Judge: An IP-Address Doesn't Identify a Person (or BitTorrent Pirate) - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/judge-an-ip-address-doesnt-identify-a-person-120503/ <comment><USER2> This is an important decision not only from a "piracy" perspective but from a "privacy" and "information security" view as well. Many US laws and regulations revolve around protecting personally identifiable information (PII). If this judge's conclusions stick then we have some freedom from having to protect IP addresses, which show up in just about everything we log and collect.

That could be gigantic to those who deal with HIPAA, PCI, GLBA, etc. Although I guess this has no impact on the European Union regulations and what they consider PII -- those are much tougher to deal with anyway.

<comment><USER3> I came here expecting someone trying to pull a anti-privacy fast one. Nice try.

Just because an IP address alone is not enough to legally beyond doubt identify a person doesn't mean collecting IP addresses in combination with online behavior doesn't violate people's privacy.

These are two fundamentally different things. The only real way to identify someone is through things like DNA or fingerprints. Everything else is just an indication, it may not be enough to serve as evidence in court, but it's definitely personal.

The birthmark on my ass may not be unique, but it doesn't give you the right to collect pictures of it without my permission.

<comment><USER2> My intention was not to "pull a fast one." If you read my blog[1], which of late is mostly about privacy, I think you'll find I'm fairly neutral on the subject. Having said that there is all sorts of pseudo-anonymous or anonymous data that when combined with other data points become PII. I find this particular case interesting and am curious to hear what others think about it's implications beyond the piracy case.

An opposing example to this would be the recent ruling in Massachusetts, and why I found this one so interesting. The court there found that zip codes are PII[2].

[1] <http://www.jnorthrop.me>

[2] [http://blog.martindale.com/massachusetts-federal-district- co...](http://blog.martindale.com/massachusetts-federal-district-court-rules- zip-code-is-pii)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This may be a two edged sword.

It also means that collecting data based on your IP is not an invasion of privacy. With IPv6 there is the potential for much finer grained assignment of IP addresses to such an extent that an IP address could become uniquely identified with an individual more readily than today.

<comment><USER5> Good point. Is it possible or probable that under IPv6, we could each have a "static IP for life"? Not that I'd necessarily want that...

<comment><USER6> It is not currently possible with the underlying routing technologies, nor do I think it would be desirable, for you to get a single IPv6 address assigned to your device for the entirety of its lifetime.

Firstly, each publicly route-able address (for both IPv4 and IPv6) belongs to a particular network (known as an Autonomous System). The traceroute utility on unix and windows can be used to show you the path from your local network to a particular network, simply by traceroute'ing address that you know are operated by a particular network.

The way this works is a series of routing protocols that ask the question, "Which network routes this address and what is the best path to get there?" and answer it in various ways.

So, I do not think it is possible or desirable for a single publicly route- able IPv6 address to follow a particular device between networks.

Finally, I would like to point out that, even though we can change them, MAC addresses are supposed to be the permanent unique identifier for a particular network interface. I do not think adding an IP equivalent makes any sense, especially when a particular interface may have multiple IP addresses, and a particular machine may have multiple interfaces.

Now I will forget my hackernews password once again, until I am needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've often thought that if you _really_ wanted to pirate something, just start an S-corp for ~$200 and put your cable account in its name. If you get sued, tell them to litigate until they're blue, the company is going under.

<comment><USER8> The strategy could work if done correctly and most certainly in the case of a mass lawsuit.

If the corp is opened in a place that offers nominee owners or directors even better. Although there are most certainly legal ways that someone could figure out who to sue, in a mass lawsuit it would simply not pay to put the effort in to pierce the corporate veil of any individual when there were 1500 other targets.

Despite what others have said you've made a good point to always keep in mind as an entrepreneur. Something that you are legally obligated to do by contract is very often not worth the time for the other party to file a lawsuit over. If you rely on attorneys this is not something they always will make you aware of. (My points are based upon surviving many many years in business both with and w/o contracts.)

<comment><USER9> A lot of law, in practice, comes down to cost/benefit rather than right/wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This may make mass lawsuits difficult but I wonder if this means anything from an individual harassment perspective. I guess the next question is this (if someone can shed light on this from a legal perspective):

Is detection of copyright infringement through or from an IP address enough to get a warrant issued that allows searching of the devices belonging to the individual using that IP address (or happens to be connected to the internet through that IP address)?

<comment><USER11> So far yes it has been. But what he's saying is that in cases of so many people the risk of catching innocents in crossfire outweighs the likelihood that their IP address is actually connected to someone doing the infringing. This is only in New York though, but the precedent is there now for lawyers around the US to make their cases.

EDIT: likelihood wasn't spelled likely

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I believe this is similar reasoning to why a lot of states have made red light cameras and speed cameras illegal. The owner of the car is not necessarily the person who was driving at the time, and it was the driver (not the car) who broke the law.

<comment><USER13> Here in New Jersey, they've arrived at a compromise. The person in whose name the car is registered is responsible for the fine. But it's _only_ a fine, with no points on your record.

<comment><USER14> I believe that's the case in Maryland, and was under the impression that's how most of these things work. I guess they figure since the only punishment is monetary, if you weren't actually the driver you can figure out pretty easily who was (usually your son/daughter/spouse) so you can get paid back (or ground them, etc).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wasn't this ruled several times already in other trials? How many times does this have to be proven in Court before the other judges start throwing away such cases?

<comment><USER13> This is how the judicial system works in the USA.

It's a hierarchy, from the district courts to the circuit courts on up to the Supreme Court. Basically, decisions made at one level may be binding on that court and its "descendents", but that's as far as it goes. If you want a decision to reach nation-wide, it's got to be handed down by the Supreme Court.

<comment><USER16> On top of that, this is a decision by a magistrate, which is one step below a District Court judge, so it can be appealed to the District Court, then to an Appeals Court, then the Supreme Court. A magistrate's opinion, unfortunately, has no binding effect at all (on anything other than this case).

<comment><USER17> It does however have some help in setting precedent for arguing in those later courts, if both parties agree with the judge and don't pursue the matter further. It doesn't guarantee that it will be listened to but it does help later on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> While I understand that today there are potential problems, it seems to me that a person ought to be responsible with what's done with his property. If he lets someone use his gun, he's got some degree of responsibility, and if he lets someone use his communication facilities, he's assuming some as well.

Today this is difficult, since the average person doesn't have a clue how to set up a secure network. But this is a usability problem more than anything, and if our laws demanded that this be do-able even by somebody's mom, then I think manufacturers would address that usability problem.

<comment><USER18> Well now, it depends. If I let someone use something of mine that is licensed and restricted by the government because of the potential for misuse, such as a gun or prescription medication, then I am responsible inasmuch as I helped them circumvent government licensing.

If I lend someone an easily obtainable item such as a pencil sharpener or a cat, and they commit a crime using it, I don't see how I'm responsible.

The question is which of those categories Internet access falls into.

<comment><USER19> A hundred people are now idly trying to figure out the feasibility and logistics of robbing a bank with a cat.

I would go so far as to say that, in addition to the legal obligation to not violate a government license, you also have an ethical obligation to provide reasonable protection against theft, misuse, &c. Yet somehow it seems strange to apply that logic to network devices.

<comment><USER20>
        $ cat BigMoney > MyAccount

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The actual ruling[1] has some interesting stuff besides what is covered in the article summary:

\- Discussion about a time when it WAS possible to associate an IP address with a specific device and that, for the purposes of allowing discovery, it was REASONABLE to assume that the traffic from that device was initiated by the owner of that device. This has important implications for the future, as IPv6 may make "one ISP IP per actual end device" common again

\- Some hilarious footnotes describing the hypocritical nature of the claims of this and plaintiffs in previous cases. In one case, a plaintiff made a claim that part of the reason for vigorous copyright claims was to "protect minors", when the very plaintiff had a teen porn website. Another footnote was about this plaintiff (K-beech) attempting to claim the moral high ground when in fact the person behind the company was the same who previously tried to extort adult book store owners with violence and bomb threats.

\- A VERY interesting footnote which points out that it is still somewhat of an open question whether pornographic works are copyrightable at ALL

\- The fact that, in the case of pornography, plaintiffs often rely on defendants settling even though they are innocent, simply because they don't want their name published in association with a video called "My Little Panties #2"

\- Abusive tactics by the plaintiff to use information provided by discovery to harass defendants to settle. This includes asking for phone numbers and email addresses which, the judge observes, aren't necessary for servicing defendants and are mostly used to further the plaintiff's aggressive settlement tactics

\- The hilarity of seeing things like "Maryjane Young Love and Gangbanged" in an official court filing

\- And a whole section that's arguable more important than the IP address opinion...

Plaintiffs in these cases usually file a joinder[2] of claims and combine 10s, 100s, and sometimes 1000s of defendants in a single suit. However, the judge argues that even if he were to grant discovery on all the John Does in the case, he still might sever the joinder because:

\- It is transparently an attempt to avoid paying the ~$350 filing fee for each claim. The courts, he says, don't take kindly on losing that much revenue simply because the fees don't fit the plaintiff's business model

\- Joinder rules require, among other things, that the group of defendants must be related by the action "arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" and "any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.". In a wonderful display of deeply understanding the technical matters here, the judge argues that the technical nature of BitTorrent (to wit: that multiple parties seed the same file at the same time) does not alone satisfy the joinder requirement, simply because the user is not usually aware of these technical details.

\- That, in any event, these co-defendants are only related by technical protocol and not case fact. Because of this, each defendant would still get to retain counsel, call witnesses, and defend him- or herself separately. In addition, the rules of joinder require certain actions that would involve n*(n-1) separate filings and would complicate the discovery process. This, the judge points out, turns an otherwise simple case into a massively complex one and thereby goes against the very reason why joinder was created in the first place.

In my opinion, this has the potential to be an even bigger setback to the copyright owners' tactics than the IP address opinion. If joinders like these are routinely severed because of these reasons, it would certainly make the "mass lawsuits against thousands of unnamed defendants" tactic a losing business model.

[1] <http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/92215098> [scribd fullscreen]

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joinder>

</comment><comment><USER22> A better analogy: a router is like a phone switch. A router allows several computers to share external IP just like a phone switch allows several phones to share an external phone number. If you get a call from a switch number you don't actually know which specific person behind the switch is calling.

</comment><comment><USER23> So if the ip is not longer a personal date, then could it be used to track down "pirates". But the conclusion must also be interpreted in the offer direction. So is the ownership of an ip, and the trackdown of the person behind, not enough for the proof of guiltieness in the act of "piracy". I think that the second part would not be in sight of a particular company.

</comment><comment><USER24> Am I correct in thinking that in the UK, the internet subscriber is responsible for what is downloaded/uploaded on their connection, regardless of whether they actually did it?

<comment><USER25> Contractually there may be a duty to ensure your connection is not utilised to nefarious ends. This contractual duty would not of course extend to parties outside the contract (unless the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act is not excluded).

In terms of non-contractual terms, perhaps a film company for example could argue the subscriber was under a duty of care but again this is unlikely to stick.

Generally speaking, I think it would depend on a case by case basis and it would always be open to the subscriber to argue that although the IP address was linked to them, they were not responsible for the infringing activities. This would be determined on the evidence in each case therefore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> There is no such a concept as "BitTorrent Pirate".

Where do you get these?

<comment><USER27> It refers to someone who pirates media or software using bittorrent.

<comment><USER26> What I meant is that one can't pirate media or software. Call it copying or sharing without permission of an original author, but that has nothing to do with piracy, theft, murder, etc...

<comment><USER28> Its a long accepted colloquialism. It also doesn't help that a lot of torrent sites openly embrace pirate crap as cutesy. I guess no one likes saying copyright infringement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Hopefully higher courts will make similar judgements.

</comment><comment><USER30> Does this reasoning work when I don't want to pay for the pay-per-call calls I made on my phone?

<comment><USER31> No, its different there since you enter into a contract with your telephone provider where you agree to pay for them.

<comment><USER30> Right. So it seems like the solution to this is going to be that the law will change so that the IP address owner is responsible for the use of the IP address.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Alright, who forgot to pay off this judge? Someone is going to get very pissed.

</comment><comment><USER33> If this doesn't create a push towards IPv6, I don't know what will...

<comment><USER34> That won't change anything. The subpoena will still be for the person who pays the bill at a location where multiple devices may be connected. I doubt that judge will give a subpoena to go look for a computer with a given MAC address at a location. But those worried can just change MAC address every few days.

<comment><USER33> When you are not behind a NAT, an IP can uniquely identify a device which, in turn, can, most likely, uniquely identify its owner.

<comment><USER35> If you have 2^48 IP addresses (like anyone with a free ipv6 tunnel does), you can assign your device a new IP address every day for 771164319755 years.

<comment> X-Istence Aren't most providers going to be handing out /64's? I know Comcast is working on that at the moment!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> In California, red light cameras can land you a ticket, but not if they cannot identify you clearly from the photo. They compare your DMV picture of all things to the intersection photo. If you have your visor down, those high mounted cameras never get a good shot of your face ;)

Same principle here right? - you can always say it was a roommate or that you had an unsecured wifi router right?

</comment><comment><USER37> Isn't this fact obvious to any hacker worth their salt? This doesn't gratify my intellectual curiosity (per the guidelines). Flagged. Please keep these articles on Slashdot/Reddit.

<comment><USER38> it's about a court decision. keeping track of what the legal camps think about tech is "gratifying my intellectual curiosity"</comment></comment>


Stop starting from scratch when you write - <AUTHOR> http://www.ianharris.com/dont-start-from-scratch/ <comment><USER2> This is pretty good advice. I've been a professional writer in some manner or another for 20 years or so, and I've become keenly aware of how useless I can be when confronted with a blank sheet/screen and a mandate. Yet, once it's started it tends to finish very quickly, usually with just one draft.

I used to sort of solve this problem by writing it in my head over the course of a day or three and then spitting out some basic language to start things off.

Lately I've come to the realization that almost any level of first draft, no matter how awful or off the mark, is sufficient for me to dive right in and finish writing it quickly. So my go-to tactic is to verbally run down what I need written to someone else, like an assistant or someone who works for me who knows the topic, and then start with whatever they come up with and go from there, effectively eliminating the blank screen problem.

The basic premise of this is insightful, there's really no reason why writing has to start with an empty page. I think that's the more interesting observation than the specifics of how he gets the ball rolling, which could easily vary from person to person.

<comment><USER3> > Lately I've come to the realization that almost any level of first draft, no > matter how awful or off the mark, is sufficient for me to dive right in and > finish writing it quickly.

Dan Harmon (the creator of Community, and Rick and Morty) has phrased it as "prove you suck". From his reddit AMA ([https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5azrwi/im_dan_harmon_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5azrwi/im_dan_harmon_executive_producer_and_star_of/d9l3sxr/)) (paragraph breaks added; nothing edited):

> ...if you simply change your goal from "writing well" to "writing badly," > you will be a veritable fucking fountain of material, because guess what, > man, we don't like to admit it, because we're raised to think lack of > confidence is synonymous with paralysis, but, let's just be honest with > ourselves and each other: we can only hope to be good writers.

> We can only ever hope and wish that will ever happen, that's a bird in the > bush. The one in the hand is: we suck. We are terrified we suck, and that > terror is oppressive and pervasive because we can VERY WELL see the > possibility that we suck. We are well acquainted with it. We know how we > suck like the backs of our shitty, untalented hands. We could write a > fucking book on how bad a book would be if we just wrote one instead of > sitting at a desk scratching our dumb heads trying to figure out how, by > some miracle, the next thing we type is going to be brilliant.

> It isn't going to be brilliant. You stink. Prove it. It will go faster. And > then, after you write something incredibly shitty in about six hours, it's > no problem making it better in passes, because in addition to being > absolutely untalented, you are also a mean, petty CRITIC. You know how you > suck and you know how everything sucks and when you see something that > sucks, you know exactly how to fix it, because you're an asshole.

> So that is my advice about getting unblocked. Switch from team "I will one > day write something good" to team "I have no choice but to write a piece of > shit" and then take off your "bad writer" hat and replace it with a "petty > critic" hat and go to town on that poor hack's draft and that's your second > draft. Fifteen drafts later, or whenever someone paying you starts yelling > at you, who knows, maybe the piece of shit will be good enough or maybe > everyone in the world will turn out to be so hopelessly stupid that they > think bad things are good and in any case, you get to spend so much less > time at a keyboard and so much more at a bar where you really belong because > medicine because childhood trauma because the Supreme Court didn't make > abortion an option until your unwanted ass was in its third trimester.

<comment><USER4> Awesome advice :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am a professional musician and composer and I never, ever, start from prepackaged drum loops or anything of the sort.

One of the super fun and satisfying things of being a competent musician is how quickly I can create basic components for my compositions.

That said, musicians tend to have a mental library of ideas and techniques they can employ to flesh out an inspired idea.

I also have a library of partially finished unused themes and ideas that I wrote, which I can bring in to start or expand a piece I'm working on.

So a library of my own partially finished writings would be far more analogous to how I work than a bunch of anecdotes and quotes from other people.

The anecdotes and quotes would be more analogous to other people's music which I've heard and internalized, but would never literally reference while I am composing. The last thing I want is those sorts of cut and paste elements to come anywhere near my work.

<comment><USER6> Have you considered the possibility that you're actually "copying and pasting" at the subconscious level?

For example when you "create" a drum pattern are you really "creating" it or are you simply remembering a drum pattern you've heard or played before that works well with the song or composition you are making. As you probably know brand new drum patterns are rare. Most of the time the specific instrument choices change but the pattern itself is familiar.

<comment><USER7> To a certain extent, it's not possible to produce something that is both recognizable as "music" (much less as a specific genera) and which is devoid of pre-existing patterns, and I don't think that's what the parent post is claiming.

I'm not familiar with the parent poster's music, but I am pretty sure that "create basic components" refers specifically to that "copy-and-paste" from a concept into a more tangible form (like a drum loop). So it seems like they have considered this idea explicitly.

I'm not a pro, though I have to play a 3-hour solo gig tonight on piano, and most of it will be improvising ornaments over blues and jazz tunes that I already know.

One of the problems in this gig is that it becomes very easy to fall into rather generic patterns.

That repetition is a real short-coming of a lot of so-called original music that I, and many musicians I have heard and work with run into: a lot of original music is a bad copy of something that already exists.

However, in the process of re-implementing existing stuff (as opposed to consciously reworking a tune, re-performing a piece, or literally resampling audio) I tend to make mistakes, and I find that to be a good source of actually 'new' music.

I can't say for sure if my understanding is correct, but that's how I understand the parent poster's motivation.

Of course, I'm not a "composer" and I often have to create a whole lot of music without a lot of prep, so I am perhapshappier to have a large-ish library of known things in my brain that I can directly quote when I play.

<comment><USER8> I agree with your statements about the parent's train of thought. I also compose music from time to time, and starting off a piece boils down to three methods (taking drums for example): 1\. Copy/pasting a drum loop 2\. Writing your own drum loop, although it's most likely a common pattern from the genre of music you intend to create 3\. A hybrid of the two, meaning you paste in a drum loop and chop it up to make something unique out of it.

The parent was stating that they don't do the first option, and prefer the second choice. For example, if he/she wanted to make a drum and bass track, they might write their own version of the amen break [1], rather than use a sample from someone else

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_break](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amen_break)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is a lot of argument in this thread that seems to boil down to whether or not this technique (or an analogous technique for another field) is something a competent person would do.

I think that's missing an important point (which is also a point that TFA doesn't cover). Competent people do what makes them productive. If you start worrying about what specific things "the best" do, you're going to end up with a process that works very well for somebody else, and that very possibly won't work for you. You'll optimize for status, but you won't get near your potential.

The idea in TFA seems to be clearly worth trying if you have the problem it purports to solve. Maybe it works for you, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it doesn't, but it gives you more data on how your brain works, and helps to come up with something that works better for you.

But don't let anyone convince you that because you use this method or that, you're less competent than someone who uses other methods. Results are what matter.

(Edit to add: That doesn't mean you shouldn't pay attention to what competent people are doing. They are competent for a reason. But you shouldn't be discouraged if their techniques don't work for you, or if different techniques do.)

</comment><comment><USER10> I really like the opening insight, but I thought the author undersold how it might be used.

A writer should absolutely have some kind of structure. Writing a novel, here are 4 Scrivener files that encode structure. Writing an essay, here are some structures.

But this author seems to think that the way to cash out the "don't start from scratch" is to collect quotes. I think this is not the best use of your time (you can google quotes on topics easily). Secondly, its not the largest challenge when writing, and thirdly, it sells short his own insight which I think can be taken further.

If any other HN reader has any ideas on how to "not start from scratch" in various kind of writing, I would be interested.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure "you can google quotes on topics easily" is true if you're looking for a specific quotation that captures a feeling you're trying to get across in writing. When you happen to stumble upon a quotation that really sticks with you, that's the type of feeling you're trying to capture. You can't just google that, it happens naturally.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is it. For example, I have a fact in my swipe file about how when you put a young turtle in a small aquarium, it will only grow to a size that fits the tank. The next time I need to write about personal growth, I'll probably be able to use that as a hook.

<comment><USER12> Thanks, I'm probably going to use this in a piece next month.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Similar to what the author has done, I wrote an open-source PHP application to manage "memes" I use in my writing. It's basically a bucket of ideas I've clipped from books, websites, etc (over 4,000 in the database now). I link the memes to their references, triple them into one-to-one relationships, and have "schemas" which are buckets of ideas I might use in articles and books I'm writing one day. I find it incredibly helpful in my personal use, but many people (understandably) find the interface a bit convoluted:

[http://mxplx.com/](http://mxplx.com/)

I have it on github, but if you like it, I would recommend rewriting it from scratch because I wrote this in the "Over-Engineering" phase of my career many years ago, over-using design patterns and abstracting away things to the point of making them incomprehensible. Also, I'm only maintaining it for my personal use now, but feel free to clone and make your own if you dare:

[https://github.com/ideonexus/memexplex](https://github.com/ideonexus/memexplex)

Another great resource I would love to see made into something I could query for this is the public domain book "Fifteen Thousand Useful Phrases" by Grenville Kleiser.

[http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18362](http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18362)

<comment><USER14> Love this idea and love that you built a tool for it. I have been toying with a similar idea literally for twenty years. This is very inspiring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't think starting from scratch is the difficult part of writing. You can make a reasonable start simply by writing what you'd say if you were to talk to somebody about your topic. The difficult part is editing that impromptu speech into something worth reading. The most useful new writing tools would be tools for editing.

<comment><USER10> Interesting.

Do you have any ideas around what tools for editing might look like/do for you?

<comment><USER15> Grammar checkers are already useful, but they still have a long way to go before they can match a skilled human editor. Machine learning probably has a lot of potential here.

One useful editing technique is reading your work aloud. But it's slow and annoying to do, so I'd like to see a word processor with visualization of the predicted sound of the words. There are already many good audio visualization techniques, but for full effectiveness this needs another tricky problem solved: speech synthesis with natural prosody. Again, this is an ongoing area of research where machine learning could be very useful.

I'd also like some kind of refactoring support for moving around blocks of text without breaking dependencies between them, eg. accidentally moving a paragraph where something is discussed to earlier in the piece than the paragraph where it's defined. Automatic detection of these kinds of dependencies would be ideal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Yep. I do something like this, and it is very helpful. (And I'm a lawyer, so it could be said that I write for a living.) The bost basic thing is to make a template whenever you're working on a new 'type' of document. Include as much as possible in the template including, when appropriate, some actual language that you're likely to want some variant of in most documents. (In many cases this could include some version of the background pitch for the product/service/technology/industry/idea that you're generally in the business of promoting, if applicable.) Don't worry too much about overinclusivity. Deleting is way easier than rewriting (or digging up something you've already written elsewhere). Though there is an obvious balance to be struck here. Conversely, though, go ahead and make a template even if there is very little that will be stable between documents of a given type. A Thin template is better than nothing to get you started.

Then, your first task when starting a new document can be to delete the irrelevant stuff from the template, if there is any. Next, I like to just start writing bullet points in whatever order/style they come to me in. Once you've done this, organize them in a coherent way that will be reflected in the finished product, cull the points you don't really want, fill in conceptual gaps, and think about whether/how you want to break the document explicitly into sections. Then, finally, start writing, expanding bullet points into prose.

Throughout this process, another important rule applies: if at any point something comes into your head that you actually want to write, even if its a random idea that you know will be be buried deep in the draft, write it immediately. You can work it into the rest of the draft later, once the rest of the draft actually exists.

</comment><comment><USER17> As a writer, I dislike this approach since it sucks the fun out of a blank sheet of paper or a blank document.

I revel in the joy of starting from scratch!

This approach works for some people, but creativity and writing are so personal that it's good to have different ways of working.

</comment><comment><USER14> Hemingway discussed one of the ideas in TFA in this awesome Paris Review interview [1]. His trick was to stop a day's work at a point where he knew what came next:

"As long as you can start, you are all right. The juice will come."

I've found the advice to be very helpful for fiction writing.

[1] [https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4825/ernest- heming...](https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4825/ernest-hemingway- the-art-of-fiction-no-21-ernest-hemingway)

</comment><comment><USER18> Aaron Sorkin does this: [https://youtu.be/S78RzZr3IwI](https://youtu.be/S78RzZr3IwI)

Somewhat ironically he explains how he does it.. [https://youtu.be/UJgslhoG-- M?t=3m21s](https://youtu.be/UJgslhoG--M?t=3m21s)

</comment><comment><USER19> I'd be surprised if this wasn't what most creatives do. I think it was B.J. Novak (from The Office) I've heard in an interview where he explained that he keeps a notebook to keep track of every idea he encounters during the day. From the outside of it it's pretty much the same concept.

As for the blank-paper-scare, my go to tool is the [Most Dangerous Writing App]([http://www.themostdangerouswritingapp.com](http://www.themostdangerouswritingapp.com)) - for the times you can't get started, it's a good push down the hill. (I'm not affiliated with them in any way.)

</comment><comment><USER20> The best graphical designers I saw working always start from scratch and use very simple building blocks to compose more complex things in their own style. Often they create from scratch even letters when creating a logo.

</comment><comment><USER21> Looks like the OP has rediscovered the commonplace book.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonplace_book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonplace_book)

</comment><comment><USER22> I was a little skeptical because the veracity of this is _iffy_ , at least amongst the designers I know:

> Look at graphic designers, for example. If you've ever watched a graphic > designer work, most of the backgrounds, icons and badges they use come from > stock websites

> An efficient designer will normally buy a funnel diagram template rather > than make one from scratch. For $5, why reinvent the wheel?

That being said, the general advice is solid. I'd add two more pieces:

1\. Three-sentence drafts are your friend. When you think of something that might make an interesting blog topic down the line, write three sentences about it and let it germinate for a bit. (I've found Trello to be great for this, since you can easily add notes and links.)

2\. Blog your email. (This advice is stolen blatantly from patio11.) Especially if you're writing to do content marketing, surfacing customer support + answers to interesting questions is a great way to get a jump start.

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here. Thanks – yes designers in my experience often do this, but clearly not always.

The point I'm making is that other creative processes let you start with something to build on. Maybe writing should be that way too.

<comment><USER23> Didnt read your article yet but.

As a amateur song writer, i try to write snippets of lyrics down as they come. Whenever I'm trying to finish something but can't think of anything suitable, I have my rhyme book with tons of stuff to refer to. In some cases it doesn't even have to be quotes from what I've already written down that I might end up using. It could be word/rhyme/rhythm patterns that i pick up from material that I have available.

So yeah I concur with the title of the article. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Ugh, this is like the plot of _Finding Forrester_ without the overarching craft nuance of personal voice as the inherent foundation of writing. Mimicry has a place in art, sure, whether music or text. But, and this is a big but, this article is about describing a "crutch" as a positive and I don't like it.

There are plenty of other more, dare I say _mature_ ways of approaching writing that don't resort to, ahem, swiping other people's shit. Bullet points. Outlines. This example is not a good one in my opinion, and should be considered useful at best for Amateurs intent on developing their own skills over time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think you should "swipe other people's shit". I said you should keep a library of interesting anecdotes and stories, so you can refer to them in your writing. In my experience, this makes your writing more interesting, and helps you to write faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> His analogy to other professions building from premade blocks rings true for me (mech eng), but there are two distinct cases:

a) The design of the block has been perfected through years other people's work and experience. If I need a spur gear in a design there's almost certainly an off-the-shelf component that's 99% perfect.

b) I'm in a rush and I need something good enough. Slap something down and move on.

In the context of writing it seems like the latter will pop up more often. Did his examples seem trite to anyone else?

</comment><comment><USER26> _Programming is another creative process where it's considered wasteful and ignorant to start from scratch.

If there's already code that works, a programmer would be insane for attempting to recreate it._

Is it just me, or is "throw it away and rewrite from scratch, get it right this time" so incredibly common that it's a programming trope in itself? Along with "programmers want to write from scratch because it's fun, nobody wants to do maintenance" ?

</comment><comment><USER27> Pretty good idea. I write a lot (books, blog, emails) and my starting kit for writing consists of lots of notes, web URLs, etc. I used to keep everything in Evernote (still there) but I exported everything to iOS/macOS Notes. The key thing is to have the notes searchable.

Indexed notes are kind of like my own private library.

</comment><comment><USER28> Another trick for getting the first draft out is to record an audio file, then then transcribe it. It's amazing how much better thoughts flow when you stick to a conversational tone.

Also a point-form plan can help to keep your thoughts organized. So plan + voice, and only then move to the computer keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER29> An advice I read somewhere is to just write anything no matter how bad and enter the "flow".

It said you should write or edit but not both at the same time. Writing is supposed to be more on the right side of the brain, editing on the left side so they don't mix well together.

<comment><USER6> The War of Art by Pressfield advocates this approach.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. Also, Stephen King's On Writing. ("Write with the door open. Edit with the door closed".)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Regularly jotting down your thoughts is very good, solid advice.

When I cared more about my annual corporate review, for example, I would jot down things I was proud of so I could hype myself up and stand up for myself should I get a sub-par review or raise.

</comment><comment><USER31> My approach is to just write. If you accept that the initial draft is going to suck and will need to be rewritten then it is much easier to start as it takes the pressure of having to find the perfect opening.

Like many things in life, you learn by doing.

</comment><comment><USER32> Quite an insightful article. I've followed this path most times. Though my Swipe File is scattered around -- from Evernote to Notes to Sublime Text to an Untitled document on my desktop and all. It just works.

</comment><comment><USER33> Would love to know what he swiped to start writing this post about swiping :)

In fairness, it's a neat-sounding technique and I plan to give it a try.

<comment><AUTHOR> I swiped it from my book! [https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-You-Genius-Anybody- Anything-eb...](https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-You-Genius-Anybody-Anything- ebook/dp/B00PWE8IXA/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital- text&ie=UTF8&qid=1417511738&sr=1-1&keywords=Hooked+On+You%3A+The+Genius+Way+to+Make+Anybody+Read+Anything)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> How does it work with the copyright?

<comment><AUTHOR> You rewrite the story, and credit the source if appropriate.</comment></comment>


Why I hate Investors - <AUTHOR> http://sixsites.com/posts/why-i-hate-investors/

<comment><USER2> heh. the last bit (where he asks for investors) was priceless. Personally, I'm also pretty leery of investors. I've turned a few down myself. Really, when you take on an investor, you are taking on another partner. you don't want to accept just anyone.</comment>


Galaxy Nexus + data plan + VoIP support = free calls - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/mobile/galaxy-nexus-data-plan-sip-voip-support-free-calls/

<comment><USER2> My Nexus One, and several little cheapo tablets I have make free outoing calls over wifi and receive incoming calls using GrooveIp (which hooks into Google Voice).

The Nexus One can also make GrooveIp calls over 3G, and I have it also set up using sipgate to receive sip calls, but also receive "real world" phone number calls using a free phone number from ipkall.

It all works so well, that I've considered just buying a Xoom LTE tablet, and using that as my primary phone. The only reason I've decided against this, is that sometimes, I really want a phone I can stuff into a pocket.

What is intriguing about this article is the mention of a $40 unlimited data plan from T-Mobile.

Is that for real? Does that still exist?

I assume it's not LTE, but HSPA+.... but still, that has me thinking....

<comment><USER2> The $40 unlimited plan would seem to either not exist, or be this 2Gb plan with reduced speeds after 2Gb: [http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/mobile- broadband-plans.as...](http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/plans/mobile-broadband- plans.aspx)

Last night, I determined an hour of netflix on my at&t nexus is the better half of a gig, and twice that on a xoom lte I am testing. 2Gb of data is nothing -- but that does seem to be the $40 "unlimited" plan, in which unlimited means throttled speeds after 2Gb.

<comment><USER3> I ran my Nexus One off the unlimited $40/mo data-only plan for its first two years and saved around $USD2000 vs buying subsidized, but it appears that they dropped it in favour of the $50/mo plan. You'd still save a bundle vs the subsidized phone+full plan over the life of a 2-year contract.

I'd always get the weirdest looks when I went in to a T-Mobile shop since I was grandfathered in to the old plan and they had never seen it, so that was always fun.

<comment><USER4> You can also get a plain old bring-your-own-phone pay by the month plan from T-Mobile for $30/month that gives you 100 minutes of voice, unlimited texts, and sorta-unlimited data (1st 5GB at 4G and then it degrades)

<comment><USER5> Can you provide a link? Best I can find on T-Mobile is "First 100 MB at up to 4G speed" for $50/month.

<comment><USER6> <http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/monthly-4g-plans>

It's the one with this disclaimer: "New activations only. Available exclusively in-store at Walmart, on Walmart.com, and T-Mobile.com."

They also released this $200 phone to go along with the plan: [http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/26/samsung-exhibit- ii-4g-to-...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/26/samsung-exhibit-ii-4g-to-be- shown-off-for-t-mobile-at-walmart-to/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Carriers will disable this as soon as it gets even remotely popular, because carriers don't understand what business they're really in.

Carriers think they're communications platforms that add value (Visual Voicemail only from AT&T!) and content channels (Exclusive Droid Bleeding Rocket Glass Metal Extreme Explosion DROIIIIDDD NASCAR app!).

Savvy users understand that they're just wireless dumb pipes and know that cellular voice has been VoIP for many years now and also remember how long ago links between COs ran on fiber.

<comment><USER8> It's not that they 'don't understand' it is that they don't WANT to be (seen as) a dumb pipe. Funnily, they quite like charging ~10c for a text message that costs ~0.0001c in data, etc. Price only competition isn't attractive. It's about time we got a proper wireless ISP!

~* not accurate. and i know text message transfer works in a different way but it is not relevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> How does this affect battery life? I know that GSM have been highly tuned to drain as little battery as possible just to listen for calls and such, but i recon this has to poll some kind of service other then the cell tower, which should consume more data and take longer time?

Personally I use Google Voice (or skype for that matter, I just prefer GV) for international calls, and my provider in scandinavia. And yeah, I got GV for some strange reason, I guess it has to do with Nexus One and a glitch with Google or something...

<comment><USER10> Probably not much. Unless you have a provider which loves bruteforce approach of nat handling (callcentric forces a refresh every 70 seconds or so, resizes the window based on some behaviours), then you can be ok with around 2 packets every 10 minutes. If your connection is already live (email check takes much more traffic), then you shouldn't see much difference in usage.

<comment><USER3> Gingerbread's built-in SIP client is great; I couldn't see a noticeable difference in battery life running it all day. Before Gingerbread, I ran Skype, which couldn't get through a full day on a single charge. Before Skype I tried SIPDroid, which was a lot better than Skype, but not as nice as the built-in Gingerbread one.

My Skype account had lots of contacts and lots of chats open, so that may have had an adverse effect on battery life given that the communication is all P2P and required keeping an insane number of sockets open.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Personally I'm not worried about free calls via VOIP anymore. I have a plan on 3 UK with unlimited wifi and ~2000 minutes of calls a month for £25. I certainly couldn't use any more than that, and for any overseas calls, I can use Rebtel at next-to-nothing rates via a local number (ie included in the 2000 minutes).

<comment><USER3> I suspect this would be a lot more valuable to US customers, where that kind of price on mobile minutes is unheard of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would pay Google a decent amount of money for first-party GV+SIP integration.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've been doing this for 2 years. My setup is a 3GS with an iPad data plan from AT&T. ($29.99/unlimited). Talkatone hooks into google voice for incoming and outgoing calls. The app is free and I paid a token amount to make the ads go away.

Compared to apple's Phone and Messages, Talkatone is complete shit. It mostly works, all the while looking horrible and feeling worse. At least 25% of my incoming calls don't connect when I answer them from another app. The audio quality isn't great. (google's voice app is a bit better but it's still an offense to any decent iPhone app. And it only does texts and connects calls to your actual phone number with a callback.)

There are some hacky VOIP/SIP solutions for the iPhone. But having it call through google's servers is killer and offsets the horrendous UI. So thank you talkatone.

</comment><comment><USER14> It is a killer combination and I'm doing it for a while with Nexus S and CSipSimple App while roaming abroad.

I'm from Europe. And best part is that my mobile operator has SIP gateway, so wherever abroad I am, I always get myself local 3G data SIM card (it's 10 EUR for 1GB on average) so I can use data as much as I want, and I can call and being called (with my own number) with prices just like I would be back home - cheap.

Even better is that I can also send SMS with same app (again from my own number). Classic way, when abroad it can be anywhere from 0.15 EUR to 0.40 EUR per SMS when roaming.

Sending SMS works on EDGE, but for calling it needs to be 3G. Sound can delay from time to time, but it's a small price for keeping home-network-prices wherever in the world I am.

</comment><comment><USER15> SIP support is already in Gingerbread (and possibly earlier versions too), it just doesn't work with a SIM with voice plans.

<comment><USER16> Can you explain what you mean by "it doesn't work with a SIM with voice plans"?

<comment><USER15> The native integration does not usually allow you to use SIP when on a data connection (at least that's how it works for me, I have to be on wifi).

From the article, I understand that if the SIM has a data only plan, then there are no restrictions for VoIP.

<comment><USER3> This varies by carrier, I don't think it has anything to do with the software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not the same , but can use GrooveIP [https://market.android.com/details?id=com.gvoip&hl=en](https://market.android.com/details?id=com.gvoip&hl=en) , for voip calls through google voice.

<comment><USER18> I tried Groove IP, but the echo makes it unusable on my Nexus S (I've tried all settings, etc).

Does anyone have it working flawlessly, and if so, what device?

<comment><USER10> Echo on voip connections is very often the issue of service provider. If you get echo on some destinations more than others, try reporting it (to google in this case) - maybe they can tweak the handling of some interconnects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hmm I'm skeptical. I tried a similar setup with a number of free Voip services, Google Voice, and a Nexus One. The voice quality was very unpredictable, often unusable. That on Wifi no less. I can't imagine trying to do the same on 3G. Maybe I should have paid for a Voip service? ... What would be nice is if Google opened up direct sip access to GVoice.

<comment><USER2> Try GrooveIp, it's not SIP access, it's Jabber/XMPP access and it's like $4. (I am not affiliated).

Also here: <http://code.google.com/apis/talk/open_communications.html>

_1\. What is "client choice" and how is Google Talk enabling it?

In addition to the Google Talk client, there are many other clients out there that provide a great communications experience. We believe users should have choice in which clients they use to connect to the Google Talk service and we want to encourage the developer community to create new and innovative applications that leverage our service. To enable this, Google Talk uses the standard XMPP protocol for authentication, presence, and messaging._

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What a misleading headline! Cheap calls maybe, but not free.

Even if you ignoring the fact that he is paying for the data plan, the author mentions that he is paying "$0.019 per minute" for most outgoing calls within the U.S.

<comment><USER21> Well, it's just an issue of network effects now. Within a few years, enough people will have 4G smartphones that we'll be able to rely solely on VOIP-to- VOIP calls.

<comment><USER7> Until carriers block VoIP traffic, because they can Ben under the FCC net neutrality rules that they keep trying to lawsuit out of existence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> People who do this are very annoying(aka CHEAP!). Mainly because most VoIP calls have low quality and have static issues. When you call me and I can't see the number of the person who's calling, that's annoying. It's also annoying if you break up or I can hear a time delayed echo of everything I just said and then have to wait for you to hear it. When this happens I don't want to talk to you as it's a painful experience. If you can't afford $20/month for a voice plan then perhaps you should just have a tablet and stick to e-mail?

<comment><USER23> Most of these people (and I'm probably in the demographic, though I haven't yet made the leap to VoIP-only) probably _would_ prefer to "stick to e-mail". But the world still forces us to have telephones. Why should we be forced to pay for voice plans we rarely (and grudgingly) use, and subsidize all you bluetooth-adorned yackers in the process?

<comment><USER22> It's their own choice to stick to e-mail, that's a seperate discussion as not using a phone would definitely affect you in this society.

My point is that using VoIP may be cheaper, but it is of vastly inferior quality and will annoy the person you're talking to. If you only use voice once in a while buy a bunch of minutes, you're not subsidizing anyone as the network wouldn't have been built without voice, so one could argue the voice users are subsidizing YOU.

<comment><USER24> > If you only use voice once in a while buy a bunch of minutes

Maybe you could explain that more? Smartphone data plans and prepaid minute phones don't overlap... are you suggesting we carry two phones?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This has been possible for sometime. Totally free calls are possible if you have a legacy Gizmo5 account.

<comment><USER26> Gizmo5 shut down back in April, I believe.</comment></comment>


Why there are no darktable builds for Windows - <AUTHOR> http://www.darktable.org/2015/07/why-dont-you-provide-a-windows-build/

<comment><USER2> > [...] the development of darktable is totally about one's own initiative. > This project (as many others) is not about ordering things and getting them > delivered. It's about starting things, participating and contributing. It's > about trying things out yourself. It's FLOSS.

I understand the developers (and agree) but also the users. I see that it can sometimes be hard to weight the options.

Thats why I vote for a core software (available for a reasonable collection of operating systems) that is extensible by users using some kind of plugin mechanism (maybe using some simple scripting language). That way users can contribute and the developers concentrate on the hard stuff.</comment>


The states that are seeing a boom in population and the states that aren't - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/28/the-states-that-are-seeing-a-boom-in-population-and-the-states-that-arent/ <comment><USER2> That chart has a pretty critical caveat: _" Does not include immigration to the U.S."_</comment>


Ask HN: What are good GUI tools for editing JSON? - <AUTHOR> Hi everyone,
there are many extremely useful JSON viewers around, as well as tools to transform JSON on the command line (e.g. JQ which is currently mentioned in one of the frontpage posts again)
However, I've not yet found a lot of tools that let you visually edit a JSON file.
Of course you can use a text editor, but I believe dedicated JSON support could make life a lot easier. Some things I imagine such a tool could do would be e.g.:
- ensure the document is always proper JSON
- let you cut/copy/paste subtrees
- take advantage of the JSON structure for navigation (e.g. using commands like "go to next entry" / "go to previous entry" / "go up one level")
- automatically escape/unescape strings
Do you guys know if anything like this exists? <comment><USER2> I've used [https://jsoneditoronline.org/](https://jsoneditoronline.org/) for minor edits occasionally, but I'm not sure if it would meet your needs.

<comment><AUTHOR> This actually looks a lot like what I imagined. Thanks!</comment></comment>


My missing frustration with ClojureScript - <AUTHOR> https://mauricio.szabo.link/blog/2018/11/10/my-missing-frustration-with-clojurescript/ <comment><USER2> I don't use profiles.clj, what am I missing?</comment>


Google Scholar won't work on VPN (no CAPTCHA option) - <AUTHOR> https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/websearch/ynU-eKluMSg;context-place=topicsearchin/websearch/scholar <comment><AUTHOR> By bluequoll:

> But first, the basic cause of this issue is not the VPN per se. Google > simply sees a large volume of traffic coming from a single IP address, with > no way of knowing that it's a VPN. The same behaviour has been reported by > students of large educational institutions, where there is a large volume of > users trying to connect to Google Scholar through the institution's single > public IP address. The reality that there are hundreds, thousands or perhaps > hundreds of thousands of individual users behind an IP address is not known > to Google. The VPN provider or institution's network keeps track of the > individual users while presenting a single connection to Google. There may > be a rogue user somewhere on the network, or it may simply be the sheer > number of attempted connections that triggers the blocking, but the point is > that it has gone past the point of a CAPTCHA. I guess it's similar to power > load shedding on an electricity network.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I don't understand why there is no CAPTCHA.</comment>


The Ketamine Connection - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-bc7d54e7-88f6-4026-9faa-2a36d3359bb0 <comment><USER2> "Ketamine is still used in developing countries as an emergency anaesthetic."

Actually, it is on the _WHO Model List of Essential Medicines_ <[http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/93142/1/EML_18_eng....](http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/93142/1/EML_18_eng.pdf?ua=1>) and used frequently and routinely in emergency procedures around the world, not just in "developing countries".

<comment><USER3> Still used in pediatrics in the UK. Just the BBC being the BBC.

<comment><USER4> I thought this, it's widely known in the UK to be used on paediatrics. It's also something the BBC has publicised before... Weird

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Certainly a fascinating slant on ketamine, more familiar to me from reports documenting benefit in patients with severe, treatment-resistant depression. In clinical applications the dose is very small vs. street use and not associated with the destructive gut and brain side effects described in the article. However it's not innocuous, hallucinations or psychosis, among other side-effects, are known, non-trivial risks.

It has been a drug of abuse in the US, but nothing like the near-epidemic proportions going on in China. If the article is accurately describing conditions over there, it suggests it's probably only a matter of time before we'll see it in N. America.

Kind of ironic in a way. Here in Oregon cannabis is now legal for recreational use, and other states will probably join the handful that permit sale and possession of the drug. Widespread abuse of ketamine with harmful outcomes might inspire a new round of a "war on drugs" just as unnecessary controls on cannabis are being reduced.

Perhaps it might lead us to think that not all "recreational" drugs should be regarded as harmless or the same as others, and one set of rules does not fit all.

Edit: fix grammar.

<comment><USER6> The use is really small? Uh, no. In operating rooms the amount of ketamine they use is to _knock out_ the patient. Recreational uses are only interesting because they have less than a knockout dose. If you did twice the amount of a clinical knockout dose, you'd just be more knocked out, you wouldn't be tripping.

Here's the recreational dosage numbers: [https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ketamine/ketamine_dose.shtm...](https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ketamine/ketamine_dose.shtml)

Upon some more research, it appears I'm wrong. K isn't being used to knock people out anymore. (idk, my mom is a retired physician and she talked about how heart surgeons used to knock people out with k.) On page six you can find battlefield doses [http://www.health.mil/~/media/MHS/Report%20Files/201203.ashx](http://www.health.mil/~/media/MHS/Report%20Files/201203.ashx) After you convert erowid's mg/lb to mg/kg it's clear that they're just giving light doses.

You can find some reference to high doses of ketamine in this review article: [http://www.annals.in/article.asp?issn=0971-9784;year=2015;vo...](http://www.annals.in/article.asp?issn=0971-9784;year=2015;volume=18;issue=2;spage=202;epage=209;aulast=Mazzeffi) "Similarly, Marlow et al. found that in coronary artery bypass patients, ketamine (2 mg/kg) caused significant decreases in stroke volume when used as an induction agent."

tl;dr it varies. Also repeated/daily usage of ketamine is definitely bad and will make you piss blood.

<comment><USER7> I think he was referring to it's use as an anti depressant: [http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/04April/Pages/Ketamine-tested- as...](http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/04April/Pages/Ketamine-tested-as-severe- depression-treatment.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The thing I dislike about this article, as somebody who as experiment with ketamine (I took it twice two years ago, and then twice last month) is that the article's presentation implicitly vilifies ketamine a tad.

<comment><USER9> It's not all fun and games: ketamine will eventually destroy your bladder.

<comment><USER10> Yes it will,if you do 5 grams a day - which is a ridiculous amount. If you are doing that much, you might in fact be a horse.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine#Urinary_tract_effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine#Urinary_tract_effects)

<comment><USER7> I'm pretty sure the way in which you deliver the drug is the biggest variable as to how much damage it causes. The article briefly touched upon it; most illegal ketamine comes in a crystal form and needs rehydrating (cooking), most people do not rehydrate the ketamine and instead just crush it. Taking this instead of hydrated ketamine is much more detrimental to the bladder/ut.

<comment><USER11> I think you might have it backwards.

Legitimately manufactured ketamine is typically in sterile saline solution at a fixed quantity per dose. This is because the usual medical route of administration is intra-muscular or intravenous injection.

For recreational use, (afaik) the majority is insufflated, or snorted. For this you need the dry, crystallised form.

You can either purchase it as crystal from your friendly neighbourhood drug dealer, or they may be able to supply you with vials diverted from veterinary or medical suppliers. To get this to a powder, you boil off the water "Cooking" and are left with a mixture of ketamine and salt.

The 2 biggest problems are trying to either rehydrate crystal powder for injection (because ensuring sterility and consistent dosage is hard), and that crystals are much easier to cut with other ingredients (because the legit. vials usually have tamperproof seals like other legitimate drugs).

The other point is that most people won't be injecting it right from the beginning. Only once they become tolerant and require high doses does the appeal of IM/IV's increased 'efficiency' (bioavailability) tend to override the common wisdom of not sticking needles in oneself.

From what I recall, most of the research has shown that long-term administration of high doses is where the damage is predominantly done, and even very high doses (1000mg would be a plausible dose for 'short term surgical anesthesia (15-25 mins) of an 80kg adult), if given very rarely, are not likely to cause harm.

But injecting that sort of quantity, multiple times a day, for weeks or months, is absolutely going to lead to problems, and even more of them if you're getting impurities or bacteria/spores along due to contamination.

<comment><USER7> I'm only speaking from personal experience, unfortunately I have friends that have been abusing this drugs for almost 2 decades (none that inject so I can not speak about that).

I might have my terminology mixed up, but there is definitely a difference between crystallised and that which has been cooked (possibly again). Some of it might possibly be myth on there behalf, as in they don't get as bad a "k belly" or irritated bladder after a binge on the latter.

As well as the bladder/ut issues, snorting (anything) also leads to the corrosion of the septum and also the bone(s) that supports teeth.. Basically excessive use leads to teeth falling out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The writing in this piece is horrible.

"Free parties were popping up all over the country, and there were many in Bristol. That's when ketamine came flooding into the city."

Differentiation? Anybody? As far as I am concerned these so called "Free parties", aka outdoor raves, exist in most places of the world, as they cater for a basic human need to have a good time. Now when people enjoy themselves, they tend to drink, smoke and use various consumerables. We know Ketamine is big in the UK. Now how are non commercial social events connected to Ketamine?

</comment><comment><USER13> "Sometimes, they would use motorcycles to surround the police, threatening them with AK47 rifles and grenades."

Very, very unlikely. China has an almost complete ban on civilian ownership of firearms. The only exception is for rare hunting permits (there is very little hunting in China) and wildlife conservation. Even then traditional hunting tends to use blackpowder muzzle loaders (and they restrict ownership of black/gun powder)

They don't even allow regular cops to use useful firearms (they are issued a revolver that fires rounds with as much energy as a .22 LR ... enough to wound but not kill or even stop someone attacking police). They don't want the cops ever rebelling against the PLA.

The BBC wants us to believe that Chinese authorities allowed an armed militia to directly challenge law enforcement and did nothing about it for over a decade?

More likely that was just a story made up by bribed cops, cops who were shit scared of going into that village or cops/politicians who wanted extra credit for going into that village.

So I wonder how much else of this story is exaggerated by the journalist.

Fully automatic AK ownership, and even grenade ownership is fully legal in many or most US states, if you pay the required BATFE taxes and have the right permits (explosive storage permits for grenades) but so much wave one at a cop and you will be surrounded by armored cars and black helicopters sooner that you can blink.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure the legalities of gun ownership would bother the members of an illegal drugs operation.

<comment><USER15> He's not suggesting the legalities is the primary reason it sounds strange, but that the Chinese government appears to be less than likely to tolerate a criminal organization to have weapons that might allow it to become a threat, when they don't even allow the police access to similar weapons, much less civilians.

I have no idea what situations are like with respect to weapons in China, so I have no idea whether he's right or not, but this is not just about the legality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The way this is constructed reminds me of "Snow Fall" from the NYT. [http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow- fall/#/?part=tunne...](http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2012/snow- fall/#/?part=tunnel-creek)

<comment><USER17> Snow Fall was considered an incredible success in online presentation, and a lot of papers have tried to emulate it since. Any similarities you notice are probably not accidents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I found the quality of writing to be somewhat sub-par for BBC, which is usually excellent. Very interesting story, though.

</comment><comment><USER19> Ketamine... just say neigh.

</comment><comment><USER20> Great story. Some of these content pieces are becoming massive! I mean, that story was so large I wonder if they considered turning it into a short book, or expanding it into one and publishing?

</comment><comment><USER21> Here it is on Google maps: [https://goo.gl/maps/6kZfb](https://goo.gl/maps/6kZfb)

</comment><comment><USER22> Someday we'll find it The K-hole connection The ravers, the Chinese, and me.

</comment><comment><USER23> Great piece of investigative journalism.</comment>


Ask HN: Does anybody make good money from Google Adsense? - <AUTHOR> My earnings have dropped since last few months. So, I would like to know if anyone is making a good earning from Google Adsense or the earnings have dropped like mine? <comment><USER2> I used to make decent amount (for my purposes) around $1000 a month. This was when the ads were based on the content. Then a few years ago they based ads on the user (as personalisation is all the rage) which for me was ridiculous as my site was about general social, political and environmental issues, so you'd end up seeing an add about shoes or something you were shopping for on another site which was completely unrelated to why people came to my site and completely out of context so the ad clicks and revenue dropped while site usage was growing. No way to reach a human to change it back. Some option on AdSense implies you can but has not worked.

Also at some point got banned for false clicks except the site they said that was violating their policy was not mine. Their automated responses of course did not help. Only a few months later a friend of a friend who luckily worked on the team was able to reinstate the account (but not the list revenue in the meanwhile if course). turns out they had a big they didn't admit false flagging my site. Wonder how many others they caught out...

Have ended up sticking with them as don't have time to look for alternatives (tried Chiquita but not very good). (The site is a side project only.) Would like to build my own niche for maybe non profits only, though I'm sure someone has done that already so I probably need to just invest some more time to look into it more...

<comment><USER2> Sorry, I only spotted some auto-correct typos after the ability to edit my reply had passed:

"(but not the list revenue in the meanwhile if course). turns out they had a big they didn't admit false flagging my site."

Should say

"(but not the lost revenue in the meanwhile of course). turns out they had a bug they didn't admit, false flagging my site."

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I used to earn couple of thousands dollars a month via my Android games. I created them to learn unity and not to earn money but the games were picked up by some game magazines and took off.

Google then banned the whole account for some "likeness to merchandise" reason. They kept the whole money too

<comment><USER4> I made about $200 per day and had 500 clicks per day from AdSense, steady for years. Suddenly it dropped to $30 per day and 1-5 clicks overnight. Traffic was consistent, about a million daily page views, and 40k active registered users a day. 1-5 clicks was clearly wrong. I contacted AdSense support and asked if I should try making changes to the ads, or wait for them to debug the issue. They said to wait.

Well, I waited a month as they escalated it to different departments, and someone went on vacation. Finally I get an email with their official answer. It says they can't tell me the issue, because it's classified information. However, I could try labeling the ads, "Sponsored Advertisements".

That's the great support I get after making them about 100k in commission. Thanks Google.

<comment><USER5> I had a site that had 60k unique visitors a day. Adsense decided it didn't want to show ads on 90% on requests. I was making $150/month with server costs of over $500.

A company approached me to join their private ad network and the next month I earned $5700.

<comment><USER6> i made 1500$ from my Nokia phones related blogspot.com site before 2013,then Nokia lost market-share i lost my visitors & revenue.

before panda and hummingbird(mostly panda), SEO is very easy for self hosted WordPress blog, create some post and make more tags ,you easily ranked on google search.

*sorry for my english

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess now-a-days blogspot/wordpress blogs don't rank in Google search results.

<comment><USER6> still possible, if u create Informative blog posts...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Have used AdSense on latextemplates.com for 7 years. I wouldn't call it "good money" but it's a welcome addition to my income. Haven't noticed any drop the last several months, but 4 years or so ago there was a huge drop when they updated their algorithm.

I dislike Google and would love to move to something else, but everything I've tried is so much worse so I've just been stuck with it. Any suggestions?

<comment><USER8> I've heard good things about Ezoic. Haven't personally tested it however.

<comment><USER5> ezoic is good but they still use at least a portion of google under the hood.

<comment><USER9> This is correct

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Me, 10$K/month. Because of AdSense revenue, I took many hours building a new website (online since last month) and hope that website it will eventually make some money. I really don't like having ads on website I visit but don't use AdBlocker (hide it behind other windows). I think WikWik.org is a great site (I'm the author) and for sure would not have exist without AdSense opportunity.

<comment><AUTHOR> Which website do you run?

<comment><USER10> Many sites, but money come mainly (70%) for BestWordList.com and ListesDeMots.Net.

<comment><AUTHOR> Checked. I liked the design. It's simple and only focus on the content that you need. :) No distractions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I built a blog in 2008 with few articles and luckily got my account approved in Adsense. after a month I was banned for lifetime with reason of invalid clicks and violating terms. I still don't know why that happened? last I try to re-apply in 2013/14, again I was reject for no reason.

I can really see a monopoly of google in this ad-space. because they can always throttle our traffic if we use other network.

</comment><comment><USER12> My earnings also dropped, but I would say it's mostly because of their policy changes and not adapting to it.

I wanted to change provider, but most of them are more scammy than AdSense.

<comment><AUTHOR> How about native ads?

<comment><USER12> This is some kind of service? If you are talking about selling my own ad space, then it's not possible. I run such a website, that people come, they look around for few minutes, download image and never return.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I created and ran a website called jscompress.com for a number of years. In its peak time, I made around $350-500 per month on it, with no maintenance.

2013-2015: $350-$500 per month

2016+: ~$125 per month

I attribute most of this to the rise of ad blockers, which impacted me especially bad because it is a website targeted at developers.

I did a writeup on it and why I sold it: [https://vancelucas.com/blog/selling- my-passive-income-stream...](https://vancelucas.com/blog/selling-my-passive- income-stream-jscompress/)

</comment><comment><USER14> The funny party is many people here reported being banned because of "automated clicks". When we used adsense for advertising purpose we paid for many clicks which lasted less than 50 milliseconds.

So google is letting advertiser pay for fake clicks, but website owners will not get this money, google keeps it by blocking their accounts.

</comment><comment><USER15> It has been years since I had made money off Adsense, but do a Google search for "smart pricing."

Back in the day, I was making decent money off a new account and then that income dropped off a cliff after a couple months. The issue was that the traffic was low performing and I guess it took a couple months for Google to figure it out.

Take a look at your traffic and how well it might be converting for the people paying for those ads. If you're pretty sure it's crap, then do more searching for how you might make that traffic perform better.

For example, my issue was that I had a lot of traffic coming from developing countries and these people weren't going to buy anything. Another example might be that a site short of content isn't aligning well with the ads which Google is showing.

</comment><comment><USER16> Once upon a time I was making $1,000 a day with AdSense. Then Panda happened. Now I don't make anywhere near that much in a month.

<comment><USER17> What's Panda?

<comment><USER18> Nickname for a large ranking rule change which affected a lot of people's rank on Google.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I used to make $20-30k monthly with flash video games. Saw a click at $150 one day! (Before 2008 crisis!)

<comment><USER20> Yahoo Ads with the old Revenue Science (Audience Connect now I think) would pay similarly for high traffic file hosting.

Gods we were young back then.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> My company (user generated content, user profile pages) reached $10k/mo in 2010 with AdSense. As soon as we crossed that threshold, we started getting automated threats asking to check "all other pages" (we had about 20m user profile pages back then). Despite our best effort (keywords filters in Hungarian and Thai, heuristics), the account was banned when it was earning $17k/mo. Fortunately, my bootstrapped start-up had a freemium model, so I could keep the payroll and seemingly survived this blow (although as I now understand, the long term impact was very negative). I tried to appeal, only to get automated responses. Tried to approach AdSense team via contacts- a few emails, and they stopped responding. Finally , I found some AdSense employee patrolling webmasterworld.com - miraculously, he reinstated the account! We immediately reduced exposure to 5k/mo and sold the remaining inventory first with Exponential and then transitioned to header bidding with 4 different DSPs.

TL;DR Avoid like a plague!!

<comment><AUTHOR> Google always do the same once you reach a decent amount they ban the account for some silly reasons.

<comment><USER22> Why?

<comment><AUTHOR> They give you silly reason like fraud clicks or something like and cease your account.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, but doesn't Google earn commission based on the revenue from adsense? It seems very odd that they ban accounts when they're also making money.

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, they cease your earned amount.

<comment><USER22> Ah, so that's why, they simply rob people systematically.

<comment><USER23> How is this legal?

<comment><USER22> I'm guessing, since people/companies are isolated and don't even consider suing a big entity as Google, there's no one that's going to do anything. And the police/law certainly won't go after someone as large as Google. I'd guess that, if EU would take it on, they could bring them to justice, but they seem to only be after GDPR money currently.

<comment><USER23> Can't people band together and bring a class action lawsuit? Looks like there are enough people screwed over by Google for this to work, isn't it? Even if Google doesn't reinstate the Adsense accounts, they should at least not withhold the money these people already earned

<comment><USER22> You'd need a driven lawyer to pick up the case and find all the people that want to use, I think it's as hard as finding needles in a haystack to be honest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I make about $50-$70/month from Adsense on my blog. I use a single Auto ad unit in the middle of each article. It would be nice if it were more. They payout every couple of months when the balance gets over $100. When they payout I get a 'report' that tells me they reduced my payout because of 'invalid traffic' (with no details about what/how/when). This deduction varies from about 5-20% of the payout.

<comment><AUTHOR> Amazing. Blog's link?

<comment><USER24> [http://www.datagenetics.com/](http://www.datagenetics.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Not any more. And in the end the nice people of G banned me having run the same website unchanged for 5 years.

<comment><AUTHOR> They ban my account without specifying any reason or what actions have violated their terms of service. I had earned over 500$ from a blog.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Google does

</comment><comment><USER27> About $400/mo over a few sites. Best earners are B2B, non-tech related (business-related tools rather than content-based). Takes just a few thousand visitors and a few dozen clicks to see that revenue.

Consumer-oriented sites will require many more views to get clicks, and those clicks are worth less. And the rise of ad-blockers and general awareness will have a greater impact there.

My sites are also most-viewed on and optimized for desktop use, as they are used in an office setting. Perhaps with a greater shift to mobile, either your ad types are less likely to be clicked or less-likely to be served up at all based on your site's layout and mobile-friendliness?

<comment><AUTHOR> Mind sharing link to your website?

<comment><USER27> commercialinvoiceform.org, as an example.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!!!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Incredible how many people have been stuffed by Google.

Amazing how this company can maintain its reputation behaving like this.

</comment><comment><USER28> 0 $/month since they banned my account automatically when it reached the minimum quantity to retrieve the money.

</comment><comment><USER29> I think adsense earnings dropped since oct 2018 or something, and it often refuses to fill up impressions.

Also what kinds of ad units do you use? I m testing auto ads now and seeing a drop in earnings (which is typical for most of google's automated recommendations for me).

What alternatives to adsense monetization are viable nowadays?

<comment><AUTHOR> Auto ads, i am also looking for an alternative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> For years I did, but the growth of mobile traffic has made it a lot more difficult.

<comment><AUTHOR> Website?

<comment><USER30> Yes, a variety of websites. Won't list them here though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Building a business solely relying on someone else's walled garden (Google Adsense in this case) is a business risk.

You need to find other paths of revenue, ideally out of Google.

<comment><USER29> There is no other way, at least in advertising. Google is monopoly. You can make some extra by charging directly but it's not for every business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I see so many people screwed over by Google. Are there any Adsense alternatives that have human support, not too high traffic requirements and just don't suck overall?

<comment><USER33> Media.net, taboola, infolinks, just to name a few...

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Any good alternatives?

<comment><USER35> If you can meet the minimum traffic numbers, Exponential is an option. Higher quality ads than AdSense, but the fill rate isn't always as high as one might like.

<comment><USER36> Demanding min traffic and not being able to fill the slots is a red flag.

<comment><USER35> It's more of an inconvenience, since you can specify a fallback.

US-based, and they've never missed a payment in 16 years. That's pretty good considering how most ad networks come and go these days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm sure Google does.

</comment><comment><USER36> Dropping like crazy, hard to know when to pull the plug.

What did anyone do with thier domain names from failed adsense sites?

</comment><comment><USER38> Typical storyline: Google "banned publisher, kept the money and refuse to communicate".

Of course these bans usually happens at the end of the revenue cycle where accumulated funds are at their max.

</comment><comment><USER39> No, some third party maliciously clicked on some ads and a purchased asset had some prohibited/adult user submitted content that together wound up getting me a lifetime ban.

</comment><comment><USER40> Good,Good,Good

</comment><comment><USER41> I had 25$ per month and in September or August dropped to 7$ Not a big deal but still</comment>


Show HN: GitHub app to draw graph of your code changes into PR comment - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/apps/softagram <comment><USER2> A live example that was done by the bot: [https://github.com/databricks/koalas/pull/121#issuecomment-4...](https://github.com/databricks/koalas/pull/121#issuecomment-485761992)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This GitHub app is based on Softagram cloud service.

Softagram is located on [https://softagram.com](https://softagram.com)

Please share you feedback and experiences.</comment>


The history of grep - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/rualthanzauva/grep-was-a-private-command-of-mine-for-quite-a-while-before-i-made-it-public-ken-thompson-a40e24a5ef48

<comment><USER2> "One guy McIlroy" was Doug McIlroy, head of computing research at Bell Labs at the time, the inventor of pipes, diff, etc., and an eminent guy.

Before Thompson published his construction for matching regular expressions in the late '60s, Kleene's re work was pretty much purely theoretical. That's really the interesting story, solving an extremely difficult implementation problem on the machines of the era.

</comment><comment><USER3> GNU grep was written my Mike Haertel, not Haerkal as written in the article.

Super smart guy.

<comment><USER4> His email about why GNU grep is fast contains one of my favorite quotes about programming. Don't know if he coined it.

> The key to making programs fast is to make them do practically nothing. ;-)

<comment><USER5> A favorite here as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Article raises a 21st century grammar question. If a sentence starts with the name of a computer command, and the invocation of the command is all lowercase, do you still capitalize the command name? Apparently the author thinks you don't, the man pages thinks you do, and Ken Thompson doesn't believe in capitalization at all.

<comment><USER7> The consensus seems to be that things like iPhone and eBay get to keep their lower case letter even at the start of a sentence. I'd say grep deserves the same treatment.

<comment><USER8> Besides, G/re/p doesn't seem to make sense as an ed command...</comment></comment></comment>


Information Security Startup News? - dolev-yao

Gentlemen,<p>Do you know of any website or content aggregator which focuses on news related to early stage information security companies? <comment><AUTHOR> There must be something on Reddit.</comment>


Ask HN: Where to find businesses that want funding - <AUTHOR>

I've had a bit of success and would like to get into the funding game.
Funnily enough, I'm asking a question I thought I'd never have to ask: where do I find businesses who want funding?
I have a decent amount of capital to invest, mainly looking for companies who want anywhere from $10k-$50k, could potentially do more if it was the right fit.
I'd really like to work with a large number of options. I'm pretty picky and think I'll know a good match when I see one. The difficulty is finding enough potentials to sort through.
Been looking through kickstarter and other crowdfunding sites, mainly looking for businesses that aren't getting funded by have potential.
Problem is, these sites are chock-full of music and art projects, projects I respect but have no interest in funding.
With all the people needing funding in this world, it seems like it should be easy to get 1000+ potential businesses relatively quickly.
Is there any way to do this in a convenient manner?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> <http://www.fundersclub.com/> sounds pretty interesting.

Edit: fixed the link

</comment><comment><USER3> You should try angel.co, kickstarter and so on.

thanks sudhi</comment>


The Father of DNA is Selling his Nobel Prize Because Everyone Thinks He's Racist - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2014/12/01/nows-your-chance-to-buy-james-watsons-nobel-prize-because-racism/

<comment><USER2> Someone should buy it and give it to the family of Rosalind Franklin.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've always wondered why stating that blacks are better at certain sports is not considered racist toward other races?

Anyway, when people and scientists are punished for expressing thoughts just because some find those offensive (think about Darwin, Freud, and many others), then we're turning the wheel of history backward. More and more so, we're living in times when people are becoming afraid to freely share their opinions - motivated or not, scientific or not. The only true way to prove somebody wrong is use science and not twist their arms (or tongues).</comment>


Dell's Android phone is coming to the U.S.   - <AUTHOR> http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/10/06/exclusive-dells-android-phone-is-coming-to-the-u-s/ <comment><USER2> So... why are they shipping it with a bastardized version of android?

Why do they have to mess with something that's working fine. I mean, I have two android phones in the house (wife and I) and I run all the same apps on them and that's great(HTC magic and htc dream). I'm about to start developing commercial apps for Android and I don't want to have to figure out wtf dell broke.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm lost. I'm getting a rotary. Or maybe one of those phones where you pick it up and tell some nice lately who to patch me through to.

I am being facetious, but in all honesty, I truly am lost. Between the various smart phone models, regular cell phone models, OS's, and the PLANS, it's just a cluster, and it's tiring.

Don't get me started on PC processor naming.

<comment><USER4> _I'm lost. I'm getting a rotary._

Will that be AT&T or T-Mobile?

[http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2005/06/portable_rotary_pho...](http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2005/06/portable_rotary_phone_pre.html)</comment></comment>


AT&T's Bet on the iPhone - Why $199? - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121305706681259335.html?mod=2_1571_topbox <comment><USER2> No different than "giving away" phones for free if you get a 2-year plan. It's all a long term forecast. They'll make a lot off of the $200 down.

</comment><comment><USER3> They'll make a lot off of the $200 down.</comment>