there. If someone had access to it (and I'm not saying I think the NSA do), the site is physically big enough that you could fit sufficient storage to keep years worth of voice recordings of the total global phone call volume.

<comment><USER15> It is also known that NSA uses speech-recognition software, making voice recordings easily searchable.

[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/05/nsa-speech- rec...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/05/nsa-speech-recognition- snowden-searchable-text/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Ha…

"All of this political drama neglects a reality which has been pointed out by an earlier CounterPunch essay.[0] The majority of the NSA's mass interception is sanctioned by other laws. To be precise Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 and Executive Order 12333. It's likely that congress is fixated on Section 215 because politicians view it as an "easy win" that both panders to voters and winks at spies. Flanked by a blitz of press coverage lawmakers can brag to voters about fighting Big Brother without really altering the surveillance apparatus itself."[1]

[0] [http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/05/the-usa-freedom- act-d...](http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/05/the-usa-freedom-act-doesnt- end-bulk-data-collection/print)

[1] [http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/08/will-appeals-court- ru...](http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/08/will-appeals-court-ruling- really-stop-nsa-bulk-phone-data-collection/print)

<comment><USER17> At least section 702 is set to eventually sunset, in 2017. Section 214 was made permanent. [http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section213.html#214](http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Section213.html#214) [https://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/214.php](https://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/214.php)

[http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/05/without-the-usa- freedom-a...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/2015/05/without-the-usa-freedom-act- nsa-could-resume-bulk-collection-even-if-patriot-act-provisions-expire/)

"The section 215 phone records program was modeled on an earlier, Internet metadata bulk collection program that began after September 11. The FISC approved the Internet metadata program under the pen register/trap and trace (PR/TT) provisions of FISA – as amended by section 214 of the Patriot Act. The Internet metadata program – known as the PR/TT program – had serious compliance problems because it was difficult for the NSA reliably to segregate Internet metadata from Internet content. Still, the FISC continued to approve the PR/TT program, with modifications, until the NSA itself chose to end the program in 2011.

As a result, the FISC's orders approving bulk metadata collection remain a viable interpretation of the PR/TT provisions of FISA and would have precedential value in any effort to resume bulk collection, whether of Internet or telephony metadata. The PR/TT provisions of FISA are not limited to Internet metadata. If anything, they apply more naturally to traditional telephony metadata, as they cover "dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling" information. Section 214, unlike section 215, is not going to expire tomorrow – it was made permanent in 2005."

<comment><USER18> We should work to sunset these earlier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Don't forget why it happened either. Rand Paul fought to make sure it didn't pass.

<comment><USER20> Not a single mention of Rand Paul by EFF. Is EFF stingy with credit, or do they just whitewash any mention of Paul out of Patriot Act subversion stories because he's not a Democrat?

EDIT: No, really. Serious question.

<comment><USER21> He's mentioned (and quoted) a ton on the @EFFLive Twitter feed from today (operated by EFF staff to provide live coverage of events).

[https://twitter.com/EFFLive](https://twitter.com/EFFLive)

Also mentioned and quoted repeatedly by @EFF Twitter feed during last week's Senate debate prior to the recess.

[https://twitter.com/EFF](https://twitter.com/EFF)

<comment><USER22> Still a Twitter mention is hardly the same as mentioning it prominently in the announcement. If it were Rand Paul fighting the EFF, it's almost certain that he would be mentioned above the fold. I am also interested in why Hillary's pro-NSA position hasn't been discussed more by EFF. Have they ever criticized a prominent Democrat? Hillary has been a big NSA supporter as well as a customer during her time as Secretary of State. Obama is obviously a huge NSA advocate given he signed Patriot Act extensions.. Not a single word from the Hillary campaign about privacy. Of course, privacy and transparency aren't exactly Clintonian. What's sad is that large numbers of the tech community are still going to raise money and vote for her, regardless of the issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you work for a telco, and you are currently cooperating with NSA by providing them data, you probably just lost legal authorization to do so. NSA connections should be disabled unless your corporate general counsel instructs you otherwise in writing and takes responsibility for that act.

</comment><comment><USER24> Why do people think that surveillance is going to thwart real terrorist attacks? Terrorists are not stupid. Bin Laden stopped using his satellite phone in 1999 and the NSA did not intercept a single piece of audio intercept data from Bin Laden ever again. The 9/11 hijackers were mostly engineers and barely even touched technology. HUMINT is the only way to catch real terrorists IMO.

<comment><USER25> Hypothetically speaking enough surveillance plus really advanced compute could find criminals indirectly. As a totally fictional example for illustrative purposes, recall Batman's "cell phone sonar" device.

You don't have to touch technology to leave a footprint. Your footprints are just harder to find.

Edit: I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just saying "you can't track terrorists who don't use technology" is false.

<comment><USER26> It also indirectly enables criminality by eliminating people's ability to be anonymous sources to police or the press. Along the same lines, it grants anybody with privileged (or unauthorized) access to surveillance data the opportunity for any number of truly maniacal illegal acts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Section 215 concerns both foreign and domestic signals, allowing for the collection of metadata. Section 702 focuses on the content of foreign intelligence. While 215 is debatable, 702 serves a distinctly different purpose. IF your concern is domestic surveillance, particularly sharing metadata that originates in the US with law enforcement, than this can be considered a win. IF you think collection of foreign intelligence should be limited, which of course is in the US's interest, then you are out of luck.

Considering the majority of people say faulty intelligence is to blame for the Iraq war, it's difficult for me to encourage _less_ intelligence surrounding foreign intelligence gathering. But I'm partial, as an American who prefers to know who and what and why we are actually fighting. It's not like we can take everyone's word for it.

<comment><USER28> > faulty intelligence is to blame for the Iraq war, it's difficult for me to > encourage less intelligence surrounding foreign intelligence gathering

How about - how would you rather spend your money, spying on foreigners living in destitution, or fixing our roads? The international spy network the US maintains is probably a paltry drop in the bucket of the preposterous defense budget in this country, but honestly anything to curtail that black hole of taxpayer dollars is a win in my book.

If we weren't destroying the lives of millions around the globe with our imperialism, we wouldn't have enemies to suicide bomb us with planes to require massive spy networks to try to catch American dissenters planning to commit jihad against us. The military industrial complex only exists insofar as the American people are complacent to being global police forcing their will upon anyone who does not fall in line with what the US wants. And that is after we already have trade sanctions that can decimate countries overnight.

This isn't 1970 anymore. We don't need to have a dick waving contest with the next largest nuclear arsenal trying to ruin the lives of billions of people in a juvenile game to show who is the coolest kid, whose god is the best, or whose economic model should rule the world. Maybe its time to just back the fuck off and take our tendrils out of every nation on Earth for once and maybe try to be good to our fellow man.

<comment><USER25> _how would you rather spend your money, spying on foreigners living in destitution, or fixing our roads?_

Oh good, binary arguments.

 _If we weren 't destroying the lives of millions around the globe with our imperialism, we wouldn't have enemies to suicide bomb us..._

So what about every country in Europe being suicide bombed? Are they just complicit?

Your notion that if we play nice and mind our own business, we will be left alone, is not really borne out by history.

I'm not saying there are enemies around every corner, but you can never please everyone so we will always have enemies.

<comment><USER8> * So what about every country in Europe being suicide bombed? Are they just complicit?*

The countries with the worst problems with Islamic extremism are the ones most closely allied with the US war machine. The UK and France, for example. Consider the smaller eastern states, Scandinavian countries etc: much less of an issue for them.

Usually when you dig into the motives of Islamic people engaging in political murders it's triggered by western wars. E.g. the Charlie Hebdo attackers went after cartoonists, probably because they were easy targets. But interviews with them showed their path to radicalisation started with seeing what was going on at Abu Ghraib.

<comment><USER29> Not to derail your point, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Stockholm_bombings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Stockholm_bombings) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Copenhagen_shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Copenhagen_shootings)

<comment><USER8> From the first article,

 _About ten minutes before the explosions, a threatening email was sent to the Swedish Security Service and the Swedish news agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå (TT).[9] It referred to the presence of Swedish troops in Afghanistan and Swedish artist Lars Vilks ' drawings of Muhammad as a roundabout dog:[3] "Now your children, daughters and sisters will die in the same way our brothers and sisters die. Our actions will speak for themselves._

.... so less of an issue but not zero of an issue.

For the second article, I concede that it doesn't mention any political motivation (I don't count purely religious motivation like "i hate cartoons" as political). Although, as the suspects ended up dead, it may be that there was one and we would never know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It is all theatre. We've moved from bulk collection to bulk receiving that collection.

Think about it, it won't ever end. It is like a regular person going back to before Google/search engines. The way we think now includes that path.

So in the intelligence agencies, it has been a way of life for 15 years. The have an internal "google" if you will, that has all of our information at any time. It has become the way they work and 'investigate'. It is forever part of their path.

In another 5 years, _which the USA Freedom Act extends section 215 to 2019_ [1], the intel agencies will forget how to investigate in real, old school judicial warrant driven surveillance with oversight. Judges have been worked out of the system and it is too easy to investigate with these tools for it to end.

This is also not for terrorism, nearly 99% of all inquires for Patriot Act sneak and peeks have been used for domestic crime [2]. I am sure 215 is being abused in ways we won't know for years because there is lack of oversight and NSA directors openly lied to Congress before for _national security_.

This is a domestic crime tool, not only for terrorism. It would be nice if people in power were just honest about this but they shroud it in terrorism, 'Patriot' Acts, bills called 'USA Freedom' and more disrespectful ways to the US brand. We should require all bills be named by number or by what they are, these would be 'Domestic & Foreign Surveillance Act I and II' or SB/HB 2015[some number]. That way we can debate on merit not some doublespeak name.

These tools will eventually be used for corporate espionage and market manipulation, it is too useful not to. Local police will be able to get all your records, maybe even connected businessmen and bankers.

If you want change, politics is not the way, it is cooked. The country runs on money and markets. If you want to change something, come up with a market solution that can get to the point where it is big enough to cause change.

[1] [https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2048/text/ih#li...](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr2048/text/ih#link=VII_705_a_~T1&nearest=H3970213DCD8B4A7C9D2AC368B1ADFDCA)

[2] [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/peekaboo-i-see-you- gov...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/peekaboo-i-see-you-government- uses-authority-meant-terrorism-other-uses)

<comment><USER31> "This is a domestic crime tool, not only for terrorism."

Indeed, the primary realpolitik answer that you wont hear from anybody in the beltway till theyve had a few and have a cigar in their hand is that technology has so changed the landscape of threats and potential threats that actions that used to require nation state financial, logistal, etc support can now be accomplished by a single non-state actor, hence, we really "need" to collect it all.

The reason this scares the intel community so much is because generally, with some exceptions, if a foreign country sends actors over we tend to know about it due to how deep our tendrils are and the fact that we are setting ourselves up as the main repository of data for even foreign govs to access. (The point being we know what they access and look at), but if all of a sudden we feel like it could be anybody then you get an intel community thats in hypervigilante mode and that mode will wear you out fast, its a mentally degraded state for anything other than actual fighting.

im guessing some modifications to the way threats are quantitavely measured is in order, but no one really wants to do that these days. Ive heard rumors over the past few years of an increasing trend to get rid of all the salty old greybeards who tell truth to power... What we will end up with is a beltway full of people who are either too naive to know better and just tout the line, or a bunch of kissass mortage-payers who would condone genocide if it made sure their kids go to a ivy league college. Which essentially what William Binneys says happened when they scrapped his lower cost program designed to at least attempt to protect privacy in favor of a billion dollar blank check for another less effective solution.

The bottom line is that by attempting to collect it all before they fully understand how to parse the data, they actually weakened American security in all its various forma.

I am curious though when you say come up with a market solution. The problem is that markets simply dont work like you were taught in college economics. For example, the market profitted from the weakening of American security because the more expensive program put more dollars into a few VA counties. I would like some sort of example of how the markets will ever be anything other than opposed to actual progress if it makes them less money.

Therein lies the problem, weve allowed our own "representative governemnt" to become completely detached from the people due to their attachment to "markets".

Does anybody in DC even remember what their oaths were anymore? to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC...

Id say our real enemies, the ones threatening the Constitution (as opposed to safety) are domestic, and they wear suits and ties and not burkahs, and quantifiably so.

<comment><USER32> >Does anybody in DC even remember what their oaths were anymore? to protect and defend THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC...

Every time I hear Obama say "my number one job as president is to keep Americans safe" I can't help but cringe and wonder what the hell happened to us. These oaths truly don't mean anything anymore, if they ever did.

<comment><USER33> To be fair, the whole reason we got rid of the Articles of Confederation and instituted a strong central government with strong President was the previous federal government's inability to put down domestic insurrection.

People talk about Thomas Jefferson and the tree of liberty but the fact is that TJ lost the ideological debate of his time.

<comment><USER31> Actually, though Jefferson may have lost the debate, I think that history has proven him correct.

[https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/content- im...](https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/content- images/1027p1.web_.jpg)

"I learn with pleasure that republican principles are predominant in your state, because I conscientiously believe that governments founded in them are most friendly to the happiness of the people at large; and especially of a people so capable of self government as ours. I have been ever opposed to the party, so falsely called federalists, because I believe them desirous of introducing, into our government, authorities hereditary or otherwise independant [sic] of the national will. these always consume the public contributions and oppress the people with labour & poverty."

Indeed, the very issue that we are discussing is the fact that the authorities have become independent of the national will (or have otherwise subverted the national will).

Also, there is much debate about why the Articles were replaced, and I don't really like your simplistic view of the matter, it was a very complex time and arguments for and against were extremely varied, but your point is taken.

I would also venture to say that it is the lack of accountability for those who violate the Constitution in all three branches that has further encouraged a slide down the slippery path where far too many people want to imagine the Constitution as a "living document" instead of a static reference only modifiable my amendment, as it truly should be.

I would also point out that I consider the SCOTUS compromised now too.

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - <USER2> Jefferson

Also a side note is that the only oath I have ever sworn was to the defence of the Constitution, so I am biased. (I think in a good way)

<comment><USER33> > Actually, though Jefferson may have lost the debate, I think that history > has proven him correct.

The original point was about Obama saying his top priority is keeping America safe. Whether or not TJ was right goes to what _should be_ his top priority, not _what it is_ under the document that defines the scope of his responsibilities.

> I would also venture to say that it is the lack of accountability for those > who violate the Constitution in all three branches that has further > encouraged a slide down the slippery path where far too many people want to > imagine the Constitution as a "living document" instead of a static > reference only modifiable my amendment, as it truly should be.

That's a double-edged sword, because a strict textual interpretation of the 4th amendment doesn't get you where you need to be re: surveillance. Remember, the whole "expectation of privacy" is a "living Constitution" bolt-on. What the 4th amendment's text actually lays out is basically a protection against what would be trespass if done by a private person: [http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/4/essays/...](http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/4/essays/144/searches- and-seizures). All of the things explicitly mentioned in the amendment are things in which people have property interests. You have no property interests in the records AT&T keeps about what you do online--extending the 4th amendment to that requires reliance on the whole "expectation of privacy" framework that simply did not exist when the Constitution was written.

> "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when > the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates > and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or > invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

You're begging the question. What is the "spirit manifested in the debates?" 55 delegates debated the provisions of the document, and they had 55 points of view. Whose "spirit" should we give credit to? The literal text is the best evidence of the compromise that actually came out of that process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Thank you, Edward Snowden.

<comment><USER20> Thank you, Edward Snowden and Rand Paul. FTFY.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I guess now that it ran out something very bad will happen and after that the section or something worse will be active again and will run forever. ("we can't cancel it, remember the time we didnt have it and something bad happenend?")

</comment><comment><USER36> The Nuclear Age is over. When the major powers have strong trade and business agreements, leverage is applied incrementally rather than explosively. That said, welcome to the Software Wars era. When country A can receive significant financial leverage with a small hack of country B's market, they will. The US needs a world class software defense 'army'. However, you don't point that gun at your own people. Neither should spying be done on allies if it threatens existing partnerships. The hacking 'arms race' is just getting started.

<comment><USER37> The Nuclear Age is _far_ from over. If anything, we've just gone from the "only big players can afford them" to the "we don't really know who has them" stage.

There were reports of the Russian Mafia having control over nuclear material. [1] The collapse of the iron curtain caused a wonderful climate for well funded criminal elements to get their hands on all sorts of nasty stuff. This is documented, but not really discussed that much. I've read that many governments are actually a lot less worried about the Russian mafia having this material than they are about North Korea having these weapons, as organised crime doesn't really stand to profit very much from a nuclear stand- off. Apparently Mossad even purchased some of it to "stop it falling into the hands of Islamic and other terror groups" [2]

You can't put that genie back in it's bottle. The Nuclear Age won't be over for a while yet, it's just in a quiet phase.

[1]: [https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/articles/volume16/iss...](https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jil/articles/volume16/issue4/Mirsky16U.Pa.J.Int%27lBus.L.749%281995%29.pdf)

[2]: [http://www.rense.com/general44/maf.htm](http://www.rense.com/general44/maf.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is like the one brief beautiful moment above the clouds in The Matrix (Revolutions).

 _One_ political event from the past _fourteen_ years that I can look at and go "something fundamental changed for the better". Finally _one_ representative actually declaring that this system is bullshit and holding firm with spite, instead of the constant compromise and corruption. Finally laws are simply _removed_ instead of augmented with "fixes" that just rearrange deck chairs to make a different group profit even more.

Not that I have much hope of it staying this way for long. Even the EFF here is preemptively giving in and saying "USA Freedom" will be passed, because anything else would be _too wild_ against the status quo (there's that corrupromise again!).

But at least there's this one brief beautiful moment to enjoy before going back to writing code, the only way for freedom to survive the infopocalypse.

</comment><comment><USER39> They will replace it with something far worse when the "news reporters" and the general public aren't paying attention.

We know to look for and hate the "patriot act" they will come up with a "puppies and kittens" name that you will look like an idiot to say you hate.

</comment><comment><USER40> I can understand eff celebrating this entirely symbolical event, but cannot understand celebration in the comments. "Aren't allowed to do (for now)", "cannot do" and "won't do" are different things, and only the last two do matter.

</comment><comment><USER41> Let me say it explicitly:

Ending collection does not change anything.

So they can't connect? So what? So GCHQ (Britain's NSA) does the collection and then shares it with the NSA. Problem solved.

It's the _storage_ of this information which should be stopped.

</comment><comment><USER42> "Senate rules allow a final vote, which only needs a simple majority of 51, to occur early Tuesday morning" I am not certain it'll go through. What do you think ?

</comment><comment><USER18> Hoooray! Now, the real fight begins!

</comment><comment><USER43> The EFF felt it needed to mention it's fighting this since 2006 but they left out the name of one Edward Snowden. I feel this is a dick move.</comment>