hornokplease

There's an official Twitter add-on that enables this on earlier versions of Firefox as well:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/twitter-addre...

The story is actually from Fortune magazine (which lives on the cnn.com domain). I presume that Arrington didn't post about it on TechCrunch because he may not have been ready to make the announcement yet, if the news is in fact true.

From the linked article: Neither Arrington nor AOL responded to requests for comment. Gallagher said "no comment" when reached via phone.

Alexei Oreskovic (@lexnfx) is a journalist for Reuters covering technology

Another well-sourced story quotes BART Deputy Chief Benson H. Fairow as saying that the "flip was switched" so to speak under his authority, based on the contract that BART has with its wireless providers:

According to Fairow, the statement from BART saying that cell carriers participated in the shutoff isn't precisely it. Fairow says that language in BART's contract with carriers allows BART to "flip a switch" to cut off service for issues of safety. A spokesperson from one of SF's major wireless carriers confirms this, and says that the carriers themselves weren't involved in the shutdown.

"Ultimately, I'm the one that implemented it," said Fairow. "It was certainly run through through channels. A lot of thought went into this."

Source: http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/08/bart-cell-fcc.php

All of the reports that I have seen (including the CNet story linked above) have retracted any statement that the wireless carriers turned off the signal at BART's request.

BART's initial statement includes the following:

Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms.

Source: http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2011/news20110812.aspx

I also voted for merge. Perhaps when a comment formatted in a particular way recommending a merge receives n number of upvotes that could trigger the merge?

It's difficult because so many blogs and other news outlets in the tech media world travel in flocks. After one does some original reporting the rest jump on the story and (usually) cite the original source. However, the original source for the story doesn't always rule on HN in terms of hosting the main conversation. Sometimes this is because of the timing of the submission and sometimes one of the members of the 'flock' are higher profile and gain more knee-jerk upvotes (TechCrunch comes to mind).

Story sourced from CNBC, submitted here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2813186

Somewhat more content on the Wired post, true, although I was kind of put off by Wired's report calling Alibaba an 'obscure' company... in any case, both appear to be sourcing their information from this Penn Olson post from earlier this month:

http://www.penn-olson.com/2011/07/14/aliyun-alibaba-mobile-o...

I believe that it refers to the Eastern District of Texas, where many patent cases are filed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_fo...

Thanks. I've updated the title to indicate that it is presumed to be a hoax.

Is it best to delete entirely, or leave as is?

Hmm, could be. The notice appears as a gif here:

http://lulzsecurity.org/IPRC_Seized_2010_11.gif

The notice claims that it is acting pursuant to a warrant alleging copyright infringement, similar to recent seizures by ICE of sites related to file sharing (see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1943928), but it's unclear of the direct connection to copyright infringement by LulzSec.

Ideas?

There are also events at the Palm campus in Sunnyvale today (June 9) and next week (June 16)

http://developer.palm.com/content/community/events/webos_wor...

The story picks up and expands on topics introduced here:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2623628

Emily Chang is a reporter for Bloomberg: http://twitter.com/emilychangtv

Here's the original report from the Beijing News (translated to English from Chinese by Google): http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&rurl=transla...

Original story discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2586469

According to the report (which cites Robert Cringely), the intrusion technique involved SecurID tokens:

The slowdown began on Sunday after security experts for the company detected an intrusion to the network, according to technology blogger Robert Cringely. He said it involved the use of SecurID tokens that employees use to access Lockheed's internal network from outside its firewall.

Both the LA Times story here and the Ars Technica story that anchors the conversation you linked to both repeatedly refer to reporting by the Guardian. I wish that their report was the one driving discussions!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/18/google-eric...

It would be nice if the subject of the post (Datameer) got named in the HN headline.

Uncommon for the agency to not disclose who their client is with this kind of request (ghost writing an op-ed under the byline of an expert).

BM offered a mea culpa today that notes as much:

Now that Facebook has come forward, we can confirm that we undertook an assignment for that client.

The client requested that its name be withheld on the grounds that it was merely asking to bring publicly available information to light and such information could then be independently and easily replicated by any media. Any information brought to media attention raised fair questions, was in the public domain, and was in any event for the media to verify through independent sources.

Whatever the rationale, this was not at all standard operating procedure and is against our policies, and the assignment on those terms should have been declined. When talking to the media, we need to adhere to strict standards of transparency about clients, and this incident underscores the absolute importance of that principle.

Source: http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/b-m-says-facebook-assign...

Yes, but this article unmasked Facebook as the 'undisclosed client'

Agreed, another example of a larger tech blog picking up on reporting done by somebody else and garnering most of the attention/upvotes. The TC article had no real value-add on top of the reporting that Dan Lyons did, but it has more name-recognition on HN so apparently gets to lead the story. Frustrating!

That was probably Kuma\War and/or Kuma\War 2, who have also announced their own Osama raid map [1]

1. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385051,00.asp

This does seem a bit afield for HN, but since it is being discussed here are a few relevant links:

http://www.businessinsider.com/exclusive-qa-arrington-says-t...

Michael Arrington gave an interview to the Business Insider today where he discusses this issue, and also raises the (legitimate) point that conflicts of interest in journalism go beyond monetary investment and touch on personal relationships between journalists and the subjects they choose to write about.

http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2011/04/like...

Veteran tech journalist Tom Foremski spells out the more traditional objection to journalists investing in the industry they cover:

"It's about protecting a trusted relationship between reader and reporter, and equally important, reporter and source."

[EDIT for clarity and grammar]

As is noted in the WSJ piece :D

Here's the primary source (WSJ): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2487310

Off-topic, but it's always interesting to me to see how the big tech blogs (mashable, techcrunch, et al) can rewrite a story like this and grab the upvotes away from the original source, whether that be the publication that did the actual reporting or even a primary source like a company's blog.

I wonder if some HN users tend to reflexively upvote the mashable and techcrunch stories based on their domain?

See previous discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2484153