Show HN: StableLib, an LTS distribution of Go packages - <AUTHOR> https://stablelib.com/blog/stablelib-released/

<comment><USER2> I'm not big on it being a paid project. [https://www.stackage.org/](https://www.stackage.org/) does the same thing for haskell for free.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Someone posted before it was released here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9342769](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9342769)

Now that it's released, I thought I'd post it as "Show HN" with a link to blog post. Happy to answer your questions!

<comment><USER3> I'm unclear on the origin of these packages: are they all original works, or a vetting and repackaging of other packages? If the later, how are improvements being sent up stream?

<comment><AUTHOR> The latter (although some _are_ original works); if you browse [https://stablelib.com/v1/](https://stablelib.com/v1/), you can see links to upstreams for each package in "Information" section. Improvements are sent via whatever method the original accepts, mostly GitHub pull requests.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Awesome! Is there a way of proposing packages? I for one would love to see the following be included:

\- github.com/hashicorp/errwrap \- github.com/mattn/go-issatty \- a file system notification lib (fsnotify, timeglass/snow etc)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'll make a website page for package proposals, meanwhile a simple email to email@example.com (or a comment here) will do :)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Condenser – A database subsetting project - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/TonicAI/condenser <comment><AUTHOR> Hey folks. Adam here. I work at Tonic and helped developed Condenser.

Happy to answer any questions and in the meantime, if you'd like to learn more you can also read more on our blog.

[https://www.tonic.ai/blog/condenser-a-database-subsetting- to...](https://www.tonic.ai/blog/condenser-a-database-subsetting-tool)</comment>


Wikileaks gun camera video of civilians shot in Baghdad 07/12/07 - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik <comment><USER3> Whatever happens in the first five minutes of the video, killing unarmed people helping wounded is murder, it is out of moral and military code of any legal combat group.

The sad and disgusting part is this video was in the hands of the us military all along and they knew, what happened and how it happened, and they also tried to stop the video from leaking out actively to cover their malformed policy.

This video is proof of murder, disresctpectful combat, imcompetent ranking officers and blind trigger happy pilots.

Calling this video anything other than above is political bullshit.

<comment><USER4> Same assessment here as a former soldier. The first piece is debatable. I clearly saw an RPG and a personal weapon, and to be honest, unless the cameraman was ID'd, I would be 50/50 on that.

I don't know the tactical situation, but it looks like they were providing aerial cover for a convoy of some sort, since that's who they keep chatting with. This was quite possibly an ambush in it's very early stages. While disturbing (welcome to war) I don't think that the actions of the crew where unbecoming at that point.

I did however have an issue with the destruction of the van. There were no weapons visible, it was clear that they were collecting bodies for transport/medical attention. Any perceived or real threat to the convoy was at that time neutralized, and there was no need to fire.

Doing so clearly violated the Geneva conventions and the US Army's ROE. Both apache crews should be charged with murder, and the authorizing officer should be charged with some lesser charge for not confirming the intended target.

<comment><USER5> run4yourlives sums up by feelings about this particular incident very well.

However, I'm uncomfortable with the way Wikileaks has couched the release of this video (the editing, the title, and the url used to promote it). It's agitprop, and in the long term I think it undermines the ability of leaked documents like this to enter the public discourse and (possibly) effect change.

My advice to Wikileaks if they want my continued support is to stick to what you're good at: enabling whistleblowers to anonymously release documents that may serve the public interest. But let Michael Moore handle the filmmaking.

<comment><USER6> Especially the really slow lead in. 2 minutes of time before you get to the video? A lot of people are just going to click out before they see that, especially with the editorializing. You will turn off a lot of people predisposed to support the US military over all other considerations. If you start right with the video and let the document speak for itself you might reach a wider audience. You also bias the viewers perception by showing the pictures beforehand that clearly tell you they are journalists which is something the pilots did know until after the fact.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been of two minds about this post. On one hand, it does seem important. But Wikileaks presents it with a lot of propaganda mixed in. They are going far beyond their original role of merely leaking information. So if anyone knows of (or wants to make) a version that's just the original footage, please supply a url and I'll switch the link to that.

Edit: Switched link. Thanks. Please note that many of the comments on this thread refer to the original page.

<comment><USER8> i agree that they're presenting it beyond their original intent, but i'd also point out that they've been striving for a business model as a pure information source, just to keep the lights on, and it hasn't been working out. this might be their attempt at finding a way to monetize some of their information.

<comment><USER9> Financial difficulties (which to be honest, I have trouble understanding), does not justify over-hyping and over-editorializing content, it only hurts their image and reputation and means less people will appreciate their work.

Also, if they allow their funding issues to compromise their principles it would be a much bigger issue than if they allow their principles to affect too strongly the way they editorialize.

So if your theory is correct that would be more disturbing, not less.

<comment><USER8> yeah, it does. the auction wasn't a good idea either. they might be good at what they do, just not good at distribution/monetization/etc..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I feel like we have a bunch of trigger-happy teenagers viewing the world through a video-game-like HUD with a joystick, just _itching_ to light something up.

Nobody should support this.

Also, imagine being a child with an Apache circling your town waiting to dispense this sort of justice. You'd probably become a terrorist, wouldn't you?

<comment><USER11> I am going to play devil's advocate for a moment. I obviously don't condone the killing in this movie, but just for a moment think about the young kids who were in that helicopter, doing the shooting and all the shit they have to face now. Think about all the haters that are going to be calling down evil on them over the internet and news. Think about how bad they must feel knowing that they killed innocent people when they thought they were killing the enemy.

From their point of view they are in a helicopter, scared, and afraid that someone is going to shoot a RPG at them. You can't seriously expect them to notice the kids or the difference between a camera and a weapon.

Sure they jumped the gun, they killed innocent civilians, but it was a product of the environment and training they received. It happened because America made those kids soldiers and put them in that situation, with a deadly weapon to control. Don't blame them personally.

What does need to be blamed, on the other hand, is the fact that this video was kept secret and that the world was lied to.

That is disgusting.

<comment><USER12> _Think about how bad they must feel knowing that they killed innocent people_

Er, they could have joined the Peace Corp, Red Cross, etc. They didn't _accidentally_ wake up one day and kill someone, they made a series of choices and put themselves into a series of events where they got to use powerful weapons against people.

Think about how bad the friends and relatives of the innocent people they killed feel.

<comment><USER13> If I walk down the road right now, I will not see billboards encouraging me to join the Red Cross.

<comment><USER14> Are you saying you're not responsible for the lives you take if the organization that trained you had better advertisement funding?

<comment><USER13> No, I'm saying that the choice between joining an organisation that gives you aid packages to distribute and one that gives you a rifle isn't as clear-cut as you implied. Not for the majority of people who end up joining the forces, anyway, though my view may well be coloured from having grown up in the self- styled "Home of the British Army".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In case anyone hasn't heard, Wikileaks is badly in need of donations. <http://collateralmurder.com/en/support.html>.

This video is a damn good argument for why what they do is important. Go give them a few dollars. I can't think of a cause I see as more important in the world right now (with the one possible exception of free software).

<comment><USER16> The video is important, but the way it's been released is exactly the opposite of a 'worthy cause', they could have done that a lot better.

Wikileaks is starting down the 'greenpeace' road, great initial intentions eventually becoming a self-perpetuating PR machine.

They should cut down on the hyperbole and the editing, simply release that information that they consider to be legitimate once verified.

<comment><USER6> And their expenses wouldn't be so high. Forget the editing, forget the hosting, forget the editorializing. Post the video and the transcript on a bittorent channel and let it move on to better funded news agencies. Is their job to protect the sources that release information, or be an advocacy group based around information leaked from sources? Because I would donate to the former but not the latter.

<comment><USER15> My impression is that this is a publicity move on their part to get people interested and get donations. The presentation seems part of that. They're pitching "hey, look at how useful we are."

Before the shutdown, Wikileaks did present most of their content without editing or editorializing. Content would generally be accompanied by a short couple of paragraphs discussing the context, veracity, and format. If memory serves, they did write some opinion/publicity pieces, but labeled them as such and published them separately from the content itself.

I guess what I'm saying is this: I think the extra stuff is there because they need money badly and are basically marketing themselves with this. I don't think they intend to make a habit of straying from their original focus on content. I don't have any proof of this, but that's because they're still short on money. So if you would donate to the former, donate. Hopefully they'll be back to their old selves soon.

<comment><USER16> They need the money badly for what exactly ?

Wikileaks could run on a shoestring budget and be just as effective as they are today. A simple rss feed with the magnet links of available torrents would be all it takes.

<comment><USER15> Oh, and who would provide the tracker? Who would make sure there were always seeders? Who would protect the servers when every person they've ever pissed off comes knocking?

Wikileaks has managed to protect all their sources and repel all the legal assaults on their publishing. And they're not playing in the kiddie pool with those RIAA clowns. The intelligence arm of just about every major country wants them extinguished, not to mention a bunch of multinational companies and some very pissed-off warlords.

This "Wikileaks costs too much" discourse on HN is ridiculous. $600,000 a year for unprecedented whistleblowing, provided to the entire world, against all comers, _is a fucking bargain_.

<comment><USER16> > Oh, and who would provide the tracker?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker#Trackerless_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_tracker#Trackerless_torrents)

Hence the magnet links.

> Who would make sure there were always seeders?

The same people that would find it important enough that this information is distributed. I would certainly dedicate a bunch of bandwidth for something like this.

> Who would protect the servers when every person they've ever pissed off > comes knocking?

The Streisand effect is partial protection here, if you don't want your stuff to be even wider disseminated 'coming knocking' (by which you probably mean lawsuits) would actually increase the stature of the project. As long as you do not accuse without hard proof.

But simply spreading the information would be the first move in a game of whack-a-mole that can only be lost.

The 'RIAA' clowns are some of the best funded legal teams and they don't seem to be making much headway. A much more serious threat is the threat of overt violence, but that's not something where money will help.

Agreed that the service that wikileaks provides is a bargain, but they could be going about their fundraising a lot better than they do. Most of it seems to be along the lines of 'pay up or the data gets it'. And literally holding stuff hostage and pretend-shut-downs is not the right way to make the point.

That just plays in to the hands of the people that would like to see wikileaks disappear.

<comment><USER15> I'm not crazy about their chosen marketing stance either. I've been careful not to say that I like what they're doing, just that I think I know why they're doing it. It's a little distasteful, but so are the various fundraising strategies most other orgs employ ("Don't you have two minutes for starving orphans in Irkutsk?" or public radio's week of not playing any music to lecture you about donating instead).

At the end of the day, if this is what it takes to get Wikileaks back online, then I support it because of that. Because I still very much believe in their mission, and believe that they are unique in what they provide the world right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work._ That seems like an enormous number given that about 4,800 US soldiers died in the same time period. At about 250,000 US troops in Iraq, that would imply about 7,200 journalists total in-country, assuming an equal proportion of journalists killed.

In fact, there were about 220 "embedded" journalists in 2007 [1]. Certainly, there were a lot of journalists not associated with the US Army, but, still, the conclusion seems to be that being a journalist in Iraq is _far_ more dangerous than being an American soldier in Iraq.

[1] [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/10...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101002934.html)

<comment><USER18> Not only that, but journalists are often more exposed than soldiers. They tend to shack up out in the city, drive around in unarmored vehicles with local translators, and aren't tapped into the information network about where bad things are happening _right now_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I agree that the shooting of the van was unequivocally wrong and, possibly, murder.

People commenting, though, need to remember a couple of points; they are sat at home viewing this on big monitors under no pressure. In reality that was viewed on a small screen under the pressure of war fuelled on adrenaline.

I can see how the first attack could be considered simply a tragic mistake. Also there is probably little chance they would have spotted the kids in the van. Regardless the attack on the van _was_ utterly unprovoked - I wouldn't call it totally malicious but a mistaken, adrenaline driven, undisciplined and rushed attack. He wanted to shoot it and didn't take the necessary pains to decide if it was a threat or not (clearly, it was not).

Someone should be held very responsible for this.

However I also feel Wikileaks have milked some aspects of the video. I would much prefer to have seen the shortened version without the "heart strings" introduction etc. I believe doing that actually takes away from the impact of the video - show us what happened first, then do the dedications.

</comment><comment><USER20> Watching the video, it's fairly obvious to me that the people holding supposed rocket launchers were in fact holding cameras with telephoto lenses. However, this is obvious to me after having read comments about the video, as well as with all the captions in the video explaining what it is we're seeing. This is a lot information gathered after the incident, when the people on the ground actually got to go in and see that there were no RPG launchers and so on. So even though I clearly see a telephoto lens, I can't say that the guys in the helicopters could see that. I have a hard time saying that this is clearly murder.

The whole situation seems like a no-win to me. If they (US Military) don't release the video, they cover their ass in the short run, but when the video gets leaked it makes them look more guilty than perhaps they really were. But if they had released the video then, you'd still get tons of people proclaiming how horrible this is.

Don't get me wrong, this is horrible, but it doesn't seem _more_ horrible than a lot of the stuff that happens over there. It's horrible that we're even in this situation.

</comment><comment><USER21> The US Army released some lightly redacted versions of the reports on its investigations (linked by Salon: [http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/04/05/wikil...](http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/04/05/wikileaks_gun_camera_footage))

[http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%2...](http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&FolderCTID=&View=%7b41BA1AAF%2d785A%2d481A%2dA630%2d12470AFCD6FD%7d)

In hindsight there were clearly mistakes made, but it looks like the Army took the incident pretty seriously, and there was no big cover-up. One also gets a bit of a sense from those reports of the broader context in which the events were happening, which the video on its own does not show.

I'm not so sure that the histrionics from Wikileaks does anyone much good.

<comment><USER22> Reading the investigation you linked to (the one labelled "1st" I was surprised to see that they describe as perfectly correct the shooting of the van, despite also describing the van as clearly just picking up wounded.

War is very ugly, always, and this is just one of the many aspects of its reality.

Some comments have said this sort of stuff wouldn't happen if the crews involved had high quality optics. The van scene clearly _would_ still happen.

Also very late in the video, when preparing to fire a missile straight into a building, there is very obviously an unarmed man walking along the sidewalk in front of the building, totally relaxed. The excited gunner is so impatient to blow up the building that he simply fires with his crosshairs practically on top of this person.

Again, something that would happen regardless of optics improvements, and a sad message about the level of desensitization soldiers are forced to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Whoever was shooting lived through this once in real-time. Everyone else gets to view it again and again, stop the action, if they please, back up...

<comment><USER24> Isn't that true of everything ever recorded? What point are you making?

<comment><USER25> I think the point he's probably making is it's a lot easier for us sitting here in front of our computers with no risk to our person watching a video edited and subtitled with helpful descriptions of exactly what's happening after the fact than it is for a pair of soldiers strapped into a piece of military hardware hovering over an active warzone with immediate risk to their lives in the event that they're engaged by enemy forces armed with RPG's.

<comment><USER24> It is easy for us, yes, but the topic at hand isn't how easy it is for us to watch footage. How easy it is for us to dissect it has no bearing whatsoever on the events themselves. Put another way, how difficult does it have to be for us to see what happened before it's acceptable for us to disagree with the actions taken?

Edit: This is a fantastically unpopular comment! Is it my lack of respect for the "Thou shalt not Monday-morning quarterback, no matter how badly the quarterback screwed it up" commandment? :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> People are missing that the helicopter was called in by ground forces who were getting fired upon. This is from the unedited video at 15:23:

"Bushmaster to all elements: Which element called in Crazyhorse to engage the eight man team on top of the route?"

"Bushmaster six, this is hotel-two-six, I believe that was me. They had AK-47s and were to our east, where we were taking small arms fire. Over."

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik>

Looks like the helicopter wasn't flying around and saw a group randomly - <USER2> was called into a combat region to support ground troops under fire. Still a bad situation, but a bit different than it's being made out.

</comment><comment><USER17> While this isn't on the same scale, we spent several weeks in high school studying My Lai[1] as a lesson in personal responsibility and morality. It seems we've learned nothing, not even to be honest when these things happen, but, then again, perhaps the lesson is that war changes people in horrible ways?

Wikileaks' continued existence is essential to our democracy.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre>

<comment><USER16> I always found it depressing that Colin Powell got a red card for his UN speech but that My-Lai cover up was never even mentioned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Significant events (note that this refers to the link as modified by pg, not the link as originally posted):

1:11 - We hear there's a guy with a weapon.

1:38 - We see the weapon.

2:05 - Identification of a second weapon. One of the pilots requests permission to engage. This is given; however the helicopter does not have a clear shot and waits.

2:33 - Identification of apparent RPG (is that the camera?)

2:45 - "We got a guy shooting", not sure what this refers to.

3:15 - One helicopter opens fire. The other joins in a bit later.

4:40 - Apparent gap in the tape?

6:15 - We see a survivor crawling slowly, obviously injured.

7:29 - First mention of a van approaching "and picking up the bodies".

7:40 - We see this van and some apparently unarmed men.

7:48 - One of the pilots says "let me engage". They ask permission to engage several times but get no response until...

8:19 - They finally get a reply, and ask for permission to fire on the van.

8:32 - They get permission and open fire with several bursts.

9:28 - Shooting ceases.

(I didn't go much beyond this.)

</comment><comment><USER28> Without the labels and WikiLeaks cuts, could you have looked at these pictures and determined what the guys on the ground were holding? Honest to god, I could not.

Rules of engagement are good. They should be followed. Unfortunately, the government sets them, and I think even a YCombinator startup would get its butt kicked coming up with better rules.

Example: the Van, that is very gray. Is it a weapons collection unit or a medical assistance device? Its both. Its war. Its moving...

As I read through these comments, some gave a back story that the Apaches were called in by ground troops that had taken fire earlier in the day. If that's the case and you are on that trigger, in that moment, I doubt many of us would be as judicious in our decision making.

</comment><comment><USER29> I like how it's been how many hours since this story leaked...and not a single major U.S. news organization covered it yet(as far as I can tell).

<comment><USER7> Even more interesting perhaps is that I didn't know that, because I don't depend on news organizations for news anymore. Aggregators have been my default source of news for years. News organizations now have the role that weekly publications used to: they're a place you sometimes find interesting articles about things you already knew about.

<comment><USER30> Here's something published just today that shows both the value of well-funded commercial journalism and the folly of trusting major news organizations to bother with real journalism:

[http://www.salon.com/news/afghanistan/index.html?story=/opin...](http://www.salon.com/news/afghanistan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/05/afghanistan)

In this case, most of the major news sources simply parroted the Pentagon, but some bothered to investigate. Eventually the Pentagon was forced to change its story, at which point CNN and the NYT were able to report that U.S. and Afghan government forces accidentally raided a peaceful party and blamed the deaths of three women they killed on honor killings.

Gotta love this quote from some American Rear Admiral acting as Nato's "director of communications" in Kabul: "You don't have to be fired upon to fire back." He's either from the "What Would George Bush Say?" school of communication, or he's incompetent, or, if he was choosing his words as carefully as you would expect in such a delicate situation, he decided to send a damned chilling message, not something I want a representative of my government saying to people we're supposed to be educating about freedom and liberal government.

Source for the quote: [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/arti...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7060395.ece)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Video will be posted at 16h UTC latest, according to Wikileaks press conference. It shows this incident [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.ht...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) and supposedly shows a military helicopter shooting a van rescuing two Reuters journalists.

<comment><USER31> Murder? What can that video possibly show that would justify calling this incident "murder"? And what's the motive? Killing journalists can only be a bad move for the US military, so why would they do it on purpose? We already know that those journalists were killed by US military, so that alone wouldn't be news.

I'm curious.

– edit: I have now seen the video, looks like major incompetency combined with what looks like the wrong training for those situations. Also a possible coverup of this incompetence on part of the investigators. No murder. Bad enough. I would probably argue that this is negligent homicide. Has definitely a different effect than just reading the New York Times article.

<comment><AUTHOR> Had you seen the video at that point? No.

Look at 04:50 onwards. It was obvious there was no RPG, the group of men started dispersing, yet they started shooting and kept shooting.

Edit: Look at 10:15. They just killed people who were trying to rescue one wounded guy. No weapons to be seen anywhere.

<comment><USER32> At 3:45 and until 4:25 everything is kinda suspect. It really looks like at least one guy is carrying a big weapon (could be an AK like they say or even some launcher) and by 4:09 one of them kneels at the end of the building with something in his hands then he quickly gets up, turns arounds and it seems like he's shooting something (I'd say he was trying to take a picture but that's not clear at all).

I believe the war was wrong, etc, but I can understand why the army was so alerted by this. I'm not shocked by it (until the van arrives, what happens next is not easy to explain, maybe that move happens a lot?) and while I'm completely against it, I also understand that this can happen sometimes.

To call this a murder is a much simpler version of what happened there.

<comment><USER33> I think it's fair to call firing on the van murder. The people in the van were pretty obviously trying to remove the dead and help the wounded. They did not appear to be armed, though it's certainly possible to conceal weapons in a van. They were clearly not taking any aggressive action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The basic premise here is that the guys on the helicopter claim they see weapons (AKs and RPGs). So they shoot shit up, and then the soldiers get there. What I don't get is that nobody seems to be following up on the basic premise: there is no audio communication where the helicopter guys are asking about weapons, or the guys on the ground saying that they do or don't see any weapons (or that they instead see a camera with a bigass tele lens).

This implies that the soldiers don't care whether their kill was justified. Setting aside conscience, this is bad because there's no feedback - next time they'll just mistake the tele lens for an RPG again.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=youtu...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0&feature=youtu.be)

</comment><comment><USER35> I thought one particularly sickening part was around 18:50 when a Humvee drove over a body, or at least the driver thought he did. And then the other guy on the line jokes "well, he's dead". Talk about disrespecting the dead.

When an American soldier dies, his mates will risk their own lives to recover the body and a book and testerone-fuelled movie get made about it (Black Hawk Down). But when an Iraqi gets shot to shreds by a chain gun and run over by a Humvee, its some sick joke. We live in a twisted, unequal world in many ways.

ps. How amusing that this comment is getting down voted. The truth is unpleasant, but still the truth

<comment><USER36> Soldiers joke about their job. It's a way of coping with the stress. Firefighters and police officers will make jokes about things most of us wouldn't dare.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I can't help but think this isn't a bad argument for a heavier investment in removing the risk to allied lives element from decisions like this, it's one thing to mistake a telephoto lens on a camera for an RPG as illustrated here <http://collateralmurder.com/en/resources.html>.

You might be more prepared to risk being wrong if, were you not wrong, you weren't potentially betting your life on the fact. The pilot sounded genuinely scared when he misidentified that RPG, one would not expect the same if it was a UAV feed.

<comment><USER16> Au contraire, the fact that a soldier is far enough away to be able to murder indiscriminately when _not_ at risk is what caused this. If he had been standing more vulnerable but right by that road side this would not have happened.

The further you take the person pulling the trigger away from the person they murder the easier it gets.

Do you really believe the guys that dropped the bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been able to do it given an infinite supply of ammo and a machine gun that never jams pointed at fields full of tens of thousands of unarmed civilians?

<comment><USER25> You make an interesting point but the alternative is to purposely hamstring your combat abilities in order to make a commitment to using them less appealing. That doesn't sound like a sound survival strategy.

I am by nature a pacifist and would prefer not to engage in war or violence at all. However, once the bonds are slipped and the blood starts flowing, I don't think there should be any punches pulled and the more options on the table the better. I still maintain that if the pilot in this particular instance had less reason to fear for his own safety he would have been more careful with his judgement call on the combatant status of the target group.

This is actually one of the common arguments for increasing the role of remote robotic agents on the battlefield, less necessary to be overly aggressive in defense in edge cases. I think the commonly cited example is not calling artillery on apartment buildings to flush out a sniper.

<comment><USER16> > That doesn't sound like a sound survival strategy.

It wasn't meant as one. There is a price to war, it should be paid by both sides for things not to go badly out of control.

The current trend is to minimize the cost to the aggressor so that 'home support' for a war is easier to come by. If there would have been one American soldier dead for every Iraqi civilian this conflict would have been over long ago.

If the perceived cost of waging war to a nation is low then the chances of war being waged go up.

<comment><USER25> If you were a world champion boxer would you get into a lot more fist fights because it's less likely that you'd be injured in them? Speaking for myself, I would not.

I'd hope that just because we _can_ doesn't necessarily mean we _should_ in any case.

<comment><USER16> It depends on the character of the person.

Plenty of people with martial skills are amongst the most controlled that I've known. And then there are the psychos that are fascinated by violence.

Some countries are a lot more restrained when it comes to applying violence than others. Compare Switzerland and America for instance, the gun ownership in Switzerland is one of the highest in the world, yet gun related fatalities are extremely low. In the US it's a bit different...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The two men shown around 3:39 (not the journalists) do appear to be carrying weapons.

</comment><comment><USER38> Torrent of the video available here: [http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder.mp4.torren...](http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder.mp4.torrent)

(for anyone interested being part of the crowd-archive)

</comment><comment><USER39> It is quite obvious from watching this video that the boys pulling the trigger have no idea what they just did. So, calling it "murder" is a bit misleading. We got to see the photos of the reporters with their cameras before watching the video. So we obviously know, going in to it, that those are not AK-47's and RPGs. But that fact that they have no idea what they just did, is damning in itself.

One could easily presume from watching this video, that we have inculcated a sense of utter callousness for the taking of life, and an inability to distinguish peaceful from threatening activities. The judgement is made in an instant that there are guys with guns, despite the fact that there is no suspicious activity going on. It looks like a lawful public assembly. The presumption is: Iraqi men, milling about an area, some with something slung over their shoulders. Must be insurgents. Kill em. Good job, soldier.

Is anyone in doubt that the guys who drove up in the van were unarmed? Did they LOOK like they were trying to shoot back at the helicopter. No. They kept looking at it, wondering if they were next. They were risking their lives trying to save an innocent. And they were killed for it.

The most chilling line, after announcing that two children were wounded: "It serves them right for bringing kids into a battle." Serves them right? Setting aside the fact that nobody who got shot on that day knew that they were in a battle until the bullets starting raining down, do they truly deserve to have their children shot because they bring them into a battle?

I have no doubt that these boys will be haunted by what they did the rest of their lives. I utterly abhor what happened and I was literally shaking watching this video. At the same time, I cannot help but sympathize with the young men that we have placed into a situation that, quite literally, cuts off their common and moral sense and requires them to be trigger-happy in order to gain the accolades of their commanders. My God, what are we doing?

</comment><comment><USER40> Let me first say that killing unarmed ANYONE is wrong. And that I did get queezie watching this video. We are suppose to be better than this. That being said, war is not clean. It is not merely a set of commands and rules that are followed where everything turns out ok. It is horrible.

I have been in the smoke of war. Crazy things happen out there. Sometimes, there are children with guns and bombs too. And those bullets kill just as well. It is easy to make mistakes when you're in an area where there are very real threats to your life and the lives of your friends all around. Even so, they are MISTAKES. I don't believe these pilots felt as though they were murdering these people. I'm sure at the time they felt they were dealing with a real threat. But they made egregious errors in judgement and caused a terrible tragedy because of those mistakes.

But there is another tragedy in this case. In the military there is a process called an "After Action Review" that is suppose to be done after EVERY mission. It is a time to look back on what happened, talk openly, and analyse how things could have been handled better. The military could have used this horrid event as a way to change training and tactics to prevent things like this from happening in the future. In just a few hours of being released on the net, there are already scores of dissection and analysis about how things could have been done differently. Imagine if tactical analysts had reviewed this and in theater pilot briefings were changed to reflect the results of that review. Imagine if the military had actually acted in good faith on this event instead of trying to cover it up. This is 2010. The event happened in 2007. And still they did not release the video. It had to be leaked.

In cases like this where mistakes were made, the government loses any credibility to "mitigating circumstances" when they try to cover it up.

I hope one day the military can be more transparent with this sort of action.

I hope one day that we don't need an organization like wikileaks, but I am so glad we have them right now.

And most of all, I hope we aren't going to be watching a similar video in 2013 of a similar event that happened this week.

</comment><comment><USER41> Straight from the posting guidelines.....

"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off- topic."

This is in no way an interesting new phenomenon. People have been dieing in wars because of stupid mistakes since the beginning of civilization. How shocking can it be that an individual died who was hanging around people who remotely looked as if they were militants?

Source: <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

</comment><comment><USER42> So, let me get this straight. In Iraq, anyone seen carrying something that resembles a gun or who happens to be in the general vicinity of someone carrying something that resembles a gun is subject to immediate summary execution without stopping to make sure its a gun or sorting out who the people might be or why they might be carrying something that looks like a weapon? And then helping an injured person get to the hospital is also grounds for summary execution? And all this is according to the rules of war and the rules of engagement? And here I thought the Nazis were hard core.

</comment><comment><USER43> "Look at those dead bastards"

"Nice, nice. Good shoot'n"

They bask in the moment, somehow deriving pleasure from the murder of 12 people. This is what disgusts me.

It's dangerous how far from reality some people can drift in certain situations.

</comment><comment><USER44> Iraq is a war zone. Thats the first thing people need to understand. Everyone is a civilian, but they could be the enemy. They don't wear formal uniforms. If you were in a War zone and your life was threatened, would you pull the trigger or would you wait to see if someone else is gonna pull the trigger first. War Zones are very worrisome places. You need your BASIC instincts to survive there. Most of those soldiers are using just that. The instinct to survive.

<comment><AUTHOR> At 04:36 in the video: "Just fuckin', once you get on 'em just open 'em up."

They did not have a proper visual and just randomly started shooting at a guy with what looked like an RPG but was a camera. Now this is a war zone, agreed. But these guys were not under fire in their helicopter, they just started shooting at hard-to-make-out images.

<comment><USER45> What's random about it?

From the chatter, there's a ground force element moving in that direction. The pilots see a group of men gathered in the street, some of them undeniably carrying weapons. They see a man with a long tube crouching around a corner and pointing it down the street. There's a line "Yeah we had a guy shooting", indicating that fire had already come from this group, or at least the pilots thought it had.

There's nothing random about it. They may have been wrong, but it wasn't random targeting of people walking around town.

The van portion of the incident is more questionable. It sounds like they followed the rules they had, but those rules may not have been proper for this situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> reading the comments in this thread is a little depressing, and reminds me why the army has their own justice system. we as safe citizens, protected by these very soldiers, want to scrutinize and analyze and put every move under a microscope to ensure it meets our concept of right and wrong and decency.

Guess what. Mistakes will happen. War is war, and it is inherently already not particularly moral. We reap the benefits in security, and wish to tear people down when mistakes are inevitably made... If soldiers were tried by civil courts I can see things getting just as bad as the private sector, where liability laws and their effects are suffocating and nobody can move for fear of a civil suit.

Put another way, we send these boys- kids my age, people much like myself- into a pressure cooker with their lives at risk. We ask them to sweat and fight and sufferand die all on our behalf, and they do so. Then we want to punish the ones who aren't perfect and make a mistake. That's right, go on and punish a man sent there _for you_ and _by you_ who did his best _for all of you_. Then come back and tell me how you can sleep at night.

<comment><USER47> Except that it's not war. It's a unilateral occupation.

<comment><USER6> If it wasn't a war, US troops wouldn't have been killed long after the Iraqi army was dissolved and they would have left by now. If anything the worst part of the war was the part where the US was fighting non-Iraqis who came to fight them in Iraq. Then the Iraqi people were losing from both sides. Nobody can really believe the US wants to CONQUER Iraq in the sense that they want to stay there indefinitely for control. If the insurgents hadn't fought the US would have left a hell of a long time ago.

<comment><USER48> "Nobody can really believe the US wants to CONQUER Iraq in the sense that they want to stay there indefinitely for control."

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

"A new embassy, which has been described as the largest and most expensive embassy in the world at 0.44 square kilometers—the size of Vatican City[1]—was opened in January 2009 ..."

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

Iraq is the 39th most populous country in the world, behind, for example, China, India, Russia, Japan and Mexico. Why do we need such a large operation, and personnel, for the 39th largest country in the world? We didn't build to this size with the idea that embassy personnel would shrink in the foreseeable future.

I believe the US did and does indeed want to conquer Iraq, because it gives us a presence and force projection that, unlike an aircraft carrier, can stay on station indefinitely.

Otherwise why invade a country that (differing opinions acknowledged) posed no threat to the US?

I imagine we're still anxiously searching for the real weapons of mass destruction.

<comment><USER46> Forget about egos for a minute and consider; 9 years in and still at a stalemate, moving at a snail's pace? If the US wanted to conquer Iraq, it seems like it would have been over already.

Don't get upset and emotional over me saying this; Nobody's blustering and beating their chest here. That's just my honest opinion.

<comment><USER49> "If the US wanted to conquer Iraq, it seems like it would have been over already."

No it wouldn't. (As you say don't get emotional about this). Except genocide, which wouldn't be acceptable in this century, what exactly would the US do differently without having an even more aggressive insurgency?

The US has conquered Iraq, in the sense of defeating and disarming its armies, executing its leader and occupying territory. The problem it has is in getting sections of the conquered populace to go a long with its designs for them. "9 years in and still at a stalemate, moving at a snail's pace" is _in spite of_ everything the US Army could do.

So again I ask you what exactly would the US do differently than what it did if it were (in your opinion) a "real" conquest? I would say that troops of another nation occupying your country for many years, and planning to stay (albeit on a reduced scale) for many more and maintaining a monopoly on heavy weaponry (tanks, planes, artillery etc) while building up a local collaborating militia is the definition of "occupation" or "conquest".

This is exactly what the Soviets did in Afghanistan, for e.g. (Iran is doing what the US did then by providing arms, motivation and ideological support to people who fight the invasion, but on a comparitively reduced scale. Nothing like the Saudi/Pakistani/US tieup that formed to help the Afghans fight the Russians). If the Americans aren't ocupying Iraq, the Soviets didn't occupy Afghanistan either and that just doesn't seem to be a sensible conclusion.

Do you have a different definition of "conquest" or "occupation"? To the rest of the world, what the US does/did in Iraq and Afghanistan does look like occupation.

As a (by and large) supporter of the United States (I'd rather see the US win than some kind of deranged Islamic theocracy, the poor Iraqis don't have any good choices) I suggest the problem is not that the US didn't occupy Iraq, it is just that the US is way in over its head wrt the *post invasion" bit of the operation. The invasion went smoothly. The post invasion occupation is where the US struggles. It is very hard if not impossible for a democracy with a free media to fight a war for very dubious ends and maintain support "back home" over 8 years with steadily mounting casualties and huge expenditure of treasure during a recession.

Coming back to your post, how (in your opinion) would a "conquest" look different? How would the insurgency go away if the US adopted different tactics? Except for massive scale concentration camps/genocide/scorched earth tactics which wouldn't be acceptable in the US or Europe or anywhere else really these days, how would it not face any less of an Islamic insurgency and/or do better?

(There seem to be hyper patriot US readers here who downvote anything that suggests the US invasion of Iraq is an occupation and the Iraqis may be somewhat justified in fighting back.

Just think of what you would do if the USA were invaded. Co operate with the invaders? Or fight back any way you could?

Interesting how some people in the US think the US troops and mercenaries like BlackWater are anything but an occupying army in Iraq.)

<comment><USER46> > Do you have a different definition of "conquest" or "occupation"? To the > rest of the world, what the US does/did in Iraq and Afghanistan does look > like occupation.

Yes, and perhaps that's why we disagree. Conquest and occupation in my mind are not the same. We are certainly occupying Iraq. 'Conquest' in my mind usually only involves simply seizing a country, which we don't seem to have done; easy examples would be Japan's attacks on China and Germany's sweep of Poland in WWII (and in Japan's case, somewhat before WWII as well), or Genghis Khan, or the Romans.

Looking up the word, it seems it means much closer to simply 'winning', but I usually use it in the sense of invading, taking and controlling. The US has largely avoided the 'taking' part, at least that I'm aware of, so it doesn't seem like conquest in my head. We are also occupying, but certainly not starting farms and such, actually _moving in_ to live there. I may be way off in some of this, but that's how I saw it. I won't attempt to refute your points; they are mostly good, and through your lens they make sense.

> the US is way in over its head wrt the *post invasion" bit of the operation. > The invasion went smoothly. The post invasion occupation is where the US > struggles.

I absolutely agree with you there. We don't seem to have worked the second step out yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Do they have a non-YouTube link with the original video they have to see its quality? I'd be interested to see if the Apache gunner has that quality of video when making decisions or if it was clearer for them. It would seem that a better video camera that showed the gunner more clearly what they were holding could have avoided this whole incident, but the fuzziness may be an artifact of YouTube itself.

</comment><comment><USER6> So if Reuters was trying to get this video via a FOIA request, and wikileaks now has it, will Reuters be writing about it? If this pops up onto the "real" mainstream it will (probably) be a big story a la Abu Ghraib, but if it remains on the internet the overall impact will be smaller. Have previous wikileaks documents made their way up the news chain?

<comment><USER16> It's all over the web:

[http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2219553/amerikanen- vermoordden-i...](http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2219553/amerikanen-vermoordden- irakezen-en-journalisten.html)

[http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/05/4117730-wik...](http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/04/05/4117730-wikileaks- posts-combat-video-from-iraq-showing-civilian-casualties)

[http://www.mediaite.com/online/wikileaks-publishes-video- of-...](http://www.mediaite.com/online/wikileaks-publishes-video-of-us- military-killing-reuters-photographer/)

And since one of the people murdered was a Reuters employee I'd wager the chances they will write about it are about 100%.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I wonder what mindset one in the military must have to shoot on unarmed carrying away wounded. I always thought that at least those people a bit higher up in the ranks had at least some moral values or ethical responsibility. I mean Joe Redneck doesn't get to fly a 20 Mio. $ Helicopter just getting out of basic training.

</comment><comment><USER51> If you had any doubts as to the important of Wikileaks, give this video ten minutes. This is cold blooded murder. Those people were clearly unarmed, and the conversation that occurs over the radio is disgusting. It was like they were begging to just pull the trigger, no matter what they were aiming at.

<comment><USER11> Don't forget that that is what soldiers are trained to do. They are trained to feel scared of the enemy and shoot to solve problems. It is not surprising that incidents like this occur, or that some soldiers go crazy and go on shooting rampages later when they come back home.

War is a sign of a world culture that is mentally ill, and being a soldier that is willing and eager to kill is a form of mental illness.

<comment><USER52> Mental illness? I'm surprised, but I suppose an idealist would think that. I'm pretty sure the fight or flight syndrome has been well documented as being in every human, not just soldiers. So, are we all mentally ill?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> A partial video is currently on the frontpage of CNN.com. They don't show the part where the helicopter crew actually opens fire, but they do show the guys on the ground and the helicopter crew saying "we've got guys with weapons... that guy's got an RPG" and such.

</comment><comment><USER54> This story toggles between dead and alive. Clearly some moderators disagree.

Most people that say this site is degrading have been here for only a short time. I just passed my 1000th day on the site. In my opinion, shit like this does not belong on this site.

<comment><USER16> 'shit like this' is a fantastic display of the power of the internet at work as a force of democracy, it is one of the worst ways of presentation that I've ever seen but it concerns all of us here in ways that we probably don't even realize yet.

Arguably this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1203545> belongs here a lot less than this article.

<comment><USER54> You obviously didn't read that lady gaga article. It is actually really interesting.

If this story were about wikileaks, and not about the iraq war video, I'd think it was appropriate.

<comment><USER16> > You obviously didn't read that lady gaga article.

I did, or at least as far as I got in to it (the 'eye in the sky'), it has _nothing_ to do with hacking or computers as far as I could tell, correct me if I'm wrong.

> It is actually really interesting.

I think you meant to say "I find it actually really interesting". It is not a finding of fact, but an opinion.

What some people find interesting is not what others will find interesting and vice versa.

> If this story were about wikileaks, and not about the iraq war video, I'd > think it was appropriate.

It is about both I think, though clearly the contents of the video are what attracts the most attention at the moment. We already know what wikileaks is, but there is definitely a lot of stuff about wikileaks in there as well. (And not all of it good for wikileaks).

<comment><USER54> Lady Gaga (and her handlers) has everything to do with hacking. Hacking pop music. That is explicitly what she is trying to do. In that context, a story about the meaning of her work (that your thoughts are controlled), is really interesting.

> It is not a finding of fact, but an opinion

You're trolling, right? Everything I say is from my point of view.

[shit like this comment thread are why I don't comment here as often as I used to]

<comment><USER16> Yes, she's 'hacking' just like that great 'hacker' Michael Jackson, and the Captain of the Greenpeace boat that sunk who was 'hacking the law'.

These are all interesting ways to try to stretch the definition of 'hacking' so something will be palatable for HN, but the fact is that they have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Wikileaks is an internet phenomenon with many real world effects, is newsworthy and not just entertainment. So in spite of my apparently losing the 'moderation' I stand by this article being about a hundred times more applicable to HN than the lady gaga article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> While I agree that the release of this video is important, I disagree with it being posted on HackerNews. We are not Reddit.

</comment><comment><USER56> A small nitpick. It's "gunsight", "gun sight" or something like it.

I sincerely hope the whole chain of command goes to jail.

</comment><comment><USER57> The first thing that came to my mind was Sivers' blog post the other day about others being a lot like us.

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm disappointed that this was killed.

<comment><USER59> Why _was_ this killed? Were commenters being assholes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> youtube link: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is9sxRfU-ik>

</comment><comment><USER61> I hope those guys never come to save my country

</comment><comment><USER62> As a tax payer, I'm not too happy about paying for these peacekeeping/war adventures in the M/E. I'm not convinced that I'm more secure because of them.

That said, in the style of warfare that exists in these areas, it's probable that innocent people will be killed. In a war, intent determines if innocent people are being killed or murdered. Can this video prove intent?

<comment><USER63> The video can prove grave incompetency. If you can't distinguish between standard photo lens [1] and a full-blown rocket-propelled grenade [2] you shouldn't be engaging in combat.

[1] - <http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/5dwlens.jpg.html> [2] - [http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/terrorist_pg7c.jpg.h...](http://collateralmurder.com/file/photos/terrorist_pg7c.jpg.html)

<comment><USER64> On of the men clearly did have an RPG. The cameras were mistaken for AK-47's. One the left as they point out the 2nd cameraman note the long tube that one of the 'innocent civilians' is carrying and leaning on the ground. It also looks to me like this is the same guy peeking out from behind the wall, the tube is too long to be a camera.

I expect that the source video for this is much cleaner than a youtube conversion, and seeing it in real life, by an experienced pilot and gunner, would make it clearer that these were not simply locals gathering to talk to a reporter.

<comment><USER65> at 3:55 the crosshairs are one a guy with what looks like an RPG (could be something else) and is clearly not a camera. I think the guy peeking out from behind the wall does have a camera with a telephoto lens and not an RPG.

<comment><USER64> Watch the mp4 ([http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder.mp4.torren...](http://collateralmurder.com/file/CollateralMurder.mp4.torrent)) or the 480p version. It is sitting on the ground as the gun camera sweeps back around and is clearly too long to be a telephoto lens.

<comment><USER65> good catch - that's no camera.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> How the heck are they able to tell which guy is which? At 5:12 you see a guy running and they pinpoint who it is, even though there's been all this smoke and you surely could not keep track of people between the moving of the camera and with all the sand and dirt in the air.

<comment><USER67> They may have been able to tell due to the position of the bodies after the attack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> View the page source. There are quotes from people like George Orwell and Dwight D. Eisenhower. I'm glad their display is none, because it's going to look really cheesy.

Edit: The full page went up and the quotes are no longer in the source.

</comment><comment><USER68> Not in our name.

</comment><comment><USER69> If you are in a war zone near people with weapons you have no right to complain if you get shot at.

You can Monday morning quarterback the scenario all day long. The fact is the pilots saw firearms and RPG's with a group of people and knew US soldiers would be the target. It's tragic but what armed conflict isn't.

<comment><USER10> When you live in a war zone, you don't really have a lot of say in wether or not you will be near people with guns. Also, are you saying that the children in the van have no right to complain?</comment></comment>


Google Cultural Institute - introducing 42 notable collections - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/#!home

<comment><AUTHOR> This is so refreshing to see. Time and time again, Google has pursued its mission of "organizing the world's information" with great care.</comment>


[FREE DOWNLOAD] Best tool for early startups to track their expenses - <AUTHOR> http://url.priceandcost.com/8qjxc <comment><AUTHOR> Any suggestion are welcome!</comment>


Major U.K. Real-Time Train Database Opens Up To More Developers - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/20/darwin-evolves/ <comment><USER2> Half-baked business idea: Train Dating

Allow people to post a profile, and to say "I am currently on this train and potentially interested in chatting to somebody". You have an audience of bored people with smartphones, you have a ready made safe public place, and if your date is not to your taste you have an automatic cut off time. You haven't wasted an evening on a date, you've just multitasked travelling and dating in a low stakes context.

Bootstrapping it to the point where people have a chance of actually finding somebody else on their train would be challenging, but that's what growth hackers are for, isn't it?

Maybe the focus should be on "meeting" / "chatting" rather than "dating". I'd suggest calling the app "Strangers on a Train", although the murder association might be off-putting for some.

Disclaimer: I am clearly not a businessman.

Edit: If anybody reading this _is_ a businessperson and seriously wants to try to make this work, feel free to get in touch with me about doing the tech side of it.

<comment><USER3> You've described Grindr, but for all sexual orientations and with more appropriate geolocation! This could actually work!

<comment><USER4> If it takes off, the potential impact on train toilet cubicles could be pretty bad. Though the queue might get more interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have always used traintimes.org.uk because of the excellent approach the developer took regarding urls: If I want to know the next trains from Leeds to York I can simply go to the address "traintimes.org.uk/Leeds/York".

The homepage suggests the data is obtained "by screenscraping the information on the official [National Rail Enquiries] site", perhaps bypassing the Darwin Database?

<comment><USER6> Cool, that looks really useful. The number of times I've had to fumble on thetrainline with patchy reception! Do you know any websites that figure out the cheapest combination of tickets to get you to your destination? (Sometimes buying several tickets for legs of your journey is cheaper than buying one ticket for it.)

<comment><USER7> [http://www.redspottedhanky.com/](http://www.redspottedhanky.com/) is supposed to be quite good for that, though I've never used it.

Never use The Train Line. They charge a booking fee. Just your local train operator, they all use exactly the same system, same database, etc but you won't pay £1 to buy the ticket.

<comment><USER6> Oh I didn't use them to book, only to check which train I needed to catch.

<comment><USER7> In that case I just use National Rail, the website is well optimised for mobile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I went to OpenTech 2013 and by far the most packed session was Peter Hicks' (Poggs) talk about open rail data[1]. I worked at Rockshore, who maintain the Network Rail datafeeds, and I remain grateful but astonished at how passionate people are about this data.

[1] [http://www.opentech.org.uk/2013/audio/streamC/session4.mp3](http://www.opentech.org.uk/2013/audio/streamC/session4.mp3)

<comment><USER9> The huge London-centric contingent of developers likely have to endure a hour- long train trip twice a day, every day. That's basically a month of their life, every year, spent in trains. Obviously they'd jump at the opportunity to improve their life, if given half the chance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> On a related note, Realtime Trains is an excellent website (and app) for showing current (and historical) train running times: [http://realtimetrains.co.uk/](http://realtimetrains.co.uk/)

It often shows platforms before they're announced in-station, which can be very handy.

<comment><USER11> I find it shows the platforms weeks in advance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just FYI, none the API doesn't function unless you include the following, hope it saves someone some time!

           default_reasons = {
               0: "leaves on the track",
               1: "vandalism",
               2: "drunk chavs",
               3: "driver being absolutely shitfaced",
               4: "solar flares",
               5: "transport police randomly deciding to stop and search everyone on board",
               6: "you having an interview",
               7: "a possible UFO sighting in Belgium",
               8: "British Rail",
               9: "lack of coffee at the previous station, so the driver has just nipped off to get some",
               10: "leaves on the track",
               11: "flooding within 300km of a railway sleeper"
           }
           delay_all_trains_by_minutes = 5
           if date.today().day % 2 == 1:
               delay_all_trains_by_minutes = random.randrange(1,30,1)
           print 'All trains will be delayed by %d minutes(s) due to %s' % \
                 (delay_all_trains_by_minutes, default_reasons[random.randrange(0,len(default_reasons),1)])

<comment><USER13> Code review:

default_reasons doesn't need to be a dict. Use a list.

You don't need random.randrange(). Use random.randint() to select a random integer and random.choice() to select a reason from default_reasons.

<comment><USER2> default_reasons seems like an odd choice of name, when there is no other kind of reasons. I'd suggest something like reason_choices or reason_options.

Edit: also I'd make it a tuple rather than either a dict or a list.

<comment><USER13> Don't make it a tuple. A tuple indicates heterogenous data (a record), while a list indicates a sequence of data.

If nothing else, use lists because the syntax means it stays as a list even if you someday remove all but one option and forget to leave a comma, eg.

      REASONS = [
        'leaves on the line'
      ]

vs

      REASONS = (
        'leaves on the line'
      )

<comment><USER2> After DDGing a bit it seems like you have a point. I did not know about that semantic difference between tuples and lists in python. It seems like this difference is entirely about the meaning conveyed to a human reader, rather than any technical difference. My guess would be that tuples are generally more efficient, but I have no actual data to back that up with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I had the first app on the iOS App Store for live UK train times back in 2008. It is no longer available for legal reasons. I wonder if this means I can rerelease it :)

<comment><USER15> I remember an early one just called 'Trains' that had a very similar stylistic look to the built-in Weather app.

Liked it a lot, was sad when it stopped working one day.

<comment><USER14> That was the one :)

<comment><USER15> Congrats, it was a great app. I hope you rerelease it. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Don't know if Tom (Real Time Trains) reads hacker news, but if you do - congrats on the mention! Obsession clearly pays.

<comment><USER17> Thank you to this article for introducing me to this amazing app / website. Scotrail's app is slow and buggy and awful, so even if the data isn't NRE, the better app alone wins this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I had an cool idea for an app: When I need a connecting service from the tube to a mainline, my phone should alert me whether I need to run for the train or if I have time for a coffee when I get close to the station. At the moment, I travel at irregular times and have to bring paper timetables around everywhere. I might even have a go at building this, if I have enough time.

</comment><comment><USER19> Great stuff! The race to build a map of the UK with trains moving around on it begins in 11 days.

I hope that we'll see an app for the UK with CityMapper levels of awesomeness soon, that would be rad. The National Rail apps built by the various train operators are missing some good stuff.

<comment><USER20> TrainTimes already has a map ([http://traintimes.org.uk/map/#bhm](http://traintimes.org.uk/map/#bhm)) although I'm not sure of their data source.

I've looked at this before and it's already doable through the network rail api ([https://datafeeds.networkrail.co.uk/](https://datafeeds.networkrail.co.uk/)), which differs from the national rail enquiries api and as far as I can remember (and can see) is free.

<comment><USER21> Playing around with it, there is room for improvement in the accuracy. Quite a few routes and stations are missing.

<comment><USER20> Yeah definitely, Edinburgh has acquired a few extra rail bridges! IIRC the network rail movement feed tells you when a train has reaching specific passing points, so there is a very granular level of data available if you want to show movements on the track.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is the gagging clause still in place? ( [https://mocko.org.uk/b/2013/02/22/you-cant-use-the-live- uk-t...](https://mocko.org.uk/b/2013/02/22/you-cant-use-the-live-uk-train- data-without-accepting-a-gagging-clause/) )

<comment><USER23> I don't know because I haven't yet seen the terms. I'll be keeping the champagne on ice until I do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Hopefully we will see the return of MyRailLite

</comment><comment><USER25> nothing about our trains is "Real Time".</comment>


House Rejects Trade Bill, Rebuffing Obama's Dramatic Appeal - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/politics/obamas-trade-bills-face-tough-battle-against-house-democrats.html <comment><USER2> Good. The secret TPP agreement is awful. See the EFF's analysis.[1] It's not about tariffs; it's a wish list for the RIAA, big pharma, and other lobbyists who want to override consumer protection laws through a trade bill.

[1] [https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp](https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp)

<comment><USER3> Don't forget big tech companies: [http://tppcoalition.org/about](http://tppcoalition.org/about) (Apple, EBay, Facebook, Microsoft, HP, Oracle, and Xerox).

<comment><USER4> Or Wall Street - the lead TPP negotiator is ex-Citibank, [http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep- wal...](http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wall-street- crony-groups-demand-transparency)

 _" Noting deep ties between the country's top trade negotiator and Wall Street banks, ten groups representing millions of Americans are calling on the White House to make public all communications between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the massive financial institutions that stand to benefit from proposed trade deals._"

More on lobbyists, [http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr- emails-...](http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-show- close-industry-involvement-in-tpp-negotiations/)

 _".. Many of the industry representatives are themselves former USTR officials ... Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and remarked, "Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules. … This is a very pleasant surprise."_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone like this - left, right or center?

Matt Drudge just posted the headline "PELOSI SAYS NO TO OBAMATRADE; TAKES BRAVE STAND FOR AMERICA" ... stuff's getting weird, man.

<comment><USER6> There's a Robert Reich article from a year ago that predicted this kind of division on issues. He says that the two new sides are "populist" vs "establishment". It looks to me like he was right.

[http://robertreich.org/post/84984296635](http://robertreich.org/post/84984296635)

It really explains a lot, like why a lot of people feel so differently about Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders, or Jeb Bush vs. Rand Paul. I think we could say that Sanders and Paul are members of a new invisible party of populists, while Bush and Clinton are members of a pro-establishment party.

<comment><USER7> Or as other people have called this: Washington DC vs Everyone else.

All presidential candidates except Paul and Sanders are firmly on the "establishment" side.

But I'm sure we'll also hear the other candidates give plenty of lip service to the populists this election cycle and turn around and forget about all that as soon as they're elected.

<comment><USER8> Actually, presidential candidate (& ex-HP CEO) Carly Fiorina came out against TPP as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't know if this agreement is good or bad but I do have an issue with any trade agreement being ratified without it being viewed first by the public. And I question the intentions of those who want an agreement passed without public review.

<comment><USER10> There _would_ be public review before voting to accept or reject. Congress would have _months_ to process it before voting.

The trade agreement would be public; only the negotiations that produced the agreement would remain confidential (so that countries can bargain and compromise more readily).

What President Obama is asking for right now is not approval of the trade deal, but the ability to make the deal. This power (trade promotion authority, or "fast track") is not new, but rather the renewal of a piece of legislation that dates back to 1974 and is standard for such trade agreements, having been in effect for most years since then.

<comment><USER11> The information you are providing, while accurate, undermines outrage and should be withheld in order to stifle business interests.

<comment><USER10> I think that was sarcasm, but to respond... I've seen key legitimate concerns mixed with misinformation and whipped into a frothy public spectacle.

Whether or not the final proposal is worth passing when it comes to vote, I would rather not encourage the use of such tactics, lest they backfire some day.

The focus upon "secrecy" also risks obscuring more pertinent criticism, especially when the final text _is_ released (if the process isn't derailed first), in which case people might wonder what the fuss was about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Roll call on TAA: [http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll361.xml](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll361.xml)

Roll call on TPA: [http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll362.xml](http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll362.xml)

The Democrats downvoted the TAA section, it will get a new vote next week and then it goes straight to the President (both have to pass at once).

<comment><USER4> The earlier Senate vote also had two iterations - the first failed, with many headline articles. The second succeeded, with less hullabaloo.

A repeat of the House TAA vote has been scheduled for next Tuesday. What could cause a change in votes between today and Tue?

<comment><USER7> This reminds me of TARP.

TARP lost 228-205 in a first vote. Then the stock market went down a bit and despite constituent phone calls being 300-1 against TARP, Congress added 448 pages (of mostly pork) to the bill and passed it anyway.

<comment><USER4> We need a good book or ten on legislative game theory/tropes, which can be cited in newspaper coverage.

 _Dear citizen, you are facing ___ because ___ years ago, bill ___ was drafted by lobbyists ___, legitimized by playbook moves ___ and approved by ___ votes. Opposing votes were reversed after playbook moves ___, also used in ___ preceding bills._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > "We want a better deal for America's workers," said Representative Nancy > Pelosi of California.

I can only imagine what this quote would say if these people spoke in truth about what they really want.

<comment><USER13> likely have constituents who work in an industry that would be threatened with greater trade integration.

Nationally a detrimental move with greater costs, but locally they might very well be better off without it.

The standard story trotted out about trade are the steel tariffs implemented by Bush 43. Highly beneficial for the small number of steel workers in the US, but an effective tax on every other consumer. Forgot the figures from way back when, but IIRC we could have paid every steel worker $2-300,000/yr for the rest of their lives and still come out far ahead as a country.

<comment><USER14> Except we don't.

The story of trade they tell in undergrad econ is that the country as a whole will benefit while individuals / individual sectors will be hurt. The country as a whole will benefit so much that we can help those that are hurt and still come out ahead. Unfortunately, this is america, so we virtually never get around to helping those that are hurt, or when we do, it's not at all effective [1]. So trade, in practice, is a transfer from those less well-off to those more well-off.

Not to mention that Obama is a liar and the purpose of this treaty is to remove worker protections. See, eg, the position of labor in vietnam: they widely oppose the TPP. We're a rich country and we can afford to not use virtual slave labor to make our clothes.

[1] [http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/in-essence/no-help- displa...](http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/in-essence/no-help-displaced- workers-0)

<comment><USER15> I think you overstate the negatives. Assuming the $300k/year/displaced worker figure is accurate, I'd guess the other important figures are more like:

* Workers currently paid on average $40k/year will lose their jobs. * They will get new jobs paying on average $60k/year * The businesses that pay them will get an extra $200k/year in profit.

I pulled those figures out of thin air, but you can play around with them and see that it's very easy for a trade agreement to be good for everyone while still being disproportionately better for the people who control the business.

<comment><USER14> You just imagineered up some data that supports your pro-trade position, then used that as proof that trade is good for everyone.

Tada!

<comment><USER15> By all means, I'd love to see some real figures.

While people can be in general better off, I still think the situation is unfair and it's reasonable to oppose the treaty just on the question of fairness, but that's a much more complicated conversation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's interesting that on this issue the democrats disagree with the president, but the GOP backs him fully.

<comment><USER16> That should be an indication of how bad an idea this is.

<comment><USER17> Wait, so is Obama still our savior? So confusing...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wait, I thought the government was bought by corporations?

<comment><USER18> There are numerous corporations that would be negatively impacted by this trade deal. It's not a white-and-black "all corporations would love this deal" type situation.

<comment><USER11> So corporations control the government but more are negatively affected by TTIP so it didn't pass? This is stretching the bounds of logic.

<comment><USER19> I don't know the details on this particular case, but its not on the face of it ridiculous.

Currently, European oil and gas corporations are pushing for a carbon tax. The reason is that they think they'd displace a lot of coal usage if both where priced accurately. In the US the coal lobby is currently stronger than the gas lobby (even with cracking).

Corporations compete, even in lobbying, sometimes this leads to surprisingly positive sounding outcome.

(I say "sounding" as its not clear if the worse-than-carbon-for-climate-change methane that gas production produces would be costed properly if gas companies are driving the "carbon" tax)</comment></comment></comment></comment>