Funny, I had a line that said "Schneier's original, substantive pieces are fine, of course" which I deleted as unnecessary. Perhaps I'll err the other way and write too much.
"Blogspam" is an attribute of an article, not an author [1]. I defined it above, and even included "or excerpt" to cover the current case.
I enjoy reading Schneier. Many of his articles are on-topic for HN. But the more lightweight ones often aren't (because there are more solid sources and we only want so many about a given topic). As for as a mere excerpt like this, there shouldn't even be a question.
None of this means these pieces aren't appropriate on Schneier's site. It's natural for his blog to be a clearinghouse for stuff he didn't write, but wants to share. Not all of it, though, is perfect for HN, where (a) the front page is space-constrained; (b) we want the most substantive pieces on a given story; (c) we prefer original sources.
1. Had I said "spamblog", you'd have had a point. :)
"Blogspam" is an attribute of an article, not an author [1]. I defined it above, and even included "or excerpt" to cover the current case.
I enjoy reading Schneier. Many of his articles are on-topic for HN. But the more lightweight ones often aren't (because there are more solid sources and we only want so many about a given topic). As for as a mere excerpt like this, there shouldn't even be a question.
None of this means these pieces aren't appropriate on Schneier's site. It's natural for his blog to be a clearinghouse for stuff he didn't write, but wants to share. Not all of it, though, is perfect for HN, where (a) the front page is space-constrained; (b) we want the most substantive pieces on a given story; (c) we prefer original sources.
1. Had I said "spamblog", you'd have had a point. :)