Hacker News Reader

Comment by kshatrea | Hacker News Reader

People need to start accepting that government != country; such people as such being called as "terrorists" or "communists" or other words that were bandied about as the bogeyman of the time are perceived as threats to the government by those most poised to profit from that government. A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious. The word "terrorist" is only the latest in a long string.

tl;dr government != country.

View on HN

Weird thing is: "Terrorism" originally referred to acts committed by a government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

I still consider that to be the case...

wow, that's irony at it's best form!

beware of: the reality distortion fields..

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

edit: I guess everyone here has already read 1984, Or at least is tired of Doublespeak.

>A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it

I guess it would surprise a lot of people that we have far more common "interests" with corporations and their success then we have opposing "interests". In other words, in most cases, the things that benefit corporations benefit the people (not everyone, always, and equally, of course).

Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me.

Run by a tiny subset of people like you and me.

The problem is most of the time companies aren't there to benefit us. Chief Exec's will give themselves massive bonuses while cutting the wages on the lower tiers. Corporations will readily use dirty tactics and lobbying to drive smaller companies out of business without any thought of the people who depend upon that business. And so on and so forth.

Corporations are not there to serve our interest, they're there to serve their shareholders interest. And unless you've got a direct dependence on said corporation (eg you work for them), then our interests aren't the same.

Corporations should never be allowed to influence on politics. Particularly not on the scale that they already do.

>"The problem is most of the time companies aren't there to benefit us."

Most of the time, huh? Look at the Forbes 500 list and point to all the companies that aren't there to benefit us.

Companies that aren't out to serve the public are few and far between, and go out of business. What a ridiculous argument.

>Corporations are not there to serve our interest, they're there to serve their shareholders interest.

And who are the shareholders? Some unknown entity? How is it that you separate "our" and "shareholder"? I'm a shareholder, and you probably are to.

>Corporations should never be allowed to influence on politics.

Corporations don't; the people within them do. Don't believe me? Try the following thought experiment:

Everybody quits working at Berkshire Hathaway tomorrow. Does the company continue to contribute to the Democratic party? How would that work, exactly?

> Most of the time, huh? Look at the Forbes 500 list and point to all the companies that aren't there to benefit us.

Companies that aren't out to serve the public are few and far between, and go out of business. What a ridiculous argument.

Providing shit services at inflated prices while pocketing all the money for yourself isn't the same as service the public interest. But for the most part - I'm ok with that. Companies are not charities. However what I'm not ok with is companies influencing politics because there's a clear conflict of interest there.

You don't grow to the size of an international corporation by being nice. It takes a degree of ruthlessness that flies in the face of the general public's best interest.

> And who are the shareholders? Some unknown entity? How is it that you separate "our" and "shareholder"? I'm a shareholder, and you probably are to.

So you're a shareholder of every single company that you are impacted by? I very much doubt you are. You'd have shares in Disney, Sony and all the other conglomerates that's crippling copyright law. You'd need shares in Apple, Samsung, Microsoft and all the other companies who abuse patent laws. Including companies who's shares are dropping because their business is failing and patents are their last stand. You'd also need shares in tobacco companies, drugs companies and every other business that lobbies with the government. For your argument that we have shares in companies as an excuse for immoral business practices benefiting the population, you'd also need shares in patent trolls.

The fact is, you get screwed over by more business than you profit from. And that's with someone like you who does have shares; most of the developed world's population don't play the stock market.

> Corporations don't; the people within them do. Don't believe me? Try the following thought experiment:

That's a dumb argument because the two are the one and the same in the context of this discussion. You can't run a company without having people within them to run it. So it's quite blatantly obvious that we're talking about the tiny minority of the population who are heading those companies (and I even categorically stated that previously). Since their position is vastly different from the average person, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss them separately - which is why they're referred to in the general sense as "companies" and "shareholders" (note that with the latter definition when used in this context it's generally used to refer to those with more than just a tiny percentage of a share)

That all said, it should be noted that individuals do perform actions they wouldn't normally agree with but do so because it's part of the companies strategy / policy. Sometimes a persons principles are sidelined by their desire to stay employed. Which is why it often makes sense to talk about a 'company' as a culture rather than a group of individuals.

Once they get on this "corporations are evil, government is evil, everything is evil!" tangent, there's no talking to them.

> Once they get on this "corporations are evil, government is evil, everything is evil!" tangent, there's no talking to them.

Nice way to dismiss my post in the most condescending way possible and without even bother to think about the point I made.

I'm not saying corporations nor governments are evil. All I said was that corporations are not interested in the well being of the average person; which they're not. The average person only matter so far as a potential source of income - and it's been proven time and time again that you don't need to respect your customers to earn their business (Sony are a great example of this - just look at the number of times they've screwed over their customers and yet how little impact it's made on their business). This doesn't make corporations 'evil', it just makes their priorities different (and anyone with even the slightest idea of how businesses work shouldn't need to be told that the priority of a business differs from the priority of an individual)

Hence my point; that since the priority of businesses are not that of the people, businesses shouldn't be allowed to influence law.

As for the government being 'evil', I'd probably say they're more a mixture of business men making decisions that are most profitable for themselves (normally an acceptable trait, but in this instance we're back at the conflict of interests argument) and the less intelligent officials who honestly believe anyone they don't understand is a dangerous threat to the United States - so they go completely overboard in their mission to protect the nation against Linux system administrators, other religions and kids who post memes on social networks. Heaven forbid they ever meet an 18 year old social network addict Muslim who works as a sysadmin; I bet some officials would probably have a heart attack.

>"and anyone with even the slightest idea of how businesses work shouldn't need to be told that the priority of a business differs from the priority of an individual"

I understand how businesses work, because I run one. We're not JP Morgan, but we do have 150 employees. How about you? We're in the health care field, we're a corporation, and we actually care about the average person. It's also how I know, through interaction, that business owners are just ordinary people, even at levels far beyond my own. Our businesses are reflections of ourselves. If you're an asshole, you'll run an unethical business. Most people aren't assholes.

You can keep your theories, I'll go with experience.

That's great, but you completely missed my point about how you don't become a multi-billion dollar CEO of an international corporation by playing nice. And since I'm talking about companies that influence politics through lobbying and what not, the need the finance and influence of companies of that scale - so I'm clearly not talking about companies as small as yourselves.

Exactly. Corporations appear to have the benefits of being persons in the US without the ethical obligations.

> Corporations are owned by people like you and me, composed of people like you and me, run by people like you and me, and paid by people like you and me.

That's really sunshiny happy and everything, but corporations and I have entirely different motives and values. I could just as easily point out that murderers, pedophiles, and (yes) Nazis are people like you and me.

>That's really sunshiny happy and everything

It's reality.

We own the shares, we work for them, we manage them, and we support them by buying their products. If we cease doing any of that, they no longer exist.

This idea that "corporations" are one thing and people are another is preposterous.

I think you might be evaluating the referent of the word "we" incorrectly.

>I think you might be evaluating the referent of the word "we" incorrectly.

I'll go out on a limb and say that every single person that participates in this forum falls under at least one of those "we".

> A government that no longer represents the people, but corporations and those that benefit by it, will threaten those that question its legitimacy as that is only obvious.

A government elected with a reasonable majority arguably represents the people who elected them.

Not represents as in "represents their interests", implying that they act on their behalf in their best interest. No, represents as in "they are the image of what those who elected them want". This is the government of people who invented playdates for their children, political corectness and consumer-driven everything. It's in line with their wishes. Government officials don't just spring out from the ground.

Unless we see a mass boycott of the next election that forces both parties to radically change their approach -- a boycott so massive that the legitimacy of the expressed vote is in question -- the elected government will really be one made in the image of its electors and, arguably, government != country will eval to false.

What is this post supposed to be? An junior high school Civics lesson? There was never any opportunity to "elect" anything to do with NSA. The NSA is a huge military-ish state security organization that was secretly and massively built up in the Cold War. It at least seems to outsiders that it served its purpose well[1]. But there is no more great enemy, and the whole lot are now struggling to remain relevant.

People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits.

[1] I've been reading a lot about NSA lately and it seems they could've got us all killed with some very provocative missions pentesting Soviet air defenses. They did manage to get dozens of pilots and air-crew killed.

The NSA did not spring out of the ground, either, and the Cold War has arguably been over since 1991 or so.

Indirect democracy makes it very easy to eschew responsibility in terms of "I had a choice between candidate X and candidate Y; they both supported decision D. I didn't support it, but since I had to vote between either X and Y, I didn't have a choice, did I?".

If the actions of the NSA were seen by American citizens as such a major concern that they would not vote for a candidate who supported it, then we'd see major votes against one of them. If all the candidates were to represent interests opposite to those of their voters, then we'd see no votes for any.

The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it. The handful of us who hang out on HackerNews aren't representative of the general populace. Ask the audience of Toddlers and Tiaras, who are probably an order of magnitude more than we are, what they think about it, and 90% of them would probably tell you something similar to "NSA? Is that like, UUUUUUUM, some football league or something?"

> People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits.

People have been boycotting elections for years -- they're only valuable when they bring the turnout below the threshold of validity, which has happened in some countries.

If US citizens feel their political or electoral system is biased, whining about it won't help -- and it looks particularly hypocritical after readily applauding the Arab spring.

> The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it.

Allow me to introduce you to two voters, A and B. Also two representatives, X and Y.

There are two issues in this campaign, D and E.

Support matrix:

   DE 
  Xyn 
  Yny

Now, A may care about both D and E, but feel more strongly about D. B may care about both D and E, but feel a bit more strongly about E. So A votes for X and B votes for Y.

You can't meaningfully infer that B "doesn't care about" D in this situation, they had to make a tough choice and preferred the other. But this binary makes it seem like they voted anti-D.

Expand to a zillion candidates and a zillion issues. You can't really get a meaningful inference, and this is assuming that everyone is 100% rational!

I'm curious how much of the perceived benefit of republic-based democracy is based in logical fallacies and myth.

Voters are irrational and on a long-term scale, growth in state power eventually leads to the circumvention of public involvement, counter to the very definition of a republic: "A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a 'public matter', not the private concern of the rulers".

Constitutions were the obvious solution to this problem but they are very rarely considered absolute law in modern times, which almost defeats their purpose. Their influence worn down over decades of tinkering and executive-branch expansions in power.

Constitutions were not the solution to the problem. An educated and engaged electorate was the solution. The Constitution was a framework for that electorate to use as a tool, but several of the founders were very clear that the essential requirement of effective government was the engaged and educated electorate.

James Madison:

  * The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the 
    only guardian of true liberty.
  * Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people 
    who mean to be their own governors, must arm 
    themselves with the power knowledge gives.
  * Learned institutions ought to be favorite objects with 
    every free people. They throw that light over the 
    public mind which is the best security against crafty 
    and dangerous encroachments on the public liberty.

Thomas Jefferson:

  * Every government degenerates when trusted to the 
    rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, 
    therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to 
    render them safe, their minds must be improved to a 
    certain degree.
  * Above all things I hope the education of the common 
    people will be attended to ; convinced that on their 
    good sense we may rely with the most security for the 
    preservation of a due degree of liberty.
  * I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of 
    the society, but the people themselves: and if we 
    think them not enlightened enough to exercise their 
    controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, 
    not to take it from them, but to inform their 
    discretion by education. this is the true corrective 
    of abuses of constitutional power.

>If the actions of the NSA were seen by American citizens as such a major concern that they would not vote for a candidate who supported it, then we'd see major votes against one of them. If all the candidates were to represent interests opposite to those of their voters, then we'd see no votes for any.

You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem.

>The fact that we keep seeing these votes is simply a proof of the fact that most people don't really care about it.

It is proof of no such thing. Most people are happy to leave well enough alone when they don't see a problem. NSA surveillance has never been a serious issue in a national campaign. Until recently, anyone who expressed too much interest in domestic surveillance of citizens was a tinfoil hat wearing crackpot.

> The handful of us who hang out on HackerNews aren't representative of the general populace.

So? The populace is a composite of many factions. Some people even have mixed political philosophies.

> Ask the audience of Toddlers and Tiaras, who are probably an order of magnitude more than we are, what they think about it, and 90% of them would probably tell you something similar to "NSA? Is that like, UUUUUUUM, some football league or something?"

The media is the reason for this. I wish I had some good idea that wasn't completely at odds with democratic principles.

>> People have been boycotting elections for years. That only makes it easier for the radical fringes to their their crap on the agenda and for politicians to focus on those low-hanging fruits. >People have been boycotting elections for years -- they're only valuable when they bring the turnout below the threshold of validity, which has happened in some countries.

Well, that isn't going to happen, ever, or at least until the "Toddlers and Tiaras" crowd has some political motivation other than ["ZOMG Abortion", "ZOMG Teh Gays", "ZOMG Illegal Mexicans in our jerbs"]

>If US citizens feel their political or electoral system is biased, whining about it won't help -- and it looks particularly hypocritical after readily applauding the Arab spring.

Whining about politics is as great an American tradition as Apple Pie.

>The media is the reason for this.

I don't quite follow. It's not like there is some naturally occurring flow of newspapers, radio and television broadcasts that discuss with the correct, important issues in an intelligent way, and some sort of cabal (the media) has come in and suppressed all that so they could force toddlers and tiaras down their throats.

There are plenty of news outlets that are spending their money to broadcast the details of the NSA scandal as accurately as possible, and if people happen to find those outlets on their TVs, they change the channel to toddlers and tiaras as quickly as possible. Which goes back to the original (I think correct) point that most people don't find this particular issue as dire as many people think they should.

I knew that comment would open a can of worms. One might also argue that the shabby quality of education has a bit to do with it as well.

>I don't quite follow. It's not like there is some naturally occurring flow of newspapers, radio and television broadcasts that discuss with the correct, important issues in an intelligent way,

The ownership of media in the US is not as diverse as you might think. The content is also not (at least IMO) as diverse as it would be absent improper influence.

>and some sort of cabal (the media) has come in and suppressed all that

Would you believe Carl Bernstein if he told you that the CIA had operatives at all levels of major news media outlets within the US, and a history of manipulating the news? http://carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

If not him, have a look at the Church Committee reports on intelligence activities along the same theme.

Neither is proof that the activities were continued after being caught red-handed, but, it is enough that I would consider naive the notion that the gov't/intel community had completely ceased such activities, as opposed to just being more careful. As far as I am concerned, given the past (the part that is public record) the possibility that the gov't/intel community aren't still successfully manipulating domestic media coverage can't be dismissed without a credible investigation, or credible oversight, or something to that effect. To put it another way, public exposure of NSA activities is being treated by NSA as a threat to their continued operations; and they will use the tools in their arsenal to fight that threat.

> so they could force toddlers and tiaras down their throats.

If you have a monopoly/oligopoly/cartel in a market, you can feed your customers pretty much anything, and still make a living.

> You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem.

I don't think I have. Blatant breaches of something that voters perceive to be a fundamental right of theirs should be a dealbreaker; I am fairly sure that a candidate whose otherwise great agenda would include items like stoping state financing of any educational institution, explicitly forbidding any kind of health care for patients over fifty (you can pick any criteria here), explicitly introducing media censorship or punishing adherence to Catholicism with jail wouldn't get too many votes from mentally-sane voters.

It sounds fairly logical to assume that most American citizens are ignorant enough about their dignity, the meaning of being human or about who they are voting for that they don't perceive acts of support for such breaches of their rights to be a dealbreaker.

I'm not saying this is good or bad -- Americans seem to be happy enough not to do much about it, so if it floats their boat, it's awesome -- I'm just arguing that it is representative for them.

>The media is the reason for this. I wish I had some good idea that wasn't completely at odds with democratic principles.

Perhaps one of the problems with America today is that the right to broadcast whatever nonsense across the airwaves is considered a democratic principle.

Seems to me that those of us who worry about the likes of NSA data slurping are the "radical fringe". That uniformed Muppet certainly seems to think so.

Writing off minorities as radicals is their game, not mine. You just played right in to the hands of the likes of Hayden. See how divide and rule works?

>You just played right in to the hands of the likes of Hayden. See how divide and rule works?

Aww come on, can't we have a little debate with our coffee? Maybe we'll eventually converge on some action that gets an optimal level of support within our cohort.

I did vote for a candidate in 2008 who opposed the Bush administration's massive build-up of surveillance infrastructure: Obama. By 2012, it was clear he wasn't following through, but the other candidate on offer would almost certainly have been, on balance, a whole lot worse --- and a bad choice is still a choice.

When, in office, has Obama been representing what I want, in this regard, and when do you think I had an opportunity to change that through the ballot box?

"I did vote for a candidate in 2008 who opposed the Bush administration's massive build-up of surveillance infrastructure: Obama"

Did you have any reason to think that was true, other than what Obama was saying at the time?

"the other candidate"

Which other candidate? Here are some of the people who were running in the 2008 election:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_...

You had a lot of choices then. You also had a lot of choices in 2012:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_...

Did you have any reason to think that was true, other than what Obama was saying at the time?

You mean, like, his voting record in Congress?

Who did you vote for in the 2008 and 2012 primaries?

Your complaint here is a false dichotomy. We have many more choices than vote for candidate R or vote for candidate D, especially when you consider that each party had at least one fairly close primary in the last eight years.

"but the other candidate on offer..."

There were multiple other candidates on offer. Furthermore, you can write in a candidate or even choose to not vote.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

H. L. Mencken

Democracy in Practice:

People elect representatives that were supposed to represent them, these representatives are, in reality, puppets fabricated and promoted by the corporate and elite's money, and once elected, the power and influence obtained are not being used to defend the common but the interest of those already in power.

So in practice Democracy has a backdoor that allows it to be hijacked and until it is fixed we will keep being represented by no one.

Maybe democracy would be "more real" if we forbid the corporate money in political campaigns and also limit the amount of money each individual can donate, bringing everybody to the same level could result in no masters of puppets.

> represents as in "they are the image of what those who elected them want"

I don't vote for who I want, I look at who has a chance of winning and vote for the lesser evil, because any other vote is practically meaningless.

(Our voting system is stupid)

No. 100x no. That is how to waste your vote.

Voting for the "lesser evil" is only a good idea when the "greater evil" is so great that they will destroy the country. That has never been the case.

Voting for the "lesser evil" is actually worse than not voting at all because it tells the parties that being evil still gets them votes.

The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough votes. If you want change that the duopoly does not offer then you must vote your conscience even if it means that this "greater evil" person will win. Because in the long run the party that lost will have to incorporate the policies of the 3rd parties that are "stealing" their votes the next time around.

I suspect that most people vote similarly.

>The only way political parties in the US change is through threat of losing enough votes. If you want change that the duopoly does not offer then you must vote your conscience even if it means that this "greater evil" person will win. Because in the long run the party that lost will have to incorporate the policies of the 3rd parties that are "stealing" their votes the next time around.

A person gets a chance to vote in ~14-15 elections, realistically fewer than that. A person also has to coordinate their non-standard voting plan with others. I just don't think there are enough iterations for that to happen. Communication via the internet might change that, but I am skeptical.

Coordination between voters is unnecessary. The job of the 3rd parties is to communicate their issues - that plus vote tallies is enough to make it pretty clear what issues the duopoly need to incorporate into their platforms.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I am also skeptical about the claim that Obama is a better president than McCain or Romney would have been. We still have soldiers doing police work. We still have suspensions of civil rights. We still have powerful corporations running the show. We still have the military industrial complex. We also have some new twists, like the crack-downs on whistleblowers, the assassination of US citizens, etc.

Voting for a lesser evil is still voting for evil. You can always choose not to vote or vote for a candidate that does not have a chance of winning.

Voting for a third party candidate who does not have a chance of winning also increases their voter base, which in turn increases their funding for subsequent years.

We might not be able to elect a libertarian, green, constitution, or whig president in 2016, but just as the erosion of our freedoms has taken decades, we'll have to rebuild everything just as slowly. Vote for your preferred candidate this primary. You may not be on "the winning team" today, but you're sending a message that the status quo is not what we want.

To see how incorrect that statement is, look at every other democracy in the world. Only two two-party democracies. Every other democratic country but like Jamaica is 3 parties or greater.

This is a bad policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

I am an Indian so I wasn't referring to the US in particular although my bad that I didn't make it clear.

Well, the voting system is not necessarily perfect, at least not here. In my country there are sects where people sell their votes for alcohol. I stand by my assertion that government != country on a philosophical level if not a practical one.

The principles are the same whether in India or the U.S. I'm in agreement with you, however, "government != country".

>the legitimacy of the expressed vote is in question

Like we had with the Bush v.s. Al Gore election?

Like that has any relevance. This shit has been going on at least since Nixon and perhaps before. They are all 2 sides of the same coin.

This whole idea is largely broken, depending on your perspective. IF we had proportional representation in the US, I might agree that at least a handful of elected federal level reps can legitimately claim to "represent" me, but as of today, I will claim that not a single member of the federal government represents me... certainly there isn't a single member serving in congress or any other federal office, that I voted for, or would claim as my representative.

> Unless we see a mass boycott of the next election that forces both parties to radically change their approach

A mass boycott would do nothing in terms of change. It is the political equivalent of letting a child eat as much ice cream it wants because you think it'll somehow think "too much" for you is "too much" to them.

Completely off-topic but I've this a few times now in different places. I'll come to the end of what I'm reading and there'll be a tl;dr at the frickin' _end_ of it! Isn't it supposed to be right up front so that if I am incredibly lazy and trusting I can just slurp the tl;dr and move on? When placed at the end is its meaning changed to something like "to summarize" or "in summation" ???

It used to be an insult. You would post it, and it alone underneath someone's 2500 word paragraphless wall of text as a way of saying "your verbosity is massively out of proportion to the significance of your thoughts, and in general you are so uninteresting that I can't even be bothered to use entire words."

It was often to be seen on SA under some teenaged nerds verbose essay about how much the people at their high school sucked. In that way, it was the original "cool story bro."

This original meaning is why the following image is funny: http://c.cslacker.com/3910l.jpg The joke doesn't work with the new usage.

At some point it flipped around and became a way of expressing one's tiny attention span.

"tl;dr" goes at the end; that's just the way it is. The "d" is for "didn't", not, for example, "won't".

I first noticed it on reddit years ago, appended to a lengthy comment. However, it seems that it may have originated in Wikipedia article discussions (according to Wikipedia...) as a shorthand _response_ to a lengthy comment. Perhaps, there was a transition period where someone wrote a lot of text, realized that the response would be a "tl;dr", and then just added it themselves instead.

This construction

    {{point}}; {{elaboration}}

    tl;dr: {{point}}

is about as redundant as it gets.

For what it's worth, I take that form of "tl;dr" as emphasis, not as a literal tl;dr.

> For what it's worth, I take that form of "tl;dr" as emphasis, not as a literal tl;dr.

This.

I've been inured to using it in that way as well. I see the criticism above as a valid one though.

I've always found that construct weird. I tend to use "tl;wr" (the "w" standing for "won't", instead of "didn't"), at the top.

Also known as "executive summary"...

Cngratulations, you've unlocked the Jr High essay achievement.

  * tell me what you're going to say
  * say it
  * tell them what you said

Only on HN would you get a bunch of hackers going off on a tangent about the proper use of tl;dr right in the middle of a discussion about whether hackers and activists should be considered potential terrorists. :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com