meragrin

It seems to be there now. Not sure why one is pro and the other one not.

http://arduino.cc/en/Main/ArduinoBoardZero

How many of those were high ranking federal officials with access to confidential material at the time and have ambitions for running for President?

None of those even begin to reach the level of Clinton's conduct. She conducted ALL communications through the private email. None of the above used private emails exclusive. Most of them don't even sound like they used the private emails the majority of the time.

This is just an attempt at associating a larger issue with a bunch of smaller ones so people will think of it as a minor one.

Clicking through the links and a little bit of searching, this seems to be closer to the original source:

http://tech.163.com/15/0304/02/AJR1IG2P000915BE.html

There are no claims of boosting battery life by 50%.

China wants to go further than the U.S. From the article:

"requires companies to also keep servers and user data within China, supply law enforcement authorities with communications records and censor terrorism-related Internet content."

Last I checked, the U.S. does not require companies to keep servers and user data within the U.S. or censor terrorism-related content.

Even if they didn't have a large enough budget, they have enough exposure, popularity, and structure to draw in people to contribute for free.

I couldn't see the white/gold until I saw a much smaller and heavily cropped version of the picture. After it enlarged some, it just became the blue/black dress again even in the smaller form.

I was thinking WTF myself until seeing a heavily cropped and shrunk version on Google News. Once it grew, it just became the blue and black dress even when it shrank back down.

I can only guess that those who do see it as a white and gold have a brain the is wired to analyze areas smaller than the dress or in low detail.

How would you characterize them then?

I'll give you that one person easily fits the bill. The rest I'm just not seeing it. I'm not sure how you can get anything out of 'time will tell'. Two where just arguing against the blanket labeling of green members as astroturfers. One of the parents wasn't even arguing against NN, but the way this decision acheives it. Other than that one person where is the astroturfing from the green members?

Do you consider me an anti-NN astroturfer even though I have yet to comment on the decision?

I'm not seeing that pattern. I've seen a total of 7 green members on this topic. That to me isn't all that unusual. The vast majority of green I saw was for NN. Are you saying HN is against NN? I thought HN was for NN.

Here's the breakdown of new accounts I noticed:

4 for NN (not necessarily for the FCC action) 1 against 1 unknown 1 ambiguous

Unless you have a different definition of new account, it is not even close to 'all but universally'.

Edit: I'm still not seeing how your edit applies. There was only one new person I saw that would even come close to 'parroting discredited anti-neutrality talking points'.

> PS: The accusations of astroturfing on HN are a vile sort of rhetorical tactic.

I'm glad someone with a history agrees.

How is it relevant information that a certain topic brought in a new person? I could understand it if the person had been around a few years and only commented on that topic, but a new person could be just a recently inspired person.

Why would people want to stick around and be a productive member if they are immediately branded as a shill?

This topic has certainly brought out the worst. It seems like everyone is accusing everyone of being an astroturfing shill.