4 Big Problems with Flying Cars Few Are Thinking About - <AUTHOR> https://www.inverse.com/article/30833-uber-flying-car-problems <comment><USER2> The fundamental issue with flying cars will be get-there-itis, the need to get to the destination. This kills amateur pilots.

FAA rules require fuel minimums so that if your destination cannot be reached then an alternate destination can be reached plus 45 minutes of additional fuel. People will commute with absolute minimum charge because "they have to get to that meeting".

FAA rules require vertical and horizontal separation for safety. Car drivers will cut you off without so much as a blinker at 70 MPH on a rain- or snow- slick road. Manual over-ride will cause havoc.

FAA rules require certification to land in specified minimum weather such as fog. A fog situation at a landing site can close it very quickly. Moisture tends to interfere with communication (listen to your radio and note how it fade in rain) so there will be issues of loss of GPS / coordination / inter- vehicle contact.

Vertical landing is fine in windless conditions. But gusting winds or microburst will exceed the control of these crafts quickly.

"Vertical Landing" is going to take on a whole new meaning when your battery dies and these kinds of batteries tend to die rapidly when they reach their energy limit.

It would make more sense to require that these flying cars be required to land on water. Then you could have a lake that could handle many planes with marked taxiways to the landing location. The construction is quicker, requires less material, is easier to site, survives crashed vehicles, and adapts to wind conditions. It doesn't even have to be deep, a meter or two maximum.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you choose the best idea to focus on? - <AUTHOR> I have 4 different ideas in 4 different niches that can disturb those spaces. I'm testing it through customer development and pre-selling it. How do you manage to be focused only on one idea if you see 'sweet spots' in other ones too? <comment><USER2> I have all of my ideas in excel with columns:

Time Needed, Enjoyment, Potential Income, Career Impact

I score all ideas in all categories, and then I have my own formula which tells me which idea is worth it.</comment>


Lighting up my DasKeyboard with Blood Sugar changes using my body's REST API - <AUTHOR> https://www.hanselman.com/blog/LightingUpMyDasKeyboardWithBloodSugarChangesUsingMyBodysRESTAPI.aspx <comment><USER2> I couldn't find anything in the article on which CGM he's using. Anyone know?

I recently switched to the FreeStyle Libre which you use by pulling readings from over NFC to a cellphone. I'm not clear on what the nice 'real' CGMs are like these days or how they work (as far as connecting to one's body).

I like the way the Libre connects (small disk that sits on the back of your arm for two weeks at a time), so if the CGMs which transmit with bluetooth are more bulky/less convenient, I'd almost be tempted to build a little NFC to bluetooth device, Fitbit-sized, which could be strapped over the Libre sensor and scan it every minute or so and stream data to my phone.

<comment><USER3> There are several third party Bluetooth transmitters that fit the Libre or you can use an old Sony smartwatch. I used the latter for a few months but it was much better when I switched to the Dexcom G5. The G5 is just a small BT transmitter and the G6 is even smaller. The insertion is a bit nicer on the Libre but not a big deal.

If you use xDrip and stretch the life of the sensors and transmitters then the Dexcom isn't much more expensive than the Libre (at least for me, in the UK).

Scott is using the G6 now I think, and most T1s I read online recommend Dexcom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pretty cool. I wonder, wouldn't a smartwatch of sorts be perfect to monitor blood sugar?

<comment><USER5> Nightscout, which is a dependency to Scott's project, has information on their site about using various smartwatches

[http://www.nightscout.info/](http://www.nightscout.info/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is the most HN headline i've ever seen.

</comment><comment><USER7> One thing I am a bit sad to not take off more is enchanted devices. I sorta feel it was a CES 2015-2017 news cycle coverage that was ultimately unable to have traction.

The concept of integrating the design of devices into manufacturing and safety critical environments excited me as the new direction for IoT devices intersecting with computer human design. I still hold out hope that the trend continues and we are able to create more physical and less screen dependent devices to create a more meaningful world.

</comment><comment><USER8> I had this idea exactly a week ago and thought "I should build this!" as my mom is switching to a CGM. I even have some scrap notes on the API, I just hadn't found the hour or two to build it.

Execution >> ideas and all that, and this is nicely done. :)

I really like the prompt idea, actually - won't work for my mom, but works incredibly well for anyone who codes at their machine all day.

</comment><comment><USER9> That's absolutely awesome!

On a side note, I'd be super wary of having that kind of data in the cloud. A local raspberry pi server would be nice.</comment>


The Silicon Valley Exodus Continues - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/05/the-silicon-valley-exodus-continues/ <comment><USER2> I'm semi-surprised that many people considered SF and SV synonymous. I moved to Palo Alto in 84 and they have always seemed to have quite different technical cultures (though SF has changed a lot more over the years in that regard than the valley has). I did at various times live in SF too but the pull of the Valley was too strong.

There have been VCs in SF for almost as long as there have been VCs BTW. Hummer Winblad was the first to set up in then-sleepy Southpark back in the mid 90s (before then the SF investors were mostly in the financial district) and there were a lot of VC satellite offices opening up in SF in the late 90s for the 2000 internet boom. Since about 2000 every one of my companies has been funded by a mix of SV and SF investors.

I _was_ surprised last year to read that SF funding exceeded SV funding by a large amount on a dollar basis. I assume that reflects the costs of trying to rapidly scale retail businesses.

<comment><USER3> Silicone valley has been expanding since long time as more capital, human resources and companies come to SV.

So no, it's not correct to say SF is not part of silicone valley, it has started to become part of silicone valley now.

<comment><USER4> Considering you can't even spell the name of the region (after two attempts), I doubt you're in a position to correct someone whose knowledge of the region goes back to 1984.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is it really an exodus if you're moving only a few km north - in a place also usually known as the greater silicon valley.

<comment><USER6> SF and mountain view are about as far apart as Central NJ and NYC. The difference in culture and lifestyle is about as comparable too.

<comment><USER5> Bronx to south Brooklyn are also as far apart as SF and Mountain View. Though you are right about lifestyle, I'd say culture is pretty much the same, at least for techies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Today I learned SF is not really considered part of Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER8> I work in Seattle tech and would say generally that we use SF, Bay Area and SV interchangeably to refer to refer to both the Valley and City of SF combined.

<comment><USER9> Yeah. SF is definitely not the Valley, but from the outside, they are generally used interchangeably.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> but why ? Isn't SF just as expensive if not more expensive than SV ?

<comment><USER11> It's got more ayn rand types

They live on their own form of welfare called Venture Capital

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> SF is still SV duh</comment>


Widefinder 2 with Clojure - <AUTHOR> http://meshy.org/2009/12/13/widefinder-2-with-clojure.html

<comment><USER3> This is an excellent article, as opposed to many shallow blog posts written after five minutes of trying a new language.

It also shows, unfortunately, that fast Lisp code isn't always pretty to look at.

<comment><USER4> Thanks. Yeah, fast anything code tends to be not very pretty to look at and I'm not a very experienced lisper. But fortunately in most real-world programs the part that is performance critical tends to be very small compared to the rest of the program.

<comment><USER3> Oh, I didn't mean it as a criticism -- I'm afraid it has to be that way. My Common Lisp code that has been optimized looks similar (sprinkled with type declarations in various places).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Faster than C, Java, and Scala. Not bad for a Lisp, eh? ;)

<comment><USER6> Faster than "the single-threaded C version." I found this a bit shocking - <USER2> a 32-core machine, this is an achievement? Obviously it's not Clojure's fault as Scala and Java are in the same range, but it was a surprise.

<comment><USER4> It's not really an 32-core machine. It's an 8 core UltraSPARC T1, each core supporting 4 hardware threads. Also this is the sort of problem that C absolutely kills at. C can just mmap the file and run straight across raw the bytes and take advantage of all kinds of cache tricks. For well-written C code the problem is basically IO bound and I was surprised I could catch up to it at all with the JVM.

<comment><USER7> 8 core, with each core having 4 threads, will soon be the norm. Forward thinking: Imagine that in a phone!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Invisibility cloaks could take sting out of tsunamis - <AUTHOR> http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn14829-invisibility-cloaks-could-take-sting-out-of-tsunamis.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=tech1_head_Invisibility%20cloaks%20could%20take%20sting%20out%20of%20tsunamisIn

<comment><USER2> I'm confused as to why you need to protect oil rigs from tsunamis. I thought that tsunamis were only dangerous when they reached the shore. In open water all you get is a slight swell.

<comment><USER3> Great point, perhaps the article meant oil refineries, those tend to be on the coastline?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wait: invisibility cloaks are real? Where have I been?</comment>


Drone Olympics in SF - <AUTHOR> http://droneolympics.com <comment><USER2> Before this gets too popular you really need to change the name and remove anything related to the olympics. The US Olympic committee _will_ send you a cease and desist letter and follow with a lawsuit if you don't change it. The olympics are a big business and they protect their copyright fiercely.

A few examples:

Knitting olympics crackdown: [http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-22/why-the-u- do...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-06-22/why-the-u-dot-s-dot- olympic-committee-cracked-down-on-a-knitting-group)

Robogames was formerly Robolympics: <http://boingboing.net/2003/11/24/olympics-serves-robo.html>

<comment><USER3> > their copyright

Nitpick: This is trademark at issue here, not copyright. Though the USOC and the IOC protect basically everything they can fiercely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why was this announced with only 8 days until the event? Assuming it takes three days' shipping for a test copter to arrive, that leaves zero weekends in which to prepare, for someone who jumps on it immediately. I think they're going to be disappointed by the turnout.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is not an official announcement though, I'm not an organizer of the event. I think they announced it amongst groups interested in robotics long ago. It just happend that I posted a link on HN today ;)

As for the copter, you can buy it in Costco, no need to wait!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Somebody, anybody, PLEASE win this with a reasonable programming language instead.

<comment><USER6> Somebody, anybody, PLEASE tell this guy to be a little less melodramatic.

<comment><USER7> Why, javascript is ill suited to this task. It is perfectly reasonable to question their choice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What is the goal or challenge? I can find no reference to the criteria that contestants will be judged on.

</comment><comment><USER9> I figured out why its in js!

Nathan Rajlich Nodejs core comitter

</comment><comment><USER10> More ladies should apply.

</comment><comment><USER11> Announcement on thanksgiving weekend too short a notice, will not participate, hope i can visit and see the demos

</comment><comment><USER12> Some sort of tower defense game would be totally awesome</comment>


Show HN: What if app state would be full-power database - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/denistakeda/re-posh <comment><USER2> Reminds me of Rum and Datascript :)</comment>


Ask HN: Why don't we get spam on cell phones? - <AUTHOR>

Why don't we get spam on cell phones as text messages, although we get spam via email? <comment><USER2> Clearly: Its illegal.

I assume due mainly to the cost to consumers. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_spam#Criminality_a...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_spam#Criminality_and_law_enforcement)

If we were charged on the amount of emails received, it might be illegal to receive spam through that as well :p

<comment><AUTHOR> Would it be impossible to make email spam illegal?

Why was it possible to make SMS spam, but not email, illegal?

<comment><USER3> Email spam is illegal in countries that enforce the CAN-SPAM act.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why isn't the CAN-SPAM act enforced, say in the US?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Count yourself lucky. In South Africa, where text messaging has been a big thing for about 2 decades, cell phone spam is prevalent and hated by the 74% of the population (the percent that owns a cell phone).

</comment><comment><USER4> Because text messages do cost money to send. Email doesn't.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are email gateways to all major phone providers, so one can send, rather than receive, text messages without cost.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Utilities for creating custom web buttons? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking for a utility to create some web UI buttons, similar to DaButtonFactory.com -- but with the ability to incorporate multi-line text.
Can anyone recommend a worthwhile button generator? Or, alternatively, a Gimp-compatible template?
Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> <http://minim.co/buttons/>

I've been working on a button generator and have the buttons designed but stuck on the code for the generator. If this is the kind of thing you're looking for, let me know what color(s) you want and I'll do them up and apply hover effects. Should be just fine for multi-line too.</comment>


U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/01/17/us-attorney-statement-on-the-prosecution-of-aaron-swartz/ <comment><USER3> > I must, however, make clear that this office's conduct was appropriate in > bringing and handling this case.

That's why you assign investigations to independent entities, and that's why butchers aren't allowed to do their own health inspection.

Whether it was appropriate or not is not for Carmen Ortiz to say.

"The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases."

Is in direct conflict with Aaron's lawyer's account of the run up to last Saturday as well as other statements issued earlier, she may come to regret those words if he has documentation to prove his side of the story.

Aaron's lawyer claims they were threatening just the opposite if he did not take a guilty plea.

In particular:

"At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz's attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law."

Is a falsifiable claim. I'm looking forward to Aaron's lawyers' response to this statement.

<comment><USER4> One. It is a very serious mistake to deny someone the right to believe the correctness of their own opinions.

Two. People use leverage. They may or may not use it rightly but they do use it. Anyone who cannot set their opinion of the justice of that to one side, and get on to the business of the contest at hand, is not cut out for politics. Such people enter these contests at a great disadvantage and risk getting hurt.

If you cannot fight with your head then you really should not fight at all. You will very likely lose. You might get hurt, and you might get hurt badly. Politics ain't beanbag.

Three. If you think an attorney able to rise to the position US Attorney will be caught in a "falsifiable claim" on a matter of this prominence then you simply do not understand what you are talking about.

<comment><USER5> So might makes right?

<comment><USER6> In the philosophic sense, no!

In the we live in the real world sense, absolutely.

The US gets to enforce US law around the world because they have more guns. You'll notice that when the USSR was around there were a group of countries with a vastly different system because the USSR had enough guns to force the people of those countries to play along.

The International Criminal Court is an even better example, the US is not a signatory to the ICC but can recommend other non-signatories to be prosecuted by the ICC while at the same time denying the ICC rules apply to the US.

Might absolutely makes right because those with out might are unable to enforce their decisions. Ortiz lives by politics she can die by politics, I'm sure she's experienced enough to realize the realpolitik ways of the world. She's no innocent bystander in the corruption of the American justice system.

<comment><USER7> In your post, I see a lot of examples of why might makes might, but that's hardly new information.

<comment><USER8> It's never new information. Reality has been a harsh, harsh mistress for decades and decades now.

It's what makes debating with ideological idealists so contentious IMO. There's no way to convince them to settle for anything other than "what's right", even if _the only way_ to get to that state is to first settle for gradually less-wrong states in between.

Even RMS had the pragmatism to start developing GNU on a proprietary OS with proprietary tools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz's attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law._

The absolute dishonesty of this statement has only further convinced me that firing this political appointee to prevent her from further harming citizens is the only appropriate action for our government to take.

<comment><USER10> You have any proof for your statement?

This 35 year (or 50 year) thing mentioned in many blogs might be questionable. To be frank I feel myself a bit fooled by this information, reading yesterday that 6 month have been proposed to Swartz. When talking about things as serious as death, we seem to assume that every information is depicted really carefully, but this is far from being true.

<comment><USER11> Here is a Department of Justice press release threatening 35 years: [http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....](http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html)

The additional charges added later (after this press release) are the source of the 50 year estimate.

6 months was offered _IF_ he agreed to plead guilty. If he went to trial, the prosecutors claim in the above press release that he faced 35 years; in private communications they have claimed they intended to press for 7 years.

There are exceptions, but most of the blog articles I have read on the subject have been extremely well sourced and well researched.

<comment><USER12> Apparently a material statement of fact that charges x, y, and z could result in a sentence of up to 35 years is a "threat"?

People have shown a great ability to leap into conflating the two, a statement of intent versus a statement of fact.

<comment><USER13> "We're not saying its going to happen to you, but these other three businesses have burned to the ground. If you give us 10%, we can make sure it doesn't happen to you."

At no point in this sentence did I say "If you do not pay us 10% we will burn down your business." However prosecutions have successfully argued, and any reasonable person would agree, that the first sentence is a threat, is coercive, and is criminal. Making a statement about what "could" happen can be interpreted (often correctly) as a threat. Making a statement about what could happen when the person making it is instrumental, even a required agent, in the future event, is most certainly evidence of a threat. Making such a statement while offering a lesser harm (or sentence) is most certainly a threat.

You may post as many replies on this thread that "threat" doesn't mean what we think it means but the law, common sense, and understanding of English, proves you wrong.

"I didn't intend to burn down their business, judge. I just pointed out that it could happen. Whether or not I would have intended to do so after they decided not to accept my plea-bargain^H^H^H pay my protection fee is immaterial to the case. You are conflating the two, a statement of intent verses a statement of fact. The fact is I did not burn down their business and you have no record of my saying that I intended to."

<comment><USER14> You state: _"You may post as many replies on this thread that "threat" doesn't mean what we think it means but the law, common sense, and understanding of English, proves you wrong."_ however...

From _United States v. Kelner (1975)_ -

 _"... the threat on its face and in the circumstances in which it is made is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific as to the person threatened, as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution..."_

The "threat" made by the prosecutor in Swartz's case wouldn't meet the conditions of unequivocal, unconditional, or immediate thereby rendering it not a threat. A layman may feel that they were threatened or that someone else would feel threatened by the statement in the press release, but the law does not consider it one.

<comment><USER13> I think you should read what that case was about (and that the US won and on appeal).

If I go on TV and make threats, then sure, the prosecution _would_ have to meet that standard. If I meet you in dark alley with what you believe to be a gun (but aren't sure) and I make implied remarks about what might happen to you if you get caught wearing that watch, and maybe you can leave it with me and I'll be sure to return it to you when you're safe, then I'm going to jail. I don't have to say "Give me that watch or I will shoot you". If I imply that sleeping with me might get you that promotion, even without saying so, and I'm in a position to make it happen, then I'm guilty of sexual harassment. I don't have to say "If you fuck me I'll promote you".

Lets be clear. I'm not expecting Ortiz to be drawn up on extortion or racketeering charges. The examples were to demonstrate that a "true threat" does not require the defendant to say "I intend to X on date Y" for it to be taken as a threat or proof of intent.

<comment><USER14> I did read the case, and I do understand that the circumstances are different. The piece I wanted to draw attention to is that there are criterion for what constitutes a threat.

The examples you have provided in both of your posts include ominous characters and "dark alleys." More importantly, both of those situations involve an agent telling the other person they should take some action or there will be some consequence, implying that if the action is not taken, then there is a risk of the consequence. In the press release by the prosecutor, there was simply a statement of consequence, not a prescribed set of choices or a consequence if Swartz didn't take a certain action. There may have been threatening outside of the press release, but those facts are still murky and it is outside of the scope of what I am talking about.

If you are picking a bone with plea bargaining and how it is used to threaten people and coerce them into guilty pleas, then that is fine, I'm not arguing with you there - just with the perception that the prosecutor's statement was threatening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "...we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting. ...his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation. Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge"

Little known fact here. When you accept a plea bargain you do _not_ accept a sentence as part of that. Often times you agree to plea to lesser chargers which have a lower maximum penalty but you still run the risk of being sentenced to the max.

There is also the chance the judge will give a longer sentence with enhancements. It's possible you will have not been convicted, tried, or even charged for those enhancements. This has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. However that doesn't stop judges from doing it anyway. When you are crushed, broke, and in jail what are ya gonna do, sue?

<comment><USER16> The plea bargain could have been capped at six months. US Attorneys do this all the time. There is much more that the office can do than just recommend a sentence to the judge. The defense attorneys may not have wanted to run the risk of consecutive sentencing. The probation office could easily have reached the conclusion that the property taken was valued at $5 million based on the FBI affidavit and at that point probation is not permitted under the Guidelines. Supervised release additionally would have prevented any computer use for 2-3 years. The defendant would have gotten low security anyway and that determination is not up to their office or even the sentencing judge--it is a determination made by the US Bureau of Prisons. The statement is misleading in more than one respect.

<comment><USER17> However in this case there were damages involved to outside parties - <USER2> meant they had to agree to any plea bargain if the US attorney wanted to present that to the judge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Before this statement was issued, I didn't think we should be chasing them down to make an example of them[1]. Now that she is dishonest and trying to brush everything aside as 'business as usual', I am changing my stance. She needs to go. Not to make an example of her, but because we should not tolerate such dishonesty and smugness in our federal court system.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5053980>

<comment><USER19> Completely agree. There's no place for people like her in our society. I hope this kills her career, but I doubt it. Even if he gets fired she still will be corrupting the system in some capacity with her influence. But at least she won't end up with a job like Marsha Blackburn.

<comment><USER20> I think the collective HN IQ has dropped by about 40 points this week with all of these moronic statements.

She should get fired for _doing exactly what she was put in to office to do_? IE: Follow the federal sentencing guidelines like she should? In _no_ way was there _ever_ going to be some 30 year sentence. Six months maximum is not over reach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> While it is nice that she is passing blame to Congress, if it were only a "6 month low security setting" being discussed, why wouldn't Aaron have been told of this? Why the additional and ultimately 13 felony charges when he was MOST concerned with not being labled a felon. Why hold that 50 year sentence above his head with no HOPE in his own mind because he was left in the dark. "As a parent and sister", would you want your child to be stranded for two years with the full weight of the federal government and their impending punishment upon you hidden behind a dark veil? As a human, I both recognize that she is probably saddened and shocked that he took his life (and probably freaking out bc of the white house petition), but at the same time, it's clear that this shouldn't be allowed to happen, so if it means she loses her job - tough luck.

<comment><USER22> When cops come across otherwise nice young white guys who believe themselves invulnerable or above the law and are doing stupid, impulsive things, their usual practice is to "scare them straight." So they get tough on them, tell them all of the awful consequences they're in for, put them in a horrible, cramped cell, maybe throw them in with some real nasty characters, and, above all, get their parents involved.

It's a form of kindness. If you make them crush their self-confidence and make them feel like shit, they learn their lesson. They lose that blithe self- confidence and begin to realise they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. And then, they will hopefully turn into constructive, positive- minded members of society.

The practice varies with the character of the kid, the ugliness of their crime, etc. I'm not saying this is what Ortiz and co were thinking with Aaron necessarily but I wouldn't be surprised if it was an element. Aaron's behaviour was very removed from the situations I'm talking about, so the participants and response was very different. But he sounds like quite an... intense person, so maybe they decided they needed to put a lot of pressure on him to crush his spirit.

Of course, usually the kids don't kill themselves - but then usually it's not the justice department slapping them on the wrist. They should have realised that people like Aaron are very fragile. I won't apologise for that. A more delicate touch was required, because this outcome is just awful and a disaster for all parties. A real shame. But I do want to point out that their actions in frightening him were not necessarily without reason.

By the way, I have spent a night in a cold concrete cell sobering up and feeling like the world's biggest idiot. My escapade cost me $2700 and a lot of self-respect, and though it was awful at the time I am thankful and realise I learned my lesson very economically. Hearing Aaron's story is really painful.

<comment><USER21> Hey, I recognize what you're saying and agree with it. I too have been in that unfortunate and TERRIBLE cold cell once in my life and know what it feels like to have your freedom stripped from you (and mine ended up costing 10k+ in the end).

No one will ever know why Aaron killed himself fully, and that is unfortunate. Most of us only learned of him fully through his suicide. When I watch youtube videos of the guy, he seems so damn intelligent, eloquent, literate... It's hard to imagine that he wasn't smart enough or brave enough to truly ask the community for help.

That all said, one of the main things I've learned through my own past escapades and more so through tragic news like this, is that the justice system is inherently fucked up. It is designed to destroy the plaintiff. I have lived through this and it was the most miserable experience of my life (thanks ex gf I used to love for 5 years). Once you are in the 'system', or they are after you, if they have a reason (in their own mind), you are fucked.

Unless you are a multi-millionaire who can afford to pay your way out, and even still, you're most likely getting fucked from one direction or the other.

I think that is what this entire thing boils down to. Overreach of the Federal Government. Punishment does not fit the alleged and unconvicted crime.

Aaron might have had depression issues (a whole different beast in itself), but from all the empirical evidence available to the public, it seems like he was truly pushed into a corner and a high risk for suicide - and unfortunately he fulfilled that presumption.

I hope we as a society can learn from this.

<comment><USER3> > It's hard to imagine that he wasn't smart enough or brave enough to truly > ask the community for help.

He did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > and did so reasonably.

They still believe that? Sorry but they're unfit for the job. They need to go. There was nothing reasonable about their actions on this case.

> a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low > security setting.

Six months in jail for downloading files that were accessible to him? All he did was violate terms of service! Are we going to start arresting under-age Facebook users or gamers that cheat next? Should they get six months too?

This statement is just icing on the cake that proves that Ortiz is inappropriate for that job/role.

<comment><USER22> [http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....](http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html)

Downloading four million files, apparently. And if by breaking terms and services you mean illegally distributing protected content and threatening the business model of JSTOR then yes, I suppose that is true.

<comment><USER23> One, two, a million, four million, what difference does it actually make? The crime was violating the terms, it isn't relevant where the EOF bit was transmitted. If you made the same files half as big he would have "stolen" twice as many files, or twice as big then he would have done half the crime by your logic.

He never distributed anything. No clue where you got that from?

Additionally "threatening a business model" within its self isn't a crime. In fact one might argue that it is a very good thing. Monopolies have often fallen to disruptive technologies, should we go arrest the people behind VoIP because they went after the telecos? Or the inventors of the printing press because they put scribes out of business? Or the inventor of the light-bulb because nobody had to light all of those candles each night?

The only "crime" here was violating terms. For that they want to hit him with between six months and thirty five years of jail (plus costs, fines, and a criminal record). If this same over-reaction was applied to all terms violators we would have half the country in jail right now.

<comment><USER22> It makes a big difference. Four million is apparently the majority of JSTOR's database. Keep in mind that JSTOR doesn't own those articles, it just arranges approved access to paying institutions on behalf of the various journals which do own the articles. If Aaron had distributed them he might have damaged around a thousand different institutions involved in an important segment of the knowledge and innovation industry. You can argue that that industry should change but I am not sure I can agree that a brute force assault is a good way to create constructive change, especially in a relatively fragile and cash- strapped field like academia.

Anyway, I've used JSTOR a lot as a university student. It's a really good service. They don't create the economics of the journal industry, they just try to work within it.

And no, I disagree with you, Aaron's actions strike me as extreme and out of the ordinary.

<comment><USER24> "If Aaron had distributed them he might have damaged around a thousand different institutions involved in an important segment of the knowledge and innovation industry"

I know there is his manifesto from a couple of years ago but we can't be sure what he was going to do with them.

<comment><USER22> Do you have a link to that?

<comment><USER24> Yup I was referring to this one:

<https://gist.github.com/4552726>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's sad that he committed suicide, but that is not a rational response to 6 months in a low security jail.

Conrad Black did 30+ months. Kevin Mitnick did several years. Even Martha Stewart managed 5 months.

Also, with his profile and past history, his felony conviction would not seriously impede any career he wanted to undertake.

Finally, the whole point of civil disobedience is to break a law, and get caught, punished and make (to a certain extent) a martyr of yourself to draw attention to your cause.

<comment><USER26> Except defending himself would have cost on the order of a million dollars (Per Lessig) - does he go to his family for that? Even if he turns out to be found completely innocent, him, his family, and those who he can turn to would have been wiped out financially. That part of the story doesn't get enough attention.

<comment><USER27> If he accepted the plea bargain of six months, then the case wouldn't have gone to trial, avoiding the excessive legal fees. I don't understand the timeline, but had he accepted the plea bargain, is it not possible that he would have already served his sentence by now?

<comment><USER28> Maybe. The point is that you shouldn't submit to 6 months of federal prison without trial or appeal, all the money loss for the two years in the case and your life ruined by the felony counts records for using a script to download files you already have legal access to. At worst all there is to this is trespassing, on an open campus on an open network etc etc.

<comment><USER29> You're probably right, you _shouldn't_ , but unless you offer up a better suggestion for a law system, it is it what it is.

<comment><USER30> How about the one the rest of the civilized world uses? Which is: not mixing politics and prosecution.

Check out the British version of government prosecutions: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Prosecution_Service>

Where "controversial" is "oooh, should we change the name?!?".

<comment><USER28> The american system is one of the worst in western society, granted, but the British one is not that much better at all. Some claim is worst. I never had the misfortune of having to try that on my skin but heard from friends and family.

How's the system in Iceland ? Or Norway ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I know from personal experience that the US Attorney's Office always states in their press releases the maximum penalty possible that the defendant is facing. Each charge has a maximum number of years and they state the number of possible consecutive years possible.

Had Aaron Swartz been found guilty, there is no way he was going to face the maximum penalty. There is a high probability that the penalties associated with the charges would have been run concurrently.

Once found guilty, US Probation writes a Pre-Sentencing Report which calculates the time the defendant is facing. This calculation is based upon numerous details, including but not limited to actual damages, criminal history, and offense level with points that range from from 1 to 43.

If a defendant agrees with the government that he or she is guilty and pleads accordingly, he or she will generally get fewer points for offense level. If a defendant contests the charges and exercises his or her constitutional right to have his or her case heard by a jury and is found guilty, US Probation will increase the number of points. (Imagine that. The government gives you more prison time for exercising your right to a trial under the Constitution). The more points calculated, the more time a defendant is facing.

Good time is applied to a sentence by the federal prison. An inmate is supposed to do 85% of their time if he or she has no infractions, but since the federal prison system has an interest in keeping people imprisoned, the bureaucracy has found a way to deliberately mis-read the good time statute and apply it in a way so that a defendant actually does 86.2% of their time. A sentence of one year or less will not have good time applied. Anything above one year and the good time calculation is applied.

The biggest risk in taking a case to trial are the members of the jury. The government educational system has done a great job of dumbing people down so that they follow the government's bidding. ie., "If he's on trial, he must be guilty." Few people actually think for themselves and question what is told to them by an authority figure.

</comment><comment><USER32> So Ortiz' message is that - this is my job I fight for the law, and I agree that its over the top, but it is what it is. Change the framework and I'll do what it says.

The law (edit: and system ) is set up so that a "good prosecutor" would work to prove Aaron was guilty of breaking those laws. The final sentence, which is the responsibility of the Judge would have to take account of everything especially his motivation, to give him an appropriate sentence.

"I'm just doing my job, and the final sentencing isn't in my hands"

\---

Fine - that's her version, and frankly - its exactly as expected. There really are few if any other ways that Ortiz could explain her actions.

Strangely its also pretty much the exact defense that the Financial industry has used so far. AKA these are the rules, hate the game not the player.

Sometimes people from the outside are required to point out that somethings are obviously morally wrong. Especially when Insiders end up missing it.

<comment><USER33> There's an old saying that a good prosecutor will convict most guilty men, and a great prosecutor will convict a few innocent ones too. That's how these machines think. She's right only in that congress was stupid enough to give her any form of discretion at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think this release is worded disingenuously. My understanding of this case is that the 6 month offer was only part of the plea deal the prosecutors held out if Aaron didn't go to trial. If he exercised his right to due process and went to trial, he did indeed risk the full 35 year penalty and no such sentence recommendation was on offer.

This is typical of many prosecutors in the US, unfortunately, who attempt to terrorize defendants into accepting their plea deals. It's not much different than the way torture was used in the Middle Ages to extract confessions and secure convictions.

It's pretty sad to see a press release that attempts to obfuscate the truth like this.

</comment><comment><USER35> Let me just throw something out there.

It's obvious that the investigation was a contributing factor to Aaron's decision to take his life, but to what extent? Was this at all investigated by the media, or have everyone just made the connection, because it was the easiest explanation?

<comment><USER9> Aaron killed himself two years to the day of this whole ordeal starting.

Either that's an incredible coincidence, or Aaron decided to take his life as a political statement. Given his past actions, that's an easy assumption to make.

Also, his request for a plea deal was _denied_ in very harsh terms two days before Aaron took his own life, so even knowing just that and the fact that he _really_ did not want to be labeled a felon, it's easy to make the connection.

Finally, Aaron's own family, partner and legal representation believe they were related, i.e. those closest to Aaron believe the federal trial was a major cause.

Of course, he also had a history of dealing with depression; I don't think anyone's denying that.

<comment><USER35> Thanks for the summary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> There are people along history (and I mean specifically civil servants, like Thomas More -the first that comes to my mind but by no means the only one-) who have even given his life because they did not want to comply with 'the law'... This 'complying with the law' is fedding me up.

Someone has already noticed that bankers did also act 'with the law on their part'...

And all the rating agencies, they suddendly 'just offer counsel and advice', they are in no way suggesting that a product is fit for buying or selling...

Is there a conscience out there?

<comment><USER37> In our opinion not, but the rules are that only money decides the rules.

And the rules are that other people are always to blame and that the law, no matter how corrupt, is the law.

The problem is that especially these people (civil cervants) are chosen on this fallacy, are only loyal to their families and peers, all others don't exsists or are there to pull a leg out.

There is a huge Us vs. Them attitude amongst most people (not all, gladly) serving any government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> > That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the > case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged > conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a > low security setting. While at the same time, his defense counsel would have > been free to recommend a sentence of probation.

That is terrible writing. Ms. Ortiz should be doubly ashamed.

<comment><USER39> Remarkable, isn't it? That doesn't even qualify as convoluted legalese; that's simply _atrocious_ style.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> So how does this mesh with the doj-issued press release stating the 35 year term?

<comment><USER41> Could you provide a link to that please?

<comment><USER42> > ALLEGED HACKER CHARGED WITH STEALING OVER FOUR MILLION DOCUMENTS FROM MIT > NETWORK July 19, 2011

> AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire fraud, computer > fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer, and > recklessly damaging a protected computer. If convicted on these charges, > SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of > supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million.

[http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....](http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.html)

Maybe us common folk don't understand that when the Department of Justice says 35 years they don't mean 35 years? Do the defendants in these cases understand how many years they are actually being expected to serve?

<comment><USER43> It is obvious from this press release from the formulation "faces up to 35 years in prison", that they are simply quoting the maximum penality for the charges.

The prosecutors press release says that they didn't intend to push for maximum penality.

These two statement are perfectly compatible with each other.

<comment><USER3> I think those two statements are in direct contradiction with each other, and Aaron's lawyer is on the record that they were putting up a > 10:1 ratio for a plea bargain.

So they may not have been seeking the technical maximum but they were definitely beating their drums quoting that maximum where ever they could. Now that that makes them look terrible they're backpedaling on that but there is enough documentation out there to make this look like what it is: full-on damage control.

The Aaron Swartz story is starting to get some serious play in mainstream media and that is something that worries people like Carmen Ortiz more than anything else.

<comment><USER44> The maximum was so high they didn't even need to go near it for the terrifying threats of the > 10:1 ratio. The talk is that the plea would have been 6 months and that at trial they would have asked for 6 years. 12:1 ratio and they can truthfully say that they weren't asking for the maximum. They can't truthfully say that they wouldn't seek the ridiculous though.

Likewise she focused on the plea bargain offer of side of 6 months but not on the fact that this would have involved admitting guilt to 13 felonies. For someone with honour who really believed themselves not guilty (at least of serious crime) that could be as much of an issue as 6 months low security detention. For lawyers it seems to be a game and the sentence and number of convictions is the score; unfortunately the victims of the law take it more seriously.

Always look at what isn't said not just what is said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Isn't this just the way these things are done in the US? America has an adversarial system of justice. It also has a plea bargaining system. Don't those two together naturally lead to situations where each side will threaten their worst in an effort to gain the best bargain they can from the other?

</comment><comment><USER16> I agree that the "Statement" is misleading. If Ortiz really believed that a Guidelines sentence was inappropriate they could have offered a capped sentence of six months or stipulated to a lower financial valuation of the stolen documents to bring down the Guideline. Neither was done. A prosecutor's recommendation is useful, but it is not binding on the Court. They did not agree to dismiss the other counts of the indictment, and while this would not affect the Guidelines, the sentencing judge could decide to impose sentences consecutively. Swartz would have been without computer access during a two to three year term of supervised release as well. If Ortiz really believed what she wrote in her Statement her office would have limited Swartz' criminal exposure to six months. US Attorneys' offices do this all the time. Hers did not. Her statement is misleading.

The cover-up is always worse than the crime and this Statement only makes me wonder what else is out there. She should resign.

</comment><comment><USER46> As damage control goes, Ortiz's statement is inadequate. There is a well- supported petition calling her out by name to be fired. There are major media outlets openly questioning not only her actions, but the fitness of the entire Justice Department to act appropriately. Not one or two media outlets, but dozens. The situation seems very serious indeed. This is the bloodless, half- assed kind of statement she makes in response? I don't get it.

</comment><comment><USER47> "six months in a low security setting."

That one word, "setting," puts her squarely in bullshitter territory. The obvious and honest word is "prison". But that's too dark a color for the painting she's holding up for us.

</comment><comment><USER48> "I haven't bothered to mention the whole sad Aaron Swartz saga, because it's been covered elsewhere.

 _But having the involved US attorney then basically lie about it all_ in a very public statement is something that I find particularly offensive."

\-- Linus Torvalds, [https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/ggzfzKyr...](https://plus.google.com/102150693225130002912/posts/ggzfzKyrcRQ)

<comment><USER49> From his Google+ post

"Yesterday (as reported by the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere):

"At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz's attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law."

And July 2011 (as posted by justice.gov itself):

"SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million""

Stating that a person faces x amount of years is not the same as saying we are seeking to put you in jail for this many years.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is how anyone who allegedly broke the law would be treated. The law you broke states you can face up to x, y, and z for breaking it, but hardly anyone gets that maximum sentencing. Hell, even murderers rarely get the maximum sentencing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> "Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one-one that could do nobody harm." -notorious murderer two gun Crowley

Unless you can improve on the silence, don't open your mouth...

Before this statement I had hopes Ortiz had regrets...Now I know she doesn't...where did I leave my pitchfork?

<comment><USER51> _Unless you can improve on the silence, don't open your mouth..._

Well said

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Ortiz is simply trying to undo the damage she has already done.

Well, Ortiz, lemme tell ya sumthin' -- it ain't gonna work.

First of all, the statement reeks of PR tinkering. When every single source points to Ortiz and her cronies pursuing maximum sentences and intimidating Swartz, she comes out with a sorry excuse of an apology that denies it. Also, the 6 months plea deal would be only under one condition, and that is if Swartz acknowledged everything that the gubmint charged him with, which was still a major tarnish to his rep. So what did Swartz do? He had integrity and stood up for what he believed in, and then Ortiz pushed on with defiance. I recommend watching this YouTube video -- seems like Swartz' position is eerily similar to the other protagonist's (and if you haven't watched the movie, you simply must): <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKAxnB6Ap4o>

If only Aaron had Al Pacino standing up for him...

By the way, this isn't the first time Ortiz has been a major pain in the neck. A quick Google for "Tarek Mehanna" should be enough to affirm the opinion that Ortiz is a tyrant.

</comment><comment><USER53> > "As federal prosecutors, our mission includes protecting the use of > computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as > possible."

Protecting? Just like they protect "free knowledge"?

</comment><comment><USER54> "somehow led to the tragic result of him taking his own life" That "somehow" word really rings wrong with me. It is not that hard to understand how being under a federal indictment would contribute to depression and even eventually suicide.

</comment><comment> jack-r-abbit So maybe people don't realize but there is a chart that is used for determining possible sentence for any given set of charges. I have seen this work sheet in process. The charges are listed. And there is a book (or document or something like that.. I forget) that explains the max jail time and fine for all these charges. and then there are "special circumstances" for some charges that can add on to the sentence. So if you have a list of 10 charges and you go through each one and examine the special circumstances and tally the whole thing up... you get you maximum (potential) sentence. That does not mean that is what will be sought. That does not mean that is what you will get. That just means that is the max you face.

</comment><comment><USER55> _" Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz's attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law."_

I'm guessing this is a very carefully worded statement.

</comment><comment><USER56> "while a violation of the law"

I have noticed that government agents are relatively quick to assign blame when there has been no conviction. The charges were filed & ultimately dropped, so there has been no determination by the government that this was a violation of the law. I've been a victim of this myself. When launching the first online notary service, the CA secretary of state published an erroneous notice that we had committed a crime. When we spoke with their office, they indicated that there was no evidence of any crime. It ultimately took 2 years, and the threat of a lawsuit, to remove the false statements.

</comment><comment><USER57> What I find really sad about all of this is that it took a suicide for all of this news and outrage to surface. It's understandable but it's depressing. I think some people (not saying Swartz) considering suicide think, I'll show them, or this will make them sorry. This sort of supports that.

In Swartz's case the sad thing is he probably never expected this outpouring of support. To him it probably seemed as if the world either didn't care or didn't support him. Just read the old HN post he made for legal fund donations. It's unfortunate he can't realize how most people are on his side.

<comment><USER3> Most people weren't on his side because the most harsh details of the case were not easily visible to those not directly involved with the case.

If that had been different I think a lot more people would have support Aaron earlier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Statement Deconstruction

 _STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CARMEN M. ORTIZ REGARDING THE DEATH OF AARON SWARTZ

As a parent and a sister, I can only imagine the pain felt by the family and friends of Aaron Swartz, and I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to everyone who knew and loved this young man._[Sympathy - a good start but no apology.] _I know that there is little I can say to abate the anger felt by those who believe that this office's prosecution of Mr. Swartz was unwarranted and somehow led to the tragic result of him taking his own life._ [Acknowledges anger and public feeling. No comment on their actions.]

 _I must, however, make clear that this office's conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case._ [States that they were correct to bring and handle the case. May be read as they handled the case correctly BUT does NOT actually state that.] _The career prosecutors handling this matter took on the difficult task of enforcing a law they had taken an oath to uphold, and did so reasonably._ [Claims the career prosecutors were reasonable. Were all involved 'career prosecutors' or is someone about to be hung out to dry? Alternative reading is that 'career prosecutors' is just trying to make them sound better.] _The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases._ [OK. Then why would they (note Ortiz is not taking responsibility for this judgement) want to seek 7 years if it went to trial] _That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting._ [not stated also admission of 13 felonies or that if he wanted a trial because he believed himself not guilty the appropriate sentence to seek would have been 7 years. Thats what you get for believing you have a right to a trial and not just doing what we say.] _While at the same time, his defense counsel would have been free to recommend a sentence of probation._ [Not stated: for 13 admitted felonies.] _Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge._ [Not our responsibility really.] _At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz's attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law._ [We were really generous and told Mr. Swartz's attourneys that we intended to seek something between the maximum and ten times what was appropriate (by our admission) if he didn't plead guilty]

 _As federal prosecutors, our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible._ [Sounds reasonable but does it match their actions?] _We strive to do our best to fulfill this mission every day._ [But we aren't commenting on the rest of our mission or how we have done matching this mission in this case.]

</comment><comment><USER58> Regardless of time served, do federal prosecutors not realize what the scarlet letter of a FELONY carved on your chest does to your ability to lead a normal life? Coupled with occasionally absurd bans from using/owning a computer or similar device for years (see: Kevin Mitnick) for anyone seen as a 'hacker', this absolutely destroys a person's life.

I can't imagine how hard finding an apartment in SF (already hard) becomes if you have to disclose that you're a convicted felon with time spent.

</comment><comment><USER59> > Our mission includes protecting the use of computers and the Internet by > enforcing the law as fairly and responsibly as possible.

What were they protecting them against? That Knowledge might've been spread to those who hadn't the monetary resources to read a bunch of Journals?

Also, I don't think the law was enforced _fairly and responsibly_ , and it was the exact opposite of what occurred -- A bunch of overzealous prosecutors at the helm pushing for a maximum sentence for civil disobedience.

</comment><comment><USER60> Did anyone seriously expect an apology? This is disappointing, but not really surprising.

This quote esp. got me:

"I must, however, make clear that this office's conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case."

Strongly disagree, and I hope the docs come out to prove against this point and burn them.

</comment><comment><USER61> Typical lawyer talk. These people are good with words and can talk their way out.

</comment><comment><USER62> She forgot to say "allegedly".

</comment><comment><USER63> Incredible: Post by Aaron Swartz describes exactly his prosecutor's reaction.

<http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/semmelweis>

</comment><comment><USER64> one less court date on her calendar.

</comment><comment><USER65> Prosecutors (and lawyers in general) are all about drama and story. Everything is amplified. Reality is distorted. It's worse than cable television.

Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars. She and others inflicted mental torture on him until he couldn't bear to live any longer.

She is no doubt a wordsmith, but she is not a nice person, no matter what the gullible fools on HN say. She shouldn't be working with and against people anymore, or for the government.

To think that a carefully calculated statement could 'clear the deck' and make everything even-steven is ludicrous.

<comment><USER66> >Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars.

Law is about drama? There's plenty of drama and hyperbole in your post. He broke the law. Which means he is a criminal.

If you think the laws are retarded, then how you protest that is your prerogative. If you choose to protest by blatantly and purposely breaking the law, unless you are 99.999% certain that an obvious interpretation of the law violates the constitution, you should expect to get charged and convicted of breaking said law.

Prosecutors aren't hired to be nice, they are hired to represent the state and bring charges against people who violate the state's laws. If you seriously think that he shouldn't be charged with breaking the law because 'he didn't deserve it', 'he did not have malicious intentions' or 'the law is dumb', then by extension no one should be convicted of any crime, because there will always be some point of view where you could think that of anyone.

<comment><USER67> > He broke the law. Which means he is a criminal.

He _allegedly_ broke the law. According to network security expert Alex Stamos, an expert witness in the case, the worst thing you can say about Aaron's actions is that they were "inconsiderate", not criminal.

[http://io9.com/5975592/aaron-swartz-died-innocent-++-here- is...](http://io9.com/5975592/aaron-swartz-died-innocent-++-here-is-the- evidence)

<comment><USER68> Expert witness for Aaron Swartz's defense. If he didn't think he was innocent, he wouldn't have got the paid job or been involved at all.

<comment><USER67> It doesn't change the fact that Aaron was not convicted of breaking the law. Being charged with a crime does not make you a criminal.

<comment><USER68> Yes, obviously. I never said it was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> _"That is why in the discussions with his counsel about a resolution of the case this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting....At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz's attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law."_

Yeah, and you added another 9 felonies after he refused the felon label to help him out.

<comment><USER28> You know, to make it easier for him to take a decision. Such a nice gesture.</comment></comment>


Christopher "Moot" Poole's testimony in the Palin email hacking case - <AUTHOR> http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/poole-testimony.pdf

<comment><USER2> Yet another site that logs way too much information. I have a dream that some day, web logs won't include the remote IP address.

In the mean time, use Tor.

Also:

 _Q: The last column, the user agent string, does that show which browser, operating system, and other information that this particular user and that date and time had on their computer.

A: Yes._

No. It shows what advisory string their user-agent chose to tell the web server. Please tell me that something like this is not evidence in the government's case.

<comment><USER3> I'm betting that it can be evidence against anyone not informed enough to call them on it.

And let's not forget that IP address evidence assumes, probably among other things, 1) No Tor 2) No Proxy (chains) 3) No one else under the same NAT umbrella 4) No ISP address allocation weirdness.

<comment><USER2> Yeah. I read the cross examination and didn't think the guy's lawyer did a very good job

It did inspire me to watch anime with mangoes, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That was incredibly dull and a complete waste of 10 minutes.

<comment><USER3> I was about to ask why this is on HN, but really why is it anywhere except at the bottom of a stack of court proceedings? I have a hard time imagining anyone reading through this and not wanting those 10 minutes back.

<comment><USER5> I think the fact that some judge/prosecutor would be pulling up 4chan in a courtroom and pointing out pages fascinates me. 'Mr. Moot can you please verify that this hentai tentacle rape scene is in line with the 4chan rules' etc :)

Not a big 4chan fan myself but the idea of website owners dealing with such questionable/taboo content in a court of law is quite interesting.

<comment><USER3> I think if the article actually contained anything like 'Mr. Moot can you please verify that this hentai tentacle rape scene is in line with the 4chan rules', it would have been, while still not particularly relevant HN material, actually entertaining enough to be worth my time. Instead I just listened to a description of how to pull an activity log by IP address.

<comment><USER6> There are a few gems in there. "What does 'newfag' mean?" and "Rick Astley is a singer, is that correct?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It wasn't as interesting as I thought it was.

But still kinda cool - as someone else said the culture is so vastly different. Wanting a definition of "who" Rick Astley is cracked me up, even if only "for the record."

But nonetheless, what gets me the most is, in fact, how vastly indecipherable some of this must be to the jury, regardless of explanations. And the explanations themselves might possibly require many minutes / hours of defining to accurately represent the case.

Makes me wonder what they do about really complex technological cases.

</comment><comment><USER8> Lots of internet misspellings in the testimony. Reading this really makes me think about how foreign the culture on the Internet is to most people-and how indecipherable.

</comment><comment><USER9> Typo on page 13. "Rickroll is a _mean_ or Internet kind of trend..."

<comment><USER10> 'A. That is a misspelling, actually. It's Anime & Mango.'

I don't think that's what Moot said. The more worrying one is where he's asked to explain what the significance of '.jpg' is.

<comment><USER2> Why? The testimony is for a jury of laymen, and they need to understand as much as possible to properly render a verdict.

<comment><USER10> It's concerning when a laymen does not understand what a jpg is.

<comment><USER2> Why?

<comment><USER10> Because I'd hope laymen in most first world countries have used the web before.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook rolls out Highlight feature, charges up to $100 per post for promotion - <AUTHOR> http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/05/30/facebook-highlight-100/

<comment><USER2> As a manager for a page with 30K+ fans we've seen our engagement numbers slowly decline over the last 6 months as Facebook as tweaked their edgerank algorithm. We theorized it was only a matter of time before one would be able to "pay" to undo their changes and have your post shown to all of your fans again. Guess we should start budgeting.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's one organization already posting about the new pay policy:

[https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=419234291450334&...](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=419234291450334&set=a.286565974717167.71462.281624235211341)

They're trying to beat it by getting their followers to like and share their posts more.

I wonder if this could drive more organizations to Google+, and how effective free G+ is vs unpaid FB.</comment></comment>


Does your financial institution encrypt your passwords? Mine doesn't. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.brianseitel.com/2013/03/22/does-your-financial-institution-encrypt-your-passwords-mine-doesnt/

<comment><USER2> Charles Schwab (which, security practices aside, is a _fantastic_ place to bank) doesn't (as far as I can tell) store your password unhashed.

However, they manage to make this irrelevant, because passwords are restricted to between 6 and 8 characters and can contain only numbers or letters. I can only hope the passwords are bcrypted to high heaven.

</comment><comment><USER3> My bank also doesn't one-way hash my password. On occasion they turn their computers around to me and show me my password at the counter. I suspect they may be encrypting it in the storage medium and encrypts/decrypts on the fly.

PS One way hashing is different to encryption.</comment>


A new Turing test: Fighting it out - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/tm/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14398188

<comment><USER2> Wasn't this done a decade ago with ReaperBot?</comment>


The not to do list: 9 habits to stop now - <AUTHOR> http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/08/16/the-not-to-do-list-9-habits-to-stop-now/ <comment><USER2> 0\. Don't believe that you know what's best for others.

I check and send email first thing. Starting the flow of communication starts me, personally, on the right foot, and gives the addressee more time to respond.

I most always have a cell phone on me. I like people and have no problem ignoring a call if need be. And as for not answering unknown numbers, give me a break. People are shy and often don't like leaving voicemail.

<comment><USER3> Really? My take has always been: if it's important they'll either leave a voice message, call multiple times or try other methods of communication. It's rarely important (at least for me).

<comment><USER2> Or be insulted...some people expect an answer.

<comment><USER3> Hmm but wouldn't I have those people in my phone? I'm just trying to think of someone I care about who I wouldn't have in my phone. Or someone who would actually be upset with me. If a friend had to borrow someone else's phone they'd probably either call twice or send me a text. Either way they wouldn't be insulted. I guess we associate ourselves with different people.

<comment><USER4> a potential customer or partner.

<comment><USER3> Customers never call (they can't) and a partner, at least one of my partners, would never be upset. I see what you're saying though. Just different businesses & people associations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like his approach of "GTP" unfortunately based on my experience it does not apply to all cultures as a whole. There are some cultures most particular in Asia that enjoy the moment of light hearted banter before getting down to business.</comment>


Expert questions Windows 7 interface - <AUTHOR> http://thestandard.com/news/2008/12/03/expert-questions-windows-7-user-interface

<comment><USER2> I hate articles-about-articles. What this site is actually referring to is Paul Thurrott's original post here, which has a lot more detail:

<http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_simple.asp></comment>


Show HN: Dynamically generated, individually-printed maintenance log books - <AUTHOR> https://andersonspeed.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is different from anything I've done before because the end product isn't a web app or service but an actual printed, bound, ink-on-paper book. What makes it interesting is that every copy is dynamically generated for that particular customer, combining data from several web APIs and our own database to create unique content based on the specifics of the vehicle and order.

The site is very minimal at this point (we just hit MVP), but we're building in the rest as quickly as we can. I'd very much appreciate any feedback or criticism.</comment>


White people's meritocracy hypocrisy - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/08/13/white_people_s_meritocracy_hypocrisy.html

<comment><USER2> Newsflash: when people are presented with a "us vs. them" scenario, they tend to operate in perceived self-interest favoring the "us" group.

Frame the question in a manner excluding "we're all in this together", and the consequential responses tend to exclude "we're all in this together." Go figure.

Interesting the article fails to address the corollary question of which groups tend to default to "we're all in this together", and which groups tend to default to "us vs. them" without explicit prompting.</comment>


Poll on Hacker News Brand Awareness - <AUTHOR> http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/03/hacker-news-brand-awareness.html

<comment><USER2> The reason certain users or companies 'break through' to me on HN (i.e. achieve a long term identity in my brain) is because they change my model of how the world works.

Two examples -- Posterous and Mixergy. Mixergy has gotten lots of visibility on HN lately, Posterous maybe not quite as much (though maybe I just haven't paid as much attention to Posterous lately). But both changed my model of the world in some way. Posterous, for making me think more about email as the least-common-denominator social network publishing platform, and the value of tapping into that, and the technical issues involved with doing so; Mixergy, for the content of the interviews, but also for the _format_ \-- I think a Mixergy-style site on ambitious young neuroscientists could be really interesting, and good for my field as a whole.

Posterous and Mixergy changed how I think about things, and because of that, I'll probably remember both for as long as I live.

This is a different model of brand awareness from the one that is implicit in the poll results linked to here -- that brand awareness is some function of the number of times a brand gets posted per unit time and the popularity of the post. For me, that's just _visibility_ \-- but _stickyness_ comes down to, "Did this change my model of the world?"

And that's the value I get from the better posts on HN, the better New Yorker articles, etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> Shafqat here from NewsCred, one of the startups included in the poll. Interesting results - I'm not surprised only 8% had heard of us. Our consumer site (www.newscred.com) has gotten decent traction and press, but nothing out of this world.

Our main business (<http://platform.newscred.com>) has no publicity or marketing attached to it. We've just been heads down, working away on the product and iterating with customers using typical customer development strategies. With that said, it's a sizeable business and growing. And some stage, we need to turn the marketing machine on.

But the real question I debate internally is "how important is brand recognition." Obviously it's priceless for the Cokes or Nikes of the world. But for a startup that has a clear path to customer acquisition, has figured out its ARPU and is having success with sales, how much focus should be spent on 'brand-building?'

Thoughts?

<comment><USER4> The point of having a business is making money, and if having brand awareness on Hacker News doesn't make you money, why bother? For a company like Directed Edge, though, having brand awareness on HN can bring in a ton of money, since developers on Hacker News will read about them, check them out, and sign up as paying customers.

Just depends on the business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure that the brand awareness of these cases is related to the company naming. For example, I think Bingo Card Creator is well-known mostly because everyone here loves patio11.

<comment><USER6> I think in part it's the... well, "absurdity" (?) of bingo cards, of all things, being successful. Something like wheels' Directed Edge is very cool technology and sort of the classic hacker startup. Bingo cards, on the other hand, just seems like this left-field thing, so it sticks in your head a bit more, paradoxically. When you read about something like DE, you kind of nod your head and say yeah, that's pretty cool, and admire it. When you read 'bingo cards' for the first time the reaction is more like "say what?!".

Not to take anything away from patio11 of course - he's a bright guy and always full of good advice. It's just that he sticks out more by not fitting the mold.

<comment><USER7> It's interested that you look at it this way because I don't. I've always looked for product ideas like his that can bring in some nice cash but aren't going to make you rich. They are everywhere.

Before the wife, kids and mortgage show up, this seems to me to be the way to do it. Don't shoot for the fences. Look for the ideas that can get you enough cash in your pocket to move on to the next idea where you can shoot for the fences. You'll have the stability of the first income and the experience it brought.

(Hopefully this doesn't seem like I'm taking away from what Patrick has done but I think it's clear that this idea isn't making him a millionaire.)

<comment><USER8> I'm still getting over the shock of being a tens-of-thousandsaire, believe me. There is nothing like being in business as a training tool for being in business, though. I don't think there is any grad school which will teach you, e.g., how to run an AdWords campaign or how to think about SEO, but these are fairly generalizable skills that I get to keep even if catastrophe strikes the teaching bingo market tomorrow.

Plus, as opposed to grad schools, businesses pay _you_ while you learn. (This has always been my excuse for being a Japanese salaryman instead of going to grad school for Japanese.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I recognize Mixergy, but don't recall what they do.

</comment><comment><USER10> In my opinion duck duck go is a prominent "brand" on HN for a single simple reason. It's (now forgive my language) but a ballsy startup for a really simple reason. Your competition is Google!!!... and not just a company who happens to be owned by Google, you're competing with Google in their primary business. You're also doing it by yourself, and to top it off you're getting results!! I'll read anything about it, because its essentially like watching the Boston Red Socks play some little league team from Milwaukee... the twist though, is the game is almost tied, and the Boston Red Socks aren't throwing the game. Its plain exciting!

<comment><USER11> FWIW, I hadn't heard about Duck Duck Go until this article. And I think I spend a fair amount of time on HN...

<comment><USER12> You probably just gaze through the headlines about it because to be honest Duck Duck Go isn't very eye grabbing, but there are plenty of articles about it and most of the duck duck go blog postings seem to make it to the front page and there are plenty of comments about it.

<comment><USER11> Possible. I do tend to skip most startup-related content, because I really don't care. But I have still managed to hear about Bingo Card Creator, Mixergy, and Mibbit.

<comment><USER3> Interesting, if you skip the startup content, which content do you prefer? (Not being snarky, honest question).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Ever suspect co-founders of working to get rid of you? - has-anyone-else As a co-founder, with a number of additional co-founders, have you ever worried about them teaming up to get rid of you?
What would merit dismissal of a co-founder?
Have you been part of a team that dismissed a co-founder and succeeded?
What was it like to deal with them as a shareholder?
What was it like to deal with the shareholders they brought to a funding round?
Were you happy with the decision, or, did you wish you had discussed your concerns with them before taking action? <comment><AUTHOR> I've engineered a couple of "coups" before.

Both times it was with "hustler" cofounders. The type who promise big but deliver nothing. 50% share, but does 10% of the work and 10% of the financing.

Generally, the trick is to just do more work than your share. If you and your partners own 25% each, each of you should do about 30% of the work. This is an illusion of course, but everyone has their strengths. It might take some of you more work to do design, so it feels like the designer does a lot of work. Or one guy could land a huge contract.

It's very difficult to actually get ousted. Investors and acquirers hate that kind of drama. It hurts every other aspect of the company. It's often a last resort before dissolving the company. When it happens, there's usually no other choice.

But usually they're still shareholders. It can be difficult or easy, much like dealing with kids after a divorce.

</comment><comment><USER2> How much equity do you have? Is the split written in an official paper or only an oral agreement?

<comment> has-anyone-else It is all papered with agreements and certificates.</comment></comment>


Stanford bioengineers create circuit board modeled on the human brain - <AUTHOR> http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/april/neurogrid-boahen-engineering-042814.html

<comment><AUTHOR> The official press release is sort of lacking in details. You can find more on the research group's website.

[http://www.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/neurogrid.html](http://www.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/neurogrid.html)

[http://www.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/goals.html](http://www.stanford.edu/group/brainsinsilicon/goals.html)

The gist of how it works is that analog circuits model the ion channels in neurons. You "program" the chip by adjusting parameters controlling the activation pattern of the "neurons" and connect the neurons through virtual "synapses".

</comment><comment><USER2> An important detail: This emulates pyramid cells on hardware, it is not a software simulation. However you can "program" how the cells are connected to eachother by "virtual adressing". This is basically a programmable neural network on a chip. Dedicated to emulating neural networks.

You might see something like this in the medical field to help people move a robot arm. (By connecting it to your brain.)

Or maybe (i'm not sure) in the future self-driving car to, very fastly categorize objects in its surrounding (pedestrians, cars, etc)

</comment><comment><USER3> this is super cool. would it work for deep learning without the associated data centre cost/energy consumption? Wonder how much further they can miniaturise the circuit</comment>


Ask HN: level of understanding for java if we want to do clojure prjt - <AUTHOR>

I would like to know which java books/sites to read just to be able to use from clojure, e.g. GUI classes, serial port classes, etc. <comment><USER2> I am a professional Clojure developer and I have almost no real-world experience in Java.

I knew basic Java syntax and taught myself to read JavaDocs well. I think that's all you need to know in order to use Java libs from Clojure.

You can polish your Java chops a bit more as you go.</comment>


We are sleepwalking toward war with North Korea - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/world/2017/12/18/16733560/north-korea-war <comment><USER2> We're not sleepingwalking into war. Rather, it's just that everybody in the U.S., liberal and conservative, scholar and layman, is in willful denial about the stark choices we face.

Negotiation is not an option: North Korea has been racing in earnest to both build a bomb and a delivery vehicle since at least the 1980s. Their entire social and political system is predicated on radical self-reliance. This notion plays itself out in every facet of their system, from the cult of personality to the structure of their corrupt economy. It's neither coincidence nor mere opportunism that North Korea has proliferated both nuclear and ballistic missile technology across the world for decades. Nuclear weapons technology simultaneously offers them both military and economic security. North Korea will never willingly give up nuclear weapons. They can't. The political regime and relinquishing nuclear weapons are effectively mutually exclusive.

That leaves 3 stark choices: a nuclear North Korea[1], war, or Chinese-forced regime change.

But no mainstream American political party will accept a nuclear North Korea, especially given North Korea's proven desire and ability to proliferate. And China, for various complex reasons, has been steadfast in refusing to topple the regime. That means American politics has been moving inexorably toward war with North Korea and will continue doing so unless and until war breaks out or China capitulates. In the meantime--which could extend (and hopefully will extend) into the indefinite future--we'll just put our heads in the sand and ignore the very thing we keep swearing we'd never accept.

The denial exhibits itself in weird ways. The conservatives keep shifting attention to Iran. North Korea is light-years ahead of Iran in terms of being both a nuclear threat and in manifest capacity to proliferate nuclear weapons. But war with NK is simply unpalatable, and as conservatives prefer unilateralism to compromise their only political move has been to ignore NK and focus on Iran, whom they're currently comfortable bombing.

Liberals, by contrast, both refuse to entertain a military solution[2] and refuse to admit that a negotiated settlement has eluded negotiators for decades. The Clinton, Bush, Obama, and even Trump[3] administrations have pursued compromise in earnest. Only the most cynical of observers would argue that the U.S. hasn't pursued a settlement in good faith. But NK's bait+switch in the 1990s, increasing intransigence, and continued proliferation have made negotiation increasingly difficult for each successive administration. Good faith does not mean gullible. And, in any event, it's no mystery why NK won't sign away their nuclear capability.

Obama's deal with Iran really screwed everything up. The deal meant conservatives could no longer shift attention to Iran, which had benefitted the liberals by making the perennial failures with NK less pressing (and memorable).

Of course, Obama made the deal with Iran precisely because NK was the actual immediate threat, and kicking the Iran problem (such as it was) down the road was the intelligent strategic choice. But as a Muslim Kenyan, perhaps only Obama was capable of seeing the obvious truth that every real American denies.

Unfortunately, the deal had the effect of turning the NK situation into a crisis overnight, despite literally nothing changing. NK has been on the exact same trajectory it's been on for decades. The time for freaking out was when they began exploding nuclear devices 10+ years ago, not the next stepwise iteration of their missile technology.

Because America is not capable of accepting a nuclear NK, either formally or informally, and because NK is not capable of forgoing a nuclear deterrent, the options are stark. That doesn't mean war is inevitable, only that the direction is inevitable. The end game, should it arrive--as opposed to the crisis, with ever increasing risks of conflict in East Asia, being drawn out indefinitely--is either war or a deal with China that realigns power in the Pacific.

The upshot is that the only country to be negotiating with is China. What will it take for the Chinese to topple the North Korean regime? It might take a lot because, even if they're amenable to a deal, we probably overestimate their ability to force regime change.

[1] Which we already live with, technically. North Korea currently just lacks first-strike capabilities. Which surely they'll remedy in the next year or two.

[2] Which, strategically, could be useful in negotiating with China. A credible imminent threat of war (stick) combined with a realignment of power in the Pacific (carrot) might bring China around.

[3] Rex Tillerson's recent, frantic offer for "unconditional", bilateral talks is evidence of this. We can't blame the hardline tactics of the Bush or Trump administrations. The diplomats have been earnest, and if the diplomats saw light at the end of the tunnel no administration would be able to hide that. But even diplomats from the Clinton and Obama administrations have no idea how to proceed.

<comment><USER3> Can you explain to this liberal American what is so wrong with North Korea having nuclear weapons?

I realize a lot of nasty bluster has been exchanged between the U.S. and N.K., but besides their post-occupation invasion of South Korea in 1948, are there tangible examples of N.K. military invasions or attacks on other nations since its founding?

N.K. is poor, vulnerable and under constant threat of destabilization by the West. In today's geopolitical landscape, the only way to defend against being "liberated" by the U.S., as Iraq or Libya was, is to have a nuclear weapon.

If you were N.K., wouldn't you do the same as an act of self-preservation?

<comment><USER2> I think there are many excuses, but the biggest and most reasonable issue is proliferation. North Korea has sold not only its ballistic missile technology, not only chemical weapons technology, but nuclear weapons technology. See, e.g., [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-north- korea-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-north-korea-sell- its-nuclear-technology/)

Now, you might argue that it only does this because of sanctions. But NK has repeatedly eschewed normalization in favor of pursuing it's weapons programs. The examples of nuclear proliferation in the article above occurred _before_ sanctions were even imposed.

The problem is the regime: normalization of economic ties would result in the downfall of the Kim regime. The entire social and political structure of the country is built around the militarist cult of personality. The country has pursued the same path for over 50 years, 3 rulers, and the (de jure or de facto) transition of every other Communist and authoritarian regime from the post-WWII era. It's not a coincidence that is has, singularly, survived. And it's totally naive to think the regime would change now. The regime has persisted _only_ because of it's radical rejection of normalization with the world.

That rejection of normalization doesn't mean a rejection of all international economic ties. But for various reasons the safest trade is black market trade as the scope is more easily controlled from the top.

That said, I think it's reasonable to accept a nuclear NK, as long as you're honest about the nuclear proliferation risk. Believing that NK could keep nuclear weapons without proliferation of nuclear tech would be willful denial. A realistic scenario is NK selling nuclear tech with the West expending resources to take it off the streets again, like the War on Drugs. Yet like the War on Drugs the result will be a lot of death as the U.S. often prefers using bullets to money, especially internationally. Over years and decades it will hasten the relative decline of American power as the perpetual conflict exposes the U.S. as ineffectual. China, like now, just sits on the sidelines watching the U.S. burn through political capital faster than cheap Chinese imports. (Which is one of several reasons China isn't eager to see either NK regime change or even the removal of nuclear weapons from NK. Interests in China and, especially, Russia see significant value in the pressures the NK problem imposes on the U.S.)

And that scenario excludes the issue of Japan remilitarizing. I think that aspect is overemphasized, partly because it's easier to articulate than it is to articulate the increase in amorphous geopolitical conflict that would be caused (and has been caused) by the steady supply of NK arms, including WMD arms, in the global black market.

In short, a nuclear NK inevitably means nuclear proliferation because the regime favors (and must favor) black market trade to sustain itself. Depending on your calculus, that could easily be the least worst scenario. But by no means is it a nice outcome, and it's not the kind of strategic compromise Americans are amenable to, especially in modern times.

IMO, the path with the least violence is Chinese engineered regime change. Say, Kim Jong-un disappearing on a trip to Beijing. But that's the most difficult outcome to achieve because it requires Americans not only being realistic about the alternatives, but also making some very hard and (most importantly for domestic politics) explicit strategic compromises with China in the Pacific. I imagine the U.S. would have to be prepared, at least in principle, to capitulate on Taiwan or the South China Sea (or both), and then hope negotiators could secure a less costly quid pro quo.

FWIW, I think a lot of countries, including some European countries, are prepared to accept a nuclear NK today, either formally or informally. But there is no tidy resolution to the problem of proliferation except to either deny or ignore it. It's easier to ignore if you're not the U.S., because everybody around the world has basically relied on the U.S. to stop and punish proliferation. If you remember the Syrian chemical attacks, the British, French, and Germans excoriated Obama for not retaliating, yet none were prepared to retaliate themselves.[1]

[1] That's another example where Obama's (belated) strategic clarity had the unintended consequence of exposing something unspeakable about the global order.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the response. Proliferation is not something I had considered, and to me, certainly is a legitimate concern.

By the way, I read through a bit of your comment history, and you're a great writer!</comment></comment></comment></comment>