Recent submissions

Comment · 12 years ago
Why don't you talk to joshkaufman about that "not providing any links" business, huh? But you don't, because you have a selective perception - what you do agree with does not need verification, apparently.

Here's a link for you: http://www.spiegel.de/international/amazon-seeks-fifty-perce...

Now about "childish": calling things what they are is indeed the adult way. You've been childish. And in your last post, you've also been cynical ("At least have the decency…"). Both are very bad traits. Please grow up.

Comment · 12 years ago
Well, I've read a few articles about that spat, and made up my mind. I suggest you read a few articles yourself, get ahold of the facts, and stop the way small kids argue ("monopschmopy").
Comment · 12 years ago
Bullshit. Amazon told Hachette & Co "we are granting ourselves a big discount, from now on we will pay 20% less than before. Since this is nearly a monopsony, you can agree to these terms, or loose a lot more than half of your income. But hey it's your choice... (suppressed snickers)". Amazon is not playing fair at all.
Comment · 12 years ago
How about "how the Snowden relevations changed the behaviour with online porn"?

Because I'm considering leaving all that behind. Some creepy organisation going all peeping tom on me? No thanks.

Sure this has been researched as well?

Comment · 12 years ago
Thanks for the link. While it does indeed looks nice, it's not what I had in mind. This is basically isometric 2D. You're looking at a plane. Things that rise up, like pillars, are not shown. You could not see that dam the way it really looks like in my linked picture.
Comment · 12 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
What a load of bullcrap... "where told".

If you have a equipment to down planes, it's also your duty to have the proper radar equipment to reliably see what's up there, something that those Rebels did not have. They just stole equipment out of their league, did not know how to handle it and killed 300 innocent travelers.

Comment · 12 years ago
Well, it was ambiguous to say the least, with all those "you"'s in it. If it was meant as an analogy, maybe you should have written it like this:

> This is also silly. That's like people who walk into speeding traffic because they have the right-of-way. They won't get to hear about how the trial turns out from their grave.

Comment · 12 years ago
Well, when you say

> You won't get to hear about how the trial turns out from your grave

that's equally projecting something onto me, so... that's not a great way to have a productive discussion neither.

Comment · 12 years ago
> You won't get to hear about how the trial turns out from your grave.

Well, in contrast to you, I plan to enjoy my life instead of wasting it by worrying about some possible bad actor spying on me, which is what I'm must read is how you spend your life.

Sure, fight the NSA by engaging a little bit politically, and buying the right things. But apart from that, don't worry so much, man.

Comment · 12 years ago
Comment · 12 years ago
No. That's common sense. If you don't do something on the internet, there is no data. No data = nothing suspicious.
Comment · 12 years ago
Yeah, and if you don't even have an internet connection, NSA is putting you on their most wanted list. Give me a break. Not doing something can't make you more suspicious.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton