The future of CSS layouts - <AUTHOR> http://www.netmagazine.com/features/future-css-layouts

<comment><USER2> Finally we're getting back what <table> gave us years ago.

<comment><USER3> Nested tables worked, but they were incredibly hard to write/edit by hand. This gives us a way of using those layout concepts while still maintaining some separation of document structure and layout definition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm really not enthused about bringing multiple column layouts to the web. Yes, they are a staple of print - so is getting newspaper print on my hands. Should we be building USB fingertip-dirtyers? Multi-column layouts are a case of humans having to adapt to the constraints of the medium; as we move to the future, our content should be bending to our will, and not the other way around.

<comment><USER5> The problem is that we're not in 640x480 world anymore. We're rapidly leaving 960px-width-world. Our displays are finally getting denser (which lets us use smaller font sizes successfully) and wider.

And the desire to avoid 120-character-wide columns isn't some arbitrary fetish of print design. Over-width columns actively hinder readability. Robert Bringhurst:

 _Anything from 45 to 75 characters is widely regarded as a satisfactory length of line for a single-column page set in a serifed typeface in a text size. The 66-character line (counting both letters and spaces) is widely regarded as ideal. For multiple-column work, a better average is 40 to 50 characters._

 _If the type is well set and printed, lines of 85 or 90 characters will pose no problem in discontinuous texts, such as bibliographies, or, with generous leading, in footnotes. But even with generous leading, a line that averages more than 75 or 80 characters is likely to be too long for continuous reading._

These typographical rules of thumb are ultimately derived from human physiology -- limiting the range through which the eye has to skip left and right makes reading more relaxing, and the mental act of trying to go from the right edge of a mile-wide paragraph to the left edge without losing one's place is fatiguing. [1]

Up to now web designers have coped by forcing a single column, forcing that column to be of limited width, and just padding out the remaining width with navigation elements or whitespace. But the whitespace begins to look ridiculous when it's 80% of the width of the screen.

So we're probably going to see more instances of successful multi-column layouts. This is likely to break continuous scrolling, but on a device which supports useful multi-column layouts you'll probably be okay with page-by-page scrolling. Or, well, not. We shall see.

\---

[1] I highly recommend resizing the HN screen if you want to read one of my doorstopper comments. ;)

<comment><USER4> Oh, I know full well that narrow columns are easier to read. I'm just not convinced that jumping from the bottom of one column to the top of the next is easier than scrolling and thus reducing vertical and lateral movement of the eyes. To me it seems optimal to reduce eye movement, but in fairness I am just assuming that is the case and drawing my conclusions from that assumption.

<comment><USER6> Most of the cases where I've wanted to use multi-column layouts were cases where that would let all my content be on one page. The benefits to all your content being visible at once are pretty great, so I'm happy newer CSS specs help.

<comment><USER4> I'll have to have a play with it then :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a front-end designer, I'm excited to see the flexible-box model creep into existence. It'd be nice to do a fluid layout without having to do a bunch of workarounds. Excited to know that we'll soon be able to escape the dark past that has been the web (hacks, bloated markup, extra stylesheets, etc). The only thing missing: Microsoft should make browser upgrades mandatory after a certain period of time, as should everyone else. Granted, this may cause some issues but what would the major drawbacks be (extra work for IT depts. doesn't count)?

<comment><USER8> The backlash for ending support for Windows XP early and getting everyone to upgrade to Vista was huge. Microsoft bowed to all the corporate customer pressure and extended support for XP. Given all the web apps that are made for older browsers, I can imagine a similar backlash easily, though I don't know whether it would be on the same scale. But I can definitely imagine it being enough for Microsoft to back off from such a decision. No harm, no foul is the safest route for Microsoft to go.

<comment><USER7> Sure it's safe. But that's because people are lazy. Taking your example of web apps for older browsers, shouldn't the teams behind those products be upgrading them anyways or at the very least trying?

<comment><USER8> When there are better things to do, there are better things to do. When it's not broke, don't fix it. Spolsky's arguments about why Netscape 6 was a bad idea applies very easily to enterprise web apps where code bases have no application outside of that particular organization, and so it's even harder to modify things.

edit: There's something in many corporations called the hurdle rate. All projects have to provide a financial return that is above the hurdle rate. Updating web apps to work on newer browsers does not easily compute to surpassing the hurdle rate because you did nothing to add new functionality/productivity. So it's very hard to get funding for this kind of work in many organizations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The 'grid' element is very neat. Basically, it's <table>s, but in CSS, which is where they should be.

Also interesting is that Adobe is taking a front-and-centre role in the new CSS. Forward thinking of them to see the writing on the wall.

<comment><USER10> Did I miss something? How are Adobe front and centre? They don't have a browser... I'd say Google/Apple/Mozilla are taking front and centre, with Adobe trying to come up with new tricks to fend off the inevitable death of flash.

<comment><USER11> How exactly is Adobe making proposals to the CSS standard going to fend off the "inevitable death" of Flash? One has very little to do with the other. Is it so easily forgotten that Adobe has tools other than Flash? Ever heard of Dreamweaver?

Plus there are numerous companies involved in creating the HTML and CSS standards that are front and center that are not involved in creating a browser. Take your blinders off.

<comment><USER10> I'm the one with blinders? - Seriously?

The browsers implement the standards... hence the front and centre. IE defined the "standard" for a long time (and still does).

Dreamweaver is a horrible example of 'front and centre' of HTML/CSS. It creates horrible markup.

None of Adobe's other products are at all related to HTML/CSS (Edge aside).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love the new grid - this is going to make design so much easier, eg. 'i want a header, three columns, and a footer' no longer requires 150+ lines of markup.

and it should be possible to write a shim for it for older browsers and bring the new syntax to existing browsers now (or, as soon as the standard is ratified)

the sooner we can do away with the old css layout techniques, the better.

<comment><USER13> 150+ line of CSS means you are doing something very wrong. That could easily be done in a lot less.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I find column layouts useful, expecially for "hacking" purposes. A while ago I attempted something you can check here

<http://tilt2k.github.com/ressays/>

Point to an Essay from the menu, with a CSS3 compatible browser you'll see an easy frontend pagination with very little struggle.

</comment><comment><USER11> I cannot say how badly I want that positioned float.

</comment><comment><USER14> the horizontal scroll will finally have its day

</comment><comment><USER15> We need to do something big to get rid of old browsers so we can all move forward and start using this stuff. We need real progress.

If there were a law that mandated upgrading browsers that were _out of date_ (by whatever definition you think works) what would that law look like? How would it work?

I ask, because if anyone comes up with something that could work, then we can all start pestering our politicians to put it into action.

It might be a complete non starter of an idea, but I'm so tired of seeing all these awesome time saving HTML5 tricks I cant use, it's got to be worth a shot.

<comment><USER16> Probably the FCC would regulate browsers. In addition to wasting developers' time filing reports and talking to government employees, the regulating body would add more restrictions on browsers, possibly even mandating they be used to report undesirable activity. I think it's worse than a non-starter of an idea -- it would slow browser development and turn browsers into weapons against free use of the Internet.

<comment><USER15> I don't understand how you can make that jump. Its true that a badly thought through law could open the door to that sort of activity, but that's not guaranteed.

Also, I see reason to "regulate" browsers. Lets say the law was this....

"A person may not connect to the internet using a browser more than two whole number versions behind the latest production version for that particular browser."

Here we have a rule which leaves browser vendors free to pursue whichever route they see fit, with no need to supply any sort of reporting or speaking to government officials. Nor need it be enforced. For example, here in the UK we have laws which ensure web accessibility as part of the Equality Act:

[http://www.rnib.org.uk/professionals/webaccessibility/lawsan...](http://www.rnib.org.uk/professionals/webaccessibility/lawsandstandards/Pages/uk_law.aspx)

Now this law is not being enforced, but if you work in web design or development in the UK, you have undoubtedly felt it's repercussions as clients demand increasingly higher compliance ratings. This has been unquestionably good for the state of the web, at least here in the UK.

Or perhaps there's a national security angle to take, or even an accessibility angle (I believe IE6 and 7 can't increase pixel font sizes). Maybe there's an existing law that is somehow being breached by the mere existence of IE6 & 7....

I suppose what I was asking was "Is there a creative way to mandate modern browsers in law".

<comment><USER16> If you follow US policy regarding the Internet since 9/11, you can should be able to see how browser regulation could be abused or at least slow development with red tape...and you were speculating, so it's okay for me to do that too.

If you really meant that Congress or the FCC should make a suggestion to stop using old browsers, that is completely different. It would be followed to the degree that IT departments could afford to upgrade old computers, conduct training and whatnot.

It's interesting you mention that UK developers are very compliance-conscious. Perhaps I misunderstand, but every rule that must be complied with increases the development cost of a project, and I believe the reason you want every browser to support IE8 is you want to save development time. If I understand you right, you want to shift your time burden onto browser developers and IT departments, the reverse of the current UK situation you support where the compliance burden is shifted from the IT departments to the web developers!

<comment><USER15> I think you're making some huge leaps of imagination there. It seems your starting with the assumption that laws can only introduce red tape and slow things down. While this is certainly possible, it's not inherent. It is absolutely possible to draft rules, or policies in such a way as to reduce red tape. Take for example Van Halen's policy on M&Ms

<http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/vanhalen.asp>

While not in the political sphere, it demonstrates perfectly how a well thought out policy can reduce complexity while still delivering results.

Any attempt to argue that this has no bearing in a political context serves only to illustrate a complete and utter lack of imagination. _Once people know the M &M trick, it becomes useless... but M&M's are one example of that technique. Next time, it could be Alphabet Spaghetti with all the A letters removed._

Also, what new training would be needed in order to work with modern browsers? People who need training on how to use a modern browser require training of a completely different sort. Since when did "borderline-retarded" become our baseline?

Accessibility laws here in the UK have actually made development easier as it has created an environment where developers have a much bigger input in the design process as they can cast an expert eye over concepts and raise concerns at a very early stage. This isn't about removing features, it's about building features that work properly.

Nor is it reasonable to class IE8 as a modern browser. IE9 is almost there, but I don't think IE can be classed as "modern" until IE10.

Nor do you understand me right. I don't want to shift my time time burden onto anyone, I want to do more in the time I have. IT departments make the call on what browsers their users can use, so it's reasonable to shift some of the _support burden_ onto them.

Any talk of "internal systems" that depend on ActiveX and the like demonstrate a lack of investment in technology. Why should we (the human race) be anchored to the past by people who are unwilling to invest in the future, despite reaping the benefits of other peoples investments. It stinks to me. Browsers are free. Modern browsers are easier to support. modern browsers are more secure. Modern browsers increase productivity. Modern browsers have low system requirements. There's no real excuse for not using them.

But lets carry on as we are. It's been working crap so far, but let's soldier on at a snails pace. With any luck, we'll be able to stop supporting IE7 sometime around the point we all retire. And heaven forbid we explore any new angles on how to push things forward, even if it's just out of pure interest, because that's wrong... apparently.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Indian Immigrants Are Saving Canadian Hockey - <AUTHOR> https://reason.com/2020/01/05/indian-immigrants-are-saving-canadian-hockey/ <comment><USER2> I was interested to discover recently a South-Asian-oriented show for San Jose Sharks fans on a local cable access channel. The only branding said "IND TV". They seem to have some degree of approval from the Sharks, as they did remote taping and interviews inside the SAP Center itself.

For the last 10 years or so, the Sharks have done a very poor job of outreach to nontraditional hockey audiences on their own. What the Predators and Golden Knights did in their respective markets should serve as models on how to boost interest and attendance.

Despite the huge increase in population and disposable income in the past 25 years, the Sharks' attendance is _well below_ that of, say, 23 years ago, when the team was _awful_ but the building was full. They didn't even sell out the Stanley Cup Finals!</comment>


Debugging in Clojure: Thoughts - <AUTHOR> http://brownsofa.org/blog/2014/07/17/debugging-in-clojure-thoughts/

<comment><USER2> I wrote a slightly more practically-minded follow-up: [http://brownsofa.org/blog/2014/08/03/debugging-in-clojure- to...](http://brownsofa.org/blog/2014/08/03/debugging-in-clojure-tools/)</comment>


John Carmack Reviews Bazaar on GearVR - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1717273305173846&id=100006735798590 <comment><USER2> "This is a bit strange coming from me, but being in VR, I wanted to feel a bit more lore in the game. [...] A deft design touch with some names, iconography, and maybe a little voice acting could hint at a richness that you might choose to explore in the future."

The end is nigh.

</comment><comment><USER3> love it how this guy goes into such detail</comment>


Ask HN: Any volunteers for Guaranteed Basic Income Non-Profit?  - <AUTHOR>

I'm a huge fan of this idea, as I love how it empowers people--when all people receive equal income, they no-longer have the 'I'm a loser collecting a handout' mentality. People will feel better about themselves, and seek to rise above their station. -- People spend hours in unemployment lines, and collecting foodstamps, and going through hoops that they could spend on education, or applying for jobs, or starting new businesses.
Entrepreneurs will have more expendable income and time freedom to go out and start something awesome.
The icing on the cake is that it won't cost anymore than we're currently spending, and a lot of sound studies point to the fact that it could actually end poverty once and for all!
I'm wanting to get some bright minds together to start an initiative to get the ball rolling.
Here are some phases:  1 : Build website/media channels to get the word out and explain in idiot-proof terms what it is, and why people should talk to their congressmen about it.
2 : Get politicians on board--as far as I can tell, this is something that MANY libertarians are behind, lots of democrats, and even conservatives like. It's a NON partisan issue, which means if we can get a respectable member from each party on board we could build some strong momentum.
3 : Collect donations to get the word out, and collect signatures in support of the initiative, and build an email/mail congress system to contact politicians and get the word out.
If you're onboard, send me an email  : email@example.com <comment><USER2> I thought about this many years ago. It occurred to me that it could be put under the purview of the Federal Reserve Bank. Each citizen would become a stock holder of the Fed, owning one non-transferable share. Each stock would pay a monthly dividend and hence a basic income for all.

Few people know that right now there are already share holders in the Federal Reserve. They get paid 6% on their money guaranteed by law. Hence the Fed has incentive to keep inflation below this threshold. Lets use this as a template for every citizen. If a "basic income" was pegged to a 20hr part-time job at minimum wage, that would be approx $6000/yr. That amount is 6% of $100,000. So if the Government invested $100,000 per citizen in the Fed, that would cover it. With 200,000,000 million adults that comes to a total of $20 trillion. Now we can use another clever idea... the Treasury can just print two $10 trillion dollar coins, pay the Fed with it and issue each stock in the name of every citizen (based on SS). And the matter is all but done. This transaction is essentially the same as the current issuance of Federal bonds. So it is a simple precedence to follow. (Note, as the minimum wage gets raised, the Government adds additional funds, about $1 billion for every quarter raise.)

<comment><USER3> Fantastically informative post. I learned.

As a slight addition, by eliminating only cost-based social programs like welfare, SNAP, etc., it would free up enough in spending to pay each adult citizen in the US approximately $12k per year, and probably more, because the administration costs should be less for one program vs. the many.

That amount could be added to the kitty as well.

I'm still on the fence as to whether or not we _should_ have a basic income. I vastly prefer it to the deeply flawed social programs in place, and I suspect that any implementation we'd get from our government would be deeply flawed as well, or either progressive/regressive/broken in some way, but I don't know if I'm on board with the actual idea of it -- that said, it's very, very compelling, and your approach seems rational, Constitutionally valid, and practically, very workable.

<comment><USER4> Printing $20 trillion and issuing stock with neither resource (gold, silver, any rare or precious material) backing it will cause immediate devaluation of the existing currency and rapid inflation.

Issuing $20 trillion in stock with no service or commodity backing it will cause a rapid drop in the value of the stock, as there will be no demand for the stock.

If you use the $20t in stock to back the $20t in new currency, you're looking at a very rapid collapse in the economy. If you do this in the US, which is still currently the base for the global economy, you're talking about tanking everything. Once, or if, China or the EU trading zone become a more stable alternative foundation, it might not cause as much damage, but you're still looking at a sudden upheaval with this plan.

The alternative, of course, is to use the /people/ as the commodity or precious resource underpinning the 20 trillion dollars, but then we're talking about legitimate slavery. No, thank you.

I'm open to alternative ideas on how to back the investment and guaranteed income. I just see a hole in your current plan, that perhaps you've already thought about and covered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like the idea, but I'm not sure this can work. The first thing you should do is try to poke as many holes in this idea as possible, then close them and build the case as to why this would work. One problem I see is that it might hyperfocus demand toward a small number of base consumption items _if_ a larger than anticipated number of recipients do decide to not work. This could inflate the price of these basic items and put the poorest in society back into the same boat of not having quite enough money to sustain themselves (having to pay the higher price for goods that they previously could afford etc). Then, we'd have to revisit raising the basic income level every 3-5 years instead of 8-12 years. Along with ridiculous debt ceiling fights, we'd also have basic income fights.

If it's set up to avoid these fights by being indexed to the rate of inflation, people will lose ground over the long haul, since wages tend to rise faster than inflation (and if we index it to wages, it creates a problem currently being discussed with respect to social security) and those pressures from wages might ultimately drive the price of goods out of reach for those who rely on their basic income.

You might also see irrational behavior on the part of some recipients, where they buy nonessential items (iphones, hdtvs, etc) and choose to go hungry or even homeless. Econ likes to assume rational behavior, but that's only so it can fit into a nice model. Fact is, plenty of people act irrationally, and while it's easy to ignore them in a model, it's hard to when they're sleeping along the street or in your stairwell.

And what would we do with them? Put them in jail? Force them to spend only on essential goods? If we force them to spend on essentials, aren't we just calling it welfare by a different name? The state can't let them just linger, because their loitering has costs of it's own, not limited to growing social unrest (this is partly why privatizing social security is such a horrible idea -- the market might fail and the state will still have to bail out people's private pensions or risk unrest, probably gaining nothing but added uncertainty in the long term).

Our system just might function optimally when its set up to let people choose to fail, as some surely will, and to make it just painful enough to encourage moving one's self out of poverty.

Playing devil's advocate here. A shift like this would seem to have very little margin for error.

</comment><comment><USER6> "that they could spend on education, or applying for jobs, or starting new businesses."

Your difficulty would be to ensure the realisation of the benefit, and that there actually are jobs available that provide for these people.

I would prefer to approach the same issue in the reverse fashion, providing a job/ education with housing and minor allowances, requiring that the person start and complete a certain amount of work before any monetary incentive is provided. Available office space could be used, old buildings fallen into disuse can be repossessed to allow startup businesses some working space. This way you actually guarantee some economic value and proper utilisation of the funds. What you would end up with is the government incorporating businesses that mimic private enterprise, have stricter rules and hire from a different pool of people.

 __If I were homeless and or couldn 't afford education, all I need is a warm bed, hot shower, library card, three square meals and google. (Not some arbitrary handout I would not be able to allocate properly, or in effect be compelled to spend unwisely because I know not the value of working for it.) The idea of a basic income is flawed if it allows comfortable survival without working, no different from communal distribution.

All that being said, I'm not American. What do I know.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is we need less government intrusion not more we don't need hoops and red tape, red tape costs more, i simply purpose a guaranteed basic income so people who really need help don't feel like charity cases, charity cases act like charity cases because they have no hope for anything better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What's your goal, what do you want to achieve with this? Raise awareness? Promote the idea? Eventually apply this?

Also, you are based in the US, I understand? What's the number of bucks you'd say is the right amount for this? Do you reckon that's something easy to agree on?

Hope my questions are not mistaken for disagreement or criticism, I'd be all in for this if it was to be done thoughtfully.

<comment><AUTHOR> Raise awareness, get bipartisan politicians on board, raise funds to get public support.</comment></comment>


The Scheme Shell (2006) - <AUTHOR> https://scsh.net/ <comment><USER2> God, The Scsh reference manual has my favorite acknowledgements section in all of media. I urge all of you to read this. [https://scsh.net/docu/html/man.html](https://scsh.net/docu/html/man.html)

<comment><USER3> I'm proud to be able to call myself a FOO (Friend of Olin.) Not only is he a fine human being, but if you talk to him for 20 minutes you'll learn a couple of years worth of computer science.

<comment><USER2> I'm jealous! He was my first year computer science teacher, probably the person who most instilled love for functional programming in me. I still at some point want to go back to take a compilers class with him someday. Until then, while you are a FOO I'll be at the BAR :p

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Checkout rash for Racket + Bash [https://rash-lang.org/](https://rash- lang.org/)

<comment><USER5> To add on: there are shell-ish DSLs for most Lisps here, which includes Racket, Clojure, Common Lisp, Scheme, etc.

[https://github.com/oilshell/oil/wiki/ExternalResources](https://github.com/oilshell/oil/wiki/ExternalResources)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is this packaged for any distros named Debian by any chance?

apt search scsch and apt search scheme provide little joy.

... hrm, apparently oldstable (jessie) only:

[https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=scsh](https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=scsh)

<comment><USER7> Chicken is on Debian and has an egg that provides most of the scsh functionality.

<comment><USER6> First I've heard of those tools. I am ... amused.</comment></comment></comment>


MBAs are for wusses: Military service makes Israeli techies tougher - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/node/16892040

<comment><USER2> A decade ago I worked for a VP who had been a captain in the Israeli army. She was smart, technically competent, no bs, and looked out for her people.

</comment><comment><USER3> also the israeli unit, unit 8200, is supposed to be the best computer training in the world. and the book "start up nation" goes through in depth what this articles scratches the surface of</comment>


The Dangers of Elite Projection (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://humantransit.org/2017/07/the-dangers-of-elite-projection.html <comment><USER2> The article's idea of a "elite" is a person who relies on a car to get around. I find it unintentionally funny, as people who rely on transit in the US are either big city urban elites, or the poor stuck in crappy burbs with shitty mobility. Thus, "more transit" is itself the elite projection, as it supposes that what's good for the urban elite, must be good for everyone else.

It would help if you thought of transit as a continuum:

\- the private single-occupancy car

\- shared car

\- shared mini bus

\- bus

\- tram (ie, n linked busses)

\- subway (ie n linked trams, underground)

This is hard to see today, but autonomous cars will essentially bring this about. Everybody will be riding in autonomous vehicles. If you're well-off, you'll pay for more privacy and space and time (vehicle comes to you, goes to your destination), if you're not so well off, you'll share the vehicle with other people and will have to spend more time as the vehicles makes more stops (and each stop will be further from your desired source/destination). Busses as we know them today will become obsolete, as they are functionally equivalent to a heterogenous mix of autonomous vehicles driving in the same direction. Trams will become obsolete, as they are functionally equivalent to the heterogeneous-autonomous-vehicle-chain paying a premium to use a dedicated lane.

Basically, everything should be a battery skateboard riding on asphalt by way of rubber. The more you pay, the more privacy you have, the more the mobile battery goes towards your personal destinations.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand why you are suggesting that autonomous cars will make buses and trams obsolete. They are the closest to autonomous vehicles out of everything on your list (they run around on meta-organized and efficient routes, you don't drive them yourself, etc).

<comment><USER2> They are, which is why I'm suggesting that instead of thinking of "transit vs private cars" everything will essentially melt together. IE, if you take a bus with 30 riders today and replace it with 5 AV-minivans each with 6 occupants driving behind each other, is it any different? What if instead of the city, I own one of these minivans? What if I pay 6 fares and have the minivan take my family to somewhere? What if 6 passengers split a minivan, but pay extra to use a dedicated lane?

<comment><USER3> >IE, if you take a bus with 30 riders today and replace it with 5 AV-minivans each with 6 occupants driving behind each other, is it any different?

Yeah, it is different. You have five engines instead of one, and 20 tires instead of four, meaning maintenance and fuel costs are some multiple higher, and wear-and-tear on the road surface is higher, noise and air pollution are higher. Among other things.

>What if instead of the city, I own one of these minivans?

Then you have to go through an additional middleman, the city, to find parking for your 1/5-of-a-bus and permission to drive on certain roads, in certain lanes, etc. Among other things.

<comment><USER4> When I last did some armchair thinking about transport modes my conclusion was only a little bit removed from parent's basic hypothesis, just with one critical detail: It's not that one mode will rule them all, it's that the friction of switching modes is likely to go further and further down until we have successfully "containerized" or "packet switched" transit.

So, instead of envisioning it as "5 minivans vs 1 bus", it's a system that smoothly transfers you from street to car to bus to train to plane and back. You get the "now" of low latency, and then you transfer up a step to get speed and efficiency.

Right now we have very primitive notions of multi-mode: every transfer is time consuming and difficult on the psyche, often involving new fare systems, security checks, navigating transfer points, delays, tolls, parking, and so on. This is a big factor in our tendency to bias towards a single mode and overbuild infrastructure for that mode.

Portable electrics are a big step forward in moving up the baseline: they're roughly person-sized without too much additional weight. An imagined standard for docking them in a larger vehicle or running them in a convoy is not too far-fetched, but will probably still take a lifetime to be realized with all the involved political factors.

<comment><USER5> But while ganging or docking is nice, you don't really need it to get most of the benefits; low-friction transfers by eliminating the huge parking lots that you half to walk from at the interface of small personal last-mile (or last- few-miles) transport with larger long-distance transport gets you much of the way to the kind of network you seem to want, and only really takes autonomous on-demand vehicles and integrated payment and reservation systems, not ganging/docking. You've got some buffering at transfer points still, but much less friction than in the status quo.

<comment><USER3> >eliminating the huge parking lots that you half to walk from at the interface of small personal last-mile

We don't need autonomous vehicles to do that. Valet parking exists.

<comment><USER5> > We don't need autonomous vehicles to do that.

Yes, we do.

> Valet parking exists.

Valet parking is labor intensive, doesn't scale on-demand easily, (because it is labor intensive), ands a lot more latency on both ends than autonomous (or chauffered, but that's also labor intensive) drop off/pickup even if the labor is provisioned optimally (and gets worse very fast with slightly underprovisioned labor.)

It's decent for providing an up-charged lower-latency option for an elite, higher paying subset of customers, or optimizing parking density with less concern for latency for a larger customer base, but it's not nearly as good as on-demand last-mile transport for reducing endpoint transfer latency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >humantransit.org >Resource limit reached

Now this is real life immersion.

Cached version: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0sKpw3...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0sKpw3K785IJ:https://humantransit.org/2017/07/the- dangers-of-elite-projection.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm getting a:

> Resource Limit Is Reached

> The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded > resource limit. Please try again later.

Here's an archive link that works:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20190102183318/https://humantran...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190102183318/https://humantransit.org/2017/07/the- dangers-of-elite-projection.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> this elite projection describes the common phenomenon of outsiders (and even local elites) disparaging LA for having no/crappy public transportation, which is odd to me as an multimodal angeleno who gave up my car years ago.

this admission was refreshing and identifiable:

> "And since I'm one of these elites — not at all in wealth but certainly in > education and other kinds of good fortune — it's sometimes my work as well."

but this is probably of most interest here, with all the talk of autonomous vehicles:

> "Now, the same mistake powers the endless vague promises of tech disruption > in transit, especially the mathematically absurd notion that transit that > comes to your door when you call it will scale to the entire population of a > dense city."

basically he says we don't have enough (road) space for every person to be taken directly from point to point in a vehicle. currently this is (partially) solved by having people walk the last mile.

let's have electric scooters/bikes at every train and bus stop--they can solve the point-to-point first/last mile problem while being relatively dense. not everyone will use them, but with critical mass, it will reduce overall congestion.

<comment><USER9> > this elite projection describes the common phenomenon of outsiders (and even > local elites) disparaging LA for having no/crappy public transportation, > which is odd to me as an multimodal angeleno who gave up my car years ago.

Los Angeles has a transit mode share of only 5%, which is extremely low for a principal city with a metro population of 13 million. This is a good indicator that its public transportation is indeed very weak.

To be sure, though, they've been steadily improving it.

<comment><USER8> interesting, how is that transit share calculated? ridership / regional population?

i'm certainly not trying to say LA is a beacon of transit, but it's not all cars here. it's quite possible to get around without driving.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of the constant inclusion of stock market values in political discourse. Stock market up in 2017? Trump takes credit. Stock market correction in December 2018? Everyone blame Trump for your investments taking a hit.

Thing is, there's a whole lot of people out there with no money in the stock market at all (or only in a 401k, not in an account that can be liquid in the short term). It seems fair that the fixation with the stock market is another example of elite projection.

Sure, the market matters and market trends are correlated with more concrete figures like employment rates and wage growth, but it's just that, a correlation.

<comment><USER11> Average wage growth and employment rates across a country are irrelevant for, well, almost anyone that's not specifically studying them.

Even on a more local level - the median income in London, say, is not interesting to a shop worker, and neither is it to a lawyer. It's just another Statistic(tm).

I don't know of anyone else (in real life) who even knows what the median income is, and about the only thing I've ever used median incomes for is to determine that the median person in my city is a serf (you'd require about double that to buy a small apartment).

By contrast, the stock market is at least interesting to anyone who has any savings (because market return is your baseline expectation for an investment). It should also be interesting to those who aspire to have savings (which, at least rationally, should be most people).

That latter point specifically is important because most people believe in, or at least desire, upward mobility. I (a person below the retirement age) expect that in ten years' time I'll have more than I do now. It would be odd for me to expect otherwise; that would imply that I should just sack off working and enjoy myself whilst I can.

I agree that linking it with things like presidencies is silly, though.

<comment><USER10> >Average wage growth and employment rates across a country are irrelevant for, well, almost anyone that's not specifically studying them.

True, it doesn't directly address any single person's wallet but it paints a picture that actually includes every single person with an income. I don't know, maybe there's a better metric, but specifically the point I'm trying to make is this:

>By contrast, the stock market is at least interesting to anyone who has any savings (because market return is your baseline expectation for an investment).

This is exactly the "elite projection" the article is talking about. For most people, "savings" refers to a checking account or savings account that can be withdrawn from on a rainy day. These will always have a negligible return rate. I believe that around 13 percent of families own stocks directly, less than that for other major types of non-retirement investments, and 53 percent a retirement account ( see [https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf](https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf17.pdf) table 3 on page 18 ).

I mean, the stock market IS interesting in it's own right, and I can see why the news reports on a big correction and what not. But it's interesting in the same way that currency conversion rates can be interesting - because it holds some kind of macroeconomic significance. Not because a large percentage of Americans regularly move a large amount of cash between countries.

<comment><USER11> I don't disagree that most individuals aren't directly invested in the stock market.

I'm specifically addressing your comment regarding median wage and unemployment - these figures are completely useless for anyone who isn't an economist (whether for professional reasons or otherwise).

It's vaguely useful to know that median wage hasn't doubled or that unemployment isn't at 50%, that's about it.

There is no possible metric that would be useful to an average, because the average person is in a bad situation, and any individual's best course of action is to aim to get out of that situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hum.

Few sparse thoughts: élites I may know have mostly a marginal interest in public transportation witch is making money through it. If it's not profitable is of no interest.

At least European élites, with the notable but marginal exception of very few politics or other VIPs move on _private_ transport not public one.

Interest in public transport have political and military interest for both reduce/control ability of individual to move and possible vulnerabilities in case of war scenarios but again "efficient public transportation for the masses" is not really in any bullshit-free agenda's. The sole political/military push toward "personal car free" society, concentrated in megacities serve the purpose to easier control people:

\- control a city require few manpower than a vast area, more in detail to control a city you need only a fraction of human inside on your side, to control a vast area you need more human on your side than the "target"/"enemy";

\- control a city is easier simply because a city consume food, energy, water etc but do not produce most of it nor it can so cutting supply means cutting city off;

\- a city is a nice and easy target: you can shoot and being sure to create significant damage;

\- public transportation is nice: lock it (it's easier than lock many individual's vehicles, especially if they are not connected so not easy to disable en masse from remote) and anyone will be on foot.

I do not really see other interest. Maybe there are economical interest from the enterprises that can gain big money on creation and maintenance of public transport network...

<comment><USER9> > The sole political/military push toward "personal car free" society, > concentrated in megacities serve the purpose to easier control people:

People being concentrated in larger cities is mostly an outcome that comes from the free market. Higher population levels helps bring about higher levels of economic productivity, and people go where there are jobs.

Having decent public transit -- and walk and bike options, for that matter -- in urban areas is just good policy. No conspiracies necessary, it's just good to have more options, especially more geometrically efficient ones when space is at a premium.

Trying to ignore transit just gets you to LA's position, where they built mountains of freeways and got the worst traffic in the country in return, with poor options to bypass that traffic for most of the local population.

<comment><USER12> Without conspiracy can you tell the name of a sustainable _and evolvable_ magacity? I found exactly NO one, not only of existing one's but also hypothetical in some architect's published ideas.

The first and most important reason is space: a city can't evolve because the lack of space. While it might be possible in theory grow the city and after have people moving from the old part to a new one to demolish and rebuild the new one no city I know of have ever being able to do so in practice. I do not know big not-crowded not polluted cities. I do not know any "safe" city in terms of various kind of possible events from floods to earthquake to terrorist attack to military attacks...

I do not want to say that's there are conspiracy-like factors to push towards megacities but I only see a big prevalence of negative things than positive, so no reason to push nor want to be in even small cities...

<comment><USER9> > Without conspiracy can you tell the name of a sustainable and evolvable > magacity?

What does this even mean?

> so no reason to push nor want to be in even small cities...

Well it's easy, cities are way more economically productive than rural areas, so they create more jobs. Creating effective businesses benefits from a larger local market both in terms of hiring specialists of various sorts, and also in terms of targeting customers (for local businesses like restaurants).

If this wasn't true, you'd see more companies like Google dumping their HQ's into rural areas with cheap housing and cheap wages. They don't though, because their workers don't want to live out there.

<comment><USER12> My English is poor so sometimes I write convoluted sentences since I do not know how to construct them, sorry, I mean did you know ANY sustainable reasonably big city? I do not know any.

Cities might seems to be more productive since our developed countries switch from production to tertiary sector _but_ that's thanks to the rest of productive world that's now in easter Europe, Asia, Africa, South America etc. So in general cities are not more economically productive, it only offer more options per land area since there is more concentration but with the exception of tertiary sector you simply can't have industry, agriculture, breeding, ... in cities and well... We all need to eat, we all use industry-made product from bottom up.

The problem of "countryside" is the concentration of alternatives per land area, you may have nearby a sole productive and attractive activity, if something happen to it you might have to go far away to found another option. In cities being concentrated you normally have more options nearby. However this is most a matter of economic organization that's still do not understand to much how to use territory than a mere thing from being in the countryside itself. Perhaps the most sustainable model we actually have in place is the Riviera one's with enough space to evolve and enough concentration of opportunities.

Google HQ is a tertiary sector activity and require hi-speed connections so a city is a nice place for it, however did you know where most data centers are? Did you know where we produce electricity for them? Concrete, Steel, Plastic, ... that is needed for them? That's a _big_ point that many today forget but in case of real crisis that's represent a _real_ and dangerous problem because if producer are not anymore in your country and are not anymore willing to work/commerce with you, you are TFU.

That's a thing USA and even more UK should have learned from China, we western Europeans should have learned from Easter EU...

<comment><USER9> > I mean did you know ANY sustainable reasonably big city?

Big cities are more sustainable than suburban or rural areas, not less. Per capita energy usage in those cities is lower.

> in general cities are not more economically productive

Yes, they are. You can't just handwave away that their economic output is higher because you don't like the particular sectors that are more popular in cities.

<comment><USER12> > Per capita energy usage in those cities is lower.

Oh, sure and where in a city you _produce_ food? Industrial product? I know for sure that an apartment consume less energy than a single house to be heated/cooled. It consume more to being built and maintained though and more important it can't be really used without non urban area... That's the real problem.

On economic productivity it's the same: more money turn, but they turn because suburb exists, without them it's like the ancient I think Sioux Chief that say "when you finish fish what you count to do? Eat dollars?"...

This is the _real_ sustainability I talk about.

Without counting the amount of prime matter and energy needed to build big architecture vs small distributed ones.

<comment><USER9> > It consume more to being built and maintained though

No, it doesn't. Not on a per capita basis.

> it can't be really used without non urban area... That's the real problem.

The number of people that have to be farmers and living on-site on a farm is very small in a developed country. There are way more people living in rural or exurban/low density areas than are necessary to make food.

> more money turn, but they turn because suburb exists

Not really, or at least you don't need American-style, super low density suburbs. Medium density suburbs are popular in Europe and work fine.

<comment><USER12> It's hard to compute but only try to estimate the cost of build a subway train with it's relatives stations, depots etc and the energy it consume. If you compute well enough you'll that it require _far_ more resources than private vehicle in a countryside are. Even if you compute "CEP" (a french index that means primary (non renewable) energy/resources consumption, I do not know correspondent metric in English) of a a groups of single family's houses, with micropoles foundations screwed on ground and the rest in wood, glass and plastic/aluminum/... built with medium/high quality and proper insulation vs a single tall building for the same number of people and similar construction quality you still see that you consume more non-renewable/recyclable resources to build the single tall building than the many individual houses and if those are really well designed and built (so they can be heated and cooled with little non-renewable energy) you'll see that even energy consumption is better in individual houses. Simply because they have enough place for solar-thermal panels, efficient double-flux VMC at today's tech and cost are far more efficient, airtightness can cheaply be superior etc.

Many do not think that simply because do not know how modern houses are built nor how modern tall building are built and do not even see the mass of steel and foundation they have.

On living: you automatically agree that cities are not sustainable by themselves so we need to be low density and in nature, of course we can discuss density and it's variation depending on natural resources place per place but that's the point. We can automatize as we want but we need nature, we can't live for now in isolated artificial environments nor cities nor boats/submarine/starships. And that's probably will remain true for centuries to came.

My personal opinion is that a low density Riviera model is the best for now, where low density means low enough to been able to "survive" with local natural resources but no more so we still need commerce and cooperation but we can life in a not-so-comfortable and not-so-terrible way without. For my actual place (French alps) it means something around 8-10 humans per square km maximum in medium. Moderately concentrated like "USA dream" (single houses with a bit of private garden around, like 5/10 time the ground occupation of the house itself) in good place with place for nature around.

You may counter-arguments that a capillary, well maintained roads network is not cheap however being Italian I see the difference on roads between few countries and french's one are definitively cheaper than many other and even cheaper than highways. We still need some kind of ground high speed network but in a Riviera scenario with enough "local" economy that need is far less important than inter-urban networks.

<comment><USER9> > It's hard to compute but only try to estimate the cost of build a subway > train with it's relatives stations, depots etc and the energy it consume. If > you compute well enough you'll that it require far more resources than > private vehicle in a countryside are.

No, it won't. A subway train is obviously fairly resource intensive to build and operate, no argument there, but compared to the resources to build rural highways for an equivalent number of people? There's no comparison.

A single subway line somewhere like NYC may serve the daily needs of a couple hundred thousand people. Enough highways to serve a couple hundred thousand people scattered throughout, say, several different counties would be far more resource intensive in the long run (building the subway might take more up front since you're underground, but you don't need as much deep maintenance and repair because there's fewer weather issues).

> you still see that you consume more non-renewable/recyclable resources to > build the single tall building than the many individual houses and if those > are really well designed and built (so they can be heated and cooled with > little non-renewable energy) you'll see that even energy consumption is > better in individual houses.

I doubt this. I mean, I could maybe see it for skyscrapers, because building materials and standards for those are really intense. But if you compare single family homes for 100 people to a 5 story apartment block for 100 people, the apartment block is going to massively win in efficiency. And most major cities just don't need -- or have -- many skyscrapers. Even in NYC and Tokyo, a very small % of land is actually occupied by skyscrapers. Take a look on Google Maps 3D view if you don't believe me.

> you automatically agree that cities are not sustainable by themselves

Cities take less energy. Fact. Yes, a few people would need to live in more rural areas, but a) the point is that 2% rural + 98% urban would be vastly more energy efficient than whatever distribution we have now, and b) even many people in rural areas _could_ live in denser forms. For example, small towns in Germany have way more apartments and the like than small towns in the US, and they're not as car dependent too.

> My personal opinion is that a low density Riviera model is the best for now, > where low density means low enough to been able to "survive" with local > natural resources but no more so we still need commerce and cooperation but > we can life in a not-so-comfortable and not-so-terrible way without.

This is completely insane. Spreading people out that much from cities where they currently live would absolutely devastate nature. You'd have to clear cut giant swathes of forests and build on prairies all over the world to hit 8-10 people per sq km or even close to that.

If the global population was a few hundred million people, that level of density could probably work, but it's not. We have far too many people to have that level of impact on the planet per person.

Honestly, you just sound so dead set on loving super low density living that you're completely unwilling to listen to any facts. It's a fact that living in urban areas takes less energy than suburban or rural areas. It's a fact that the impact on the environment is far less that way. It's a fact that only a handful of people need to live somewhere to farm, and this number continues to drop over time.

No, highways are not more efficient than subways(1). No, single family homes are not more efficient than apartments. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, sorry.

(1) - "Heavy rail transit such as subways and metros produce on average 76% lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than an average single- occupancy vehicle (SOV). Light rail systems produce 62% less and bus transit produces 33% less (Public Transportation's Role in Responding to Climate Change (PDF))." And this is in the US, which has transit that is, in the large, kind of poorly designed (and has to adapt to a transit-hostile built environment).

[https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and- guidance/environ...](https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and- guidance/environmental-programs/transit-environmental-sustainability/transit- role)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


#RefRef - Denial of Service ( DDoS ) Tool Developed by Anonymous - <AUTHOR> http://www.thehackernews.com/2011/07/refref-denial-of-service-ddos-tool.html

<comment><USER2> _It sends malformed SQL queries carrying the payload which in turn forces the servers to exhaust their own resources._

SQL injection and sending slow queries? Or hammering regular HTTP pages which run slow SQL queries (such as an unoptimised search)?

<comment><USER3> The write up certainly implies SQL injection but it seems pretty unlikely that's true. If the target of a DDOS also had a sqli vuln it's much more likely it'd be exploited directly. It's also very unlikely pastebin has an active sqli given their audience etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Since when Denial of Service == DDOS ?</comment>


Do we need a blockchain to be decentralized? - <AUTHOR> I'm hosting a webinar conversation with Alex Hillman discussing the idea of decentralization and whether blockchain is really needed to achieve it. I'd love to hear the communities thoughts on questions to ask and things to discuss.
Alex Hillman is the co-founder of IndyHall- one of the earliest, longest running, and most respected coworking communities in the world. He's also an entrepreneur, developer, speaker, prolific writer, podcast host, and all around expert in building community. Despite having his reservations around blockchain and cryptocurrencies, Alex is a self-described fan of decentralization.
I always pay attention when smart people like Alex are skeptical. Should be a great convo, and would love to hear what y'all think. Here's the link for the webinar if you're interested!
https://www.crowdcast.io/e/do-we-need-a-blockchain <comment><USER2> There was tons of work on decentralized P2P technology from 2000-2008 that didn't involve blockchain (because it wasn't invented yet).</comment>


Wi-Fi Overload at High-Tech Meetings - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/technology/29wifi.html?hp

<comment><USER2> At Defcon every year, we have ~10k attendees, with literally thousands of DHCP leases active, using a combination of Aruba wireless gear, and Cisco switches. We don't generally have a problem.

Good planning is key; we have heatmaps (signal strength predictions) for every venue in the conference, careful AP placement, and a butt-load of security backend to keep things running smoothly, combined with some EXTREMELY talented staff running the configurations and monitoring continuously over the weekend. The network staff shows up a WEEK in advance, and often does a preflight in April to check on any changes in the hotel (we are switching hotels this year, so there is a lot more prep this time around). Not many conferences have a dozen high pay grade network admins prepping for a full week in advance. But you cannot argue with results.

The real choke point is probably the 100Mbit link back to the ISP, but we keep upping it every year ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> See here: <http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/ruckus-wifi-3g/>

Ruckus set up the access points MacTech Conference in Nov, I was seriously impressed.

At most conferences I've been at, the wifi tends to die or have performance problems.

In this case, it was actually usable with effectively no performance/signal issues even with 200+ people (probably 300+ devices between laptops/iPads/iPhones) in a large hotel conference room.

</comment><comment><USER4> Joel Spolksy posted about this problem on his blog last year: <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2009/10/08.html>

Here's the related ServerFault post: <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2009/10/08.html>

<comment><USER4> Correction: ServerFault discussion here... [http://serverfault.com/questions/72767/why-is-internet- acces...](http://serverfault.com/questions/72767/why-is-internet-access-and- wifi-always-so-terrible-at-large-tech-conferences)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> So many people, even people who work @ Apple in the Airport group, don't understand wifi.

Here is one anti-pattern for WiFi... run the APs co-channel. run them all on, say, channel 6.

Because in the 2.4GHz ISM band, given OFDM modulation, and the minimum standards set by the IEEE, there is really only one usable channel.

The adjacent channel interference problem is worse with 802.11n receivers, btw.

But if you run the APs co-channel, then CCA can work.

<comment><USER6> I had to convince a former bosses boss of mine that this was the proper setup. He had setup the network when the company was tiny and explaining what needed to be changed when we grew to more than 10 times the users and 20 times the wifi devices was a lesson in convincing a brick wall. Getting all the best practices collected was not an easy task.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ugh, that's a piece of non-news if I ever heard one. NYT: Wi-Fi Slow at Conferences.

Is there a point to this article, or are they just stating something that no one cares about?

<comment><USER8> It is most definitely not news, but going so far as to say it's something _no one cares about_ is going a little far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Perhaps someone more technologically inclined than I am can shed light on this but when a company like Apple hosts a marquee event like WWDC why can't they see how many people will be at the event, then deploy enough wifi routers to meet demand? Especially when Apple makes their own wifi routers. Across wifi a,b,g,and n there should be plenty of spectrum to go around. If a company can deploy 10,000 servers in one room, why can't they deploy 100 wifi routers?

<comment><USER10> Do you have the manpower and budget to get those 100 wi-fi routers set up and tested in 1 day? Most convention locations don't allow for a huge amount of prep time.

<comment><USER11> It can be done if the people have good equipement and REALLY know what they are doing.

The trouble is that the venue hire the cheapest people to fit the system and have no clue how to run it. Since nobody knows how the good the system is before they do the show you have to trust the venue - when you find out it's crap it's too late - so there's no incentive to do a good job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Intel wrote a whitepaper[1] on this very subject. One of the more amusingly counterintuitive findings is that you want each radio to cover not a whole lot of area. No matter how fast the backhaul is, the spectrum can only handle a couple dozen clients, which fills up fast when you've got tens of thousands of attendees.

1: <http://www.intel.com/it/pdf/conference-wifi.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER12> Could work: a combination of wired connections, asking attendees to bring their own 3G dongles and providing a local cell base station for areas with poor mobile coverage.

For people with ethernet ports, you could spread a few wifi routers with wired ports, so wifi traffic is carried over to the fewer routers than to each individual client.

</comment><comment><USER13> This isn't just a wifi problem it is a general wireless problem. Where there are large gatherings like The Daily Shows Rally to Restore Sanity for example cell service totally failed in the area around the washington mall.

</comment><comment><USER14> You can't solve the problem by just increasing the # of routers, It's the noise and the lack of frequency in the space that causes the issue with so many nodes.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a serious problem for a network I am designing. With many many systems on the wireless network we are ensuring that we have better coverage with WAPs - but the real problem is because we will have more than 10,000 wifi Aeroscout tags on the network.

Both Cisco and Aeroscout have no idea what this level of activity will look like. While Aeroscout's largest client has some 30,000 tags - they are on a much larger square footage campus.

I am still trying to find the best approach to this problem, but any of the companies that make the HW are only interested in selling you more hardware - not developing a solution, as of yet.

The network is more than $15M in HW alone - so, I am sure I will bring them around.</comment>


Nixon advisor: We created the war on drugs to "criminalize" black people and - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/645990/nixon-advisor-we-created-the-war-on-drugs-to-criminalize-black-people-and-the-anti-war-left/ <comment><USER2> Previously and better: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11330587](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11330587)

</comment><comment><USER3> I was skeptical of this quote, because for some reason Dan Baum sat on it for twenty years instead of publishing it in his book on the subject. _Huffington Post_ , however, asked him about that:

Baum explained to The Huffington Post why he didn't include the quote in his 1996 book, _Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure_.

"There are no authorial interviews in [ _Smoke and Mirrors_ ] at all; it's written to put the reader in the room as events transpire," Baum said in an email. "Therefore, the quote didn't fit. It did change all the reporting I did for the book, though, and changed the way I worked thereafter."

The quote does, however, appear in the 2012 book _The Moment_ , a collection of "life-changing stories" from writers and artists.

([http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nixon-drug-war- racist_us...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nixon-drug-war- racist_us_56f16a0ae4b03a640a6bbda1))

<comment><USER4> Thanks; that's helpful though not entirely convincing. Has anyone asked John Ehrlichman (the person quoted) about it?

<comment><USER5> Ehrlichman died in 1999, so there's no independent verification here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have trouble taking this at face value. A second hand anecdote from Baum who recalls an in-person interview with Ehrlichman, 20 years after the fact, that already 20 years ago.

Keep in mind that Ehrlichman served jail time for his role in Watergate. That doesn't make him all that trustworthy, and it's not unreasonable to think that even being in the inner circle he hated and blamed Nixon. Ever seen a criminal come out of jail and sing the praises of their compatriots? Failing that, why in the heck would he just admit this? What's his motivation?

This story is already passing into legend. It's probably a total fabrication. Ehrlichman has been dead since 1999, btw, so who knows what he really said.

<comment><USER7> Well, one test would be to look at how the law has been applied since it was instituted. Has the law been used to target mostly leftists and minorities?

<comment><USER8> The subsequent application of the law has no bearing on the veracity of the quote as the people who have and are applying the law are in no way bound by anything that Ehrlichman may or may not have said.

<comment><USER7> The actions of the executive branch of government were at least somewhat bound by what Nixon might or might not have instructed them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> They're basically talking about social engineering. AFAIK, they used the CIA to funnel in cocaine, etc... to minority neighborhoods, then applied social engineering, adverts, and glorified drug abuse. Then the police and FBI went and killed them or jailed them. When they say "black", they effectively mean anyone they consider "non-white". They did it to all the minorities in various forms.

</comment><comment><USER4> Many questions:

Other countries also made these drugs illegal. Was it around the same time? It seems unlikely they also had Nixon's motives, but then why did they do it? Did the U.S. establish the trend? Pressure others? Or perhaps Nixon saw the trend already happening and was opportunistic about it? Would it have happened eventually if not for Nixon?

However, if drugs are illegal in most countries, why would the U.S. incarcaration rate be higher (which I think is due to drug crimes, but I'm not sure)? Higher rates of drug use? Higher rates of incarcaration for the drug users?

I'm not trying to shoot down the story. First, I now understand why the drug war can be seen as a war on poor and minorities: The vices of the poor are criminalized; the vices of the rich (prescription drugs, pot on college campuses, etc.) are treated with a wink, shrug, or empathy. Second, I used to doubt these slightly conspiratorial political stories on their face, but then I've heard and read people talking about how these things are planned and implemented, such as using "school busing" as a dog whistle for racists. Lee Atwater, leading GOP (operative?), in 1981:

 _You start out in 1954 by saying, "N-ger, n-ger, n-ger." By 1968 you can't say "n-ger"-that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. ... "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N-ger, n-ger."_

[http://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters- infa...](http://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters- infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/)

<comment><USER10> The US did pressure plenty of countries to make drugs illegal / more illegal.

Also of note it's an old drug, with a complex history.

 _In 1894, the Report of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission, commissioned by the UK Secretary of State and the government of India, was instrumental in a decision not to criminalize the drug in those countries (See Shamir and Hacker (2001) in 'further readings' below.)[15] From the year 1860, different states in the US started to implement regulations for sales of Cannabis sativa_

 _The name marijuana (Mexican Spanish marihuana, mariguana) is associated almost exclusively with the plant 's psychoactive use. The term is now well known in English largely due to the efforts of American drug prohibitionists during the 1920s and 1930s._

 _The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was the first US national law making cannabis possession illegal, with the exception of industrial or medical purposes._

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's my understanding that nearly everyone who went to jail for Watergate was incredibly angry at Nixon for throwing them under the bus and letting them actually do time.

If Nixon was a bigoted racist or just a really bad president, is hard to tell from a guy with a huge ax to grind and waiting 40 years to spill the beans.

<comment><USER12> HR Haldeman wasn't incredibly angry. I knew him and his family. One anecdote is that around 1990 Nixon was in Santa Barbara. Bob knew when Dick's motorcade would be passing by and walked to the end of his driveway and waved to Nixon as he passed. Time heals most wounds.

Bob did the prison time and Jo started a career to support the family. I've read Jo's unpublished autobiography. The saga was difficult for them—especially Peter, the youngest son—but they paid their dues and moved on.

</comment></comment><comment> Sam</comment><comment>-- I thought the war on drugs started in earnest in the 80's and 90's in response to a growing crime wave. My (uneducated) belief was that it was championed by the inner city churches in an effort to clean up their neighborhoods.

see eg: 1969. December 3. President Richard Nixon convenes a gathering of nation's governors to talk about drug crisis. Says that part of the solution must be treatment and rehabilitation. "When you're talking about thirteen year olds and fourteen year olds and fifteen year olds, the answer is not more penalties. The answer is information. The answer is understanding," Nixon says. According to CBS News, Nixon administration is considering reduced penalties for marijuana possession, along with more education, in an effort to convince young people to avoid "experimenting with still stronger drugs."

[http://prisontime.org/2013/08/12/timeline-black-support- for-...](http://prisontime.org/2013/08/12/timeline-black-support-for-the-war- on-drugs/)

and

Rep. Charles Rangel, a newly-elected Democrat from New York City and a former Federal prosecutor, urges Nixon to do more to fight drugs without waiting for further congressional action, warning that support might soon build for drug legalization. "You do have the power and we implore you to use it as you would if this were a national crisis and I think we've reached that," Rangel insists. Before departing, the Black Caucus presented Nixon with a manifesto of sixty priorities for the African American community. It included the demand that "drug abuse and addiction be declared a major national crisis" and a call to use "all existing resources" to stop the trafficking of drugs. [http://prisontime.org/2013/08/12/timeline-black- support-for-...](http://prisontime.org/2013/08/12/timeline-black-support-for- the-war-on-drugs/)

</comment><comment><USER13> There's a fantastic documentary on the failed 'war on drugs' called 'The House I Live In' from Eugene Jarecki ([http://www.thehouseilivein.org](http://www.thehouseilivein.org)).

It suggests that the criminalization of narcotics (opium, cocaine, marijuana, etc) was set in motion purely as a way to prevent non-whites from 'stealing jobs.'

Whether you agree with this or not, it's an interesting view. It also gets into crack and the massive penalties that come with crack possession vs cocaine possession.

</comment><comment><USER14> So the War on Drugs was actually a monumental success, just not at the goal that was advertised on the box.

</comment><comment><USER15> Nixon on Blacks and Jews: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBmFnIruDig](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBmFnIruDig)

</comment><comment><USER16> I doubt that was the primary goal... more of a "happy" side effect...</comment>


Ask HN: I need help with a career decision - <AUTHOR>

Dear HN,
I am a mid level software engineer and I enjoy my job and working with the team. I've always tried to work hard and help the team in any way I can and never say no to anyone that ask me for help no matter how busy I am. As a result of this I have made great relationship with the team, some juniors would look up to me, and my supervisors would give me good ratings on my performance reviews, on both technical skills and team responsibilities, and they have commented that I'm already working at the senior level, and thank me for my efforts.
Things start to change when I have a new supervisor, he dislikes my personality (he thinks I'm quiet, which previous supervisors and team members never had problems with), and thinks I am not committed to the team because of this and other actions of mine that he doesn't like (could be something as little as me not going to the office lunch). We have been through a few talks about this, despite whatever I said, he's not convinced. I feel like he's trying to change me into someone else, and the message I am getting is I won't get a promotion if I don't change, regardless of my abilities. He's actually a friendly person and he's good at what he does and I have respect for that. But it's not working for us because he has a vision of what a good team should behave like, and it was clear to me that he doesn't want a personality like mine in that perfect vision. We don't have the trust that I have with other team mates. And I'll never change any of my team mates. There is also a chance that he won't be my supervisor anymore in a few months time.
I have also received a job offer from another company. The offer is already above my current pay, but I'm not sure if it's a good enough offer for me to leave my current  team mates (my friends), and they are the reason that I go to work everyday. I'm not sure if I should give up all that and go to a strange company.
So what should I do? Any advice will be appreciated.
Thanks. <comment><USER2> I am not sure that the new boss dislikes your personality. Maybe he just sees a higher ceiling for you and wants to help you get there. Or needs you to get there.

That said, he currently may no more have the tools to communicate effectively to you, than you have to act in the way he sees you capable of. Managers learn on the job by paying the dumbtax, just like everyone else.

The real choice I see you facing, is one of trusting him to have good intent. Doing so, however, will require abandoning a hope of convincing him that you cannot change, and instead listening and asking questions and working on becoming a better leader...together, he probably needs it too.

Eating together is important in some corporate cultures. It sounds to me like the new boss may be trying to build a better culture for everyone, not just for you.

Lastly, taking a risk and putting some trust in the new boss, does not look like it will cost you much, you've got another job offer now, you can probably get one again - and maybe that one _will_ be your dream job. Give it a chance, what have you got to lose?

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> Let's review. You say:

      * great relationship with the team, some juniors would
        look up to me
      * my supervisors would give me good ratings on my
        performance reviews, on both technical skills and
        team responsibilities
      * they have commented that I'm already working at
        the senior level

Excellent! You're exhibiting leadership qualities. To continue:

      * he thinks I'm quiet
      * not committed to the team (i.e. me not going to the
        office lunch

Based on these criticisms, it seems like your new boss sees you as a potential team leader, and with some work, you could get a promotion.

The career question you must answer for yourself is: Do I want to work on smaller software projects that I control directly or do I want to work on larger software projects where I do some of the work but delegate a large portion to other developers? That is the choice you're making if you decide to work toward a leadership role. And just like programming requires excellent technical skills, leadership requires excellent people skills.

</comment><comment><USER4> "The offer is already above my current pay,"

Take it. And learn how to talk to people, as that will net you more pay over your lifetime than any other skill you build. Your current boss understands that, and is ultimately trying to help you.

Make the job decisions that will net you more pay, and build friendships outside of the office. If your current teammates are really your friends, they should still be after you move on to seek more money.

</comment><comment> deepak-kumar Change is inevitable. So if you are not liking the environment in your current job it is always better to move on and focus on improving the skill set rather than thinking about what your immediate super wiser thinks about you.

As far as your friends/Team mates are concerned they ll remain your friend no matter which company you work for. All the best.</comment>


Give Me A Dollar and I'll Give You 90 Cents Back - <AUTHOR> http://larrycheng.com/2009/11/11/give-me-a-dollar-and-ill-give-you-90-cents-back/

<comment><USER2> The following is oversimplified but has a grain of truth to it: Poor people pay for access to their own money. Rich people are paid for accessing their own money.

Here's a practical example for you: a one month train pass from my home town to Nagoya costs about $200. A six month pass costs $1,000.

Given these facts, some people (through either lack of means or lack of savvy) will in a six month period buy six one-month passes, each time incurring a $1 ATM fee, for a total cost of $1,206. More savvy people will buy the six month pass on a credit card and pay it off before the grace period runs out, which costs about $990 ($1,000 less the $10 your bank will give you to say "Thanks for your business! Please charge more stuff!").

If you know you're going to be working in Nagoya for six months, buying the six month ticket is equivalent to buying six month CDs at an APR in excess of 40%. The actual rate offered on a Japanese CD is typically .5%. Somewhat surprisingly, there are many people at my day job who buy both one month tickets and own $5,000 or more in CDs.

<comment><USER3> It's worth observing that your CD example may be rational given that CDs are more liquid than train tickets.

Train tickets are generally non-transferable so, absent a black market, they are not liquid at all. Buying a six month ticket is making a $1,000 investment in being in that situation for six months.

Maybe they'll lose the job in question, move, or need the $1,000 in cash for some emergency. Depending on how likely those possibilities are, the buyer is going to have a lesser or greater preference towards a more liquid place to put their money.

<comment><USER2> I would agree absent for the unstated knowledge that everyone at my office is a Japanese salaryman and, as such, the most negative thing you can say about my job security is that I may lose my job if I die.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The point about gold is a bit misleading. Gold is not an "appreciating asset" any more than a baseball card that has a misprint and skyrockets in value is. Gold is priced on a world market and, for those of us in the US, purchased in dollars. When the value of the dollar goes down, the value of gold goes up, and the opposite is true. Macro factors have an effect on both sides of the equation (for instance, if nuclear war broke out tomorrow it's likely that both gold and the dollar would decline together, though there is probably a case for gold going up at that point) but in general gold moves inverse to the dollar. There are lots of reasons to expect the dollar to lose more value in the short term, but calling gold an "appreciating asset" is only true to the extent that the dollar (or currency of your choosing) is an inherently depreciating asset.

</comment><comment><USER5> How about the lottery? You give them $1 and get back as little as $0.25 in EV depending on what you play. And that's not even counting that you're taxed on winnings as normal income but unless you're a professional gambler (and if you are, shame on you for buying lottery tickets) you can't deduct losses in a losing year.

</comment><comment><USER6> The argument that gold is equivalent to currency is false. It's almost impossible to buy food from the grocery store with the gold watch you got last Christmas. For all practical purposes, gold is a second-hand good like anything else, and selling it to a dealer ensures you get nowhere near the appropriate value for it, just like selling any other second hand good.

<comment><USER7> I think both the article and your reply are a bit misleading because you talk of both "gold" and "gold jewelry", which aren't the same thing.

While gold is not exactly equivalent to paper money, it is _a_ currency. Only it's not as used as before, and of course not as liquid as US dollars nowadays. It is certainly more liquid than other currencies though: most people would prefer to be paid in gold than in Zimbabwean dollars.

But of course gold and "gold watch" are different stuff. Plain "gold" usually means coins and bars, which are pretty much liquid. The spread can be as low as 2.5%, not much different from retail foreign exchange. Definitely not like any other second hand good.

<comment><USER8> The spread on Gold American Eagles is currently 1.02% at apmex.com. That's better than most atm transactions :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm surprised he didn't call out insurance policies and warranties, which are always negative expected value in return for smoothing out risk. For some things this actually makes sense (you can't afford to gamble a few million bucks on "I'm never running anyone over in my car") but things like extended warranties, you're usually better off saving the money and, if need be, buying another toaster oven if yours goes kaput.

I'd imagine one of the things that happens when you get rich is you get to save all this money poor people spend on risk mitigation.

<comment><USER10> As you become rich you have more to lose. My experience is that you tend to spend more money on risk mitigation (even though the percentage of income spent may be lower).

<comment><USER11> The percentage is what it's all about though, isn't it?

If you earn $30000/year and have to spend $12000 on self-paid health insurance, that's an unbearable 40% of your income.

If you earn $250000/year and choose to spend $20000 on health insurance, that's a reasonable 8% of your income, and you're probably getting better risk mitigation too. (eg: no copays, 100% coverage, vs the out-of-pocket costs that would go along with the cheaper insurance.)

And $250000/year isn't even that rich anymore. In northern NJ, that's just starting to get comfortable.

<comment><USER10> There are other forms of risk mitigation that apply strictly to the rich, such as umbrella policies, media insurance policies, etc etc etc. I'm not familiar with very many of them, but they can often be costly.

These are needs that the poor will never have, because no one will ever imagine suing them (as they don't have anything worth the effort and cost).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 1\. ATMs - Only charged if you're at an ATM outside of your bank's network.

2\. Travelers Checks - They were useful long ago when credit cards did not exist and carrying large amount of cash was dangerous.

3\. Check Cashing - The bank that issued the check will cash it for free, regardless of account status.

4\. Currency Exchange - Can minimize this by ATM / credit cards (MasterCard/Visa) but in reality, there's currently no way to get around currency exchange fees. Here's an article on this topic: <http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/travel/25prac.html>

5\. Coinstar - Never had to use this (wife takes away all my change and it magically disappears).

6\. Gold buyers - This one is not like any of the above despite what the author claims. Liquidity of the gold has nothing to do with it but rather the issue that the gold buyer's judgment is what decides the value of the goods. In all of the above, the financial company treats everyone based on pre-set rules (1% charge, $10 fee etc.) And my 1,000 quarters are just as valuable as your 1,000 quarters to Coinstar. Not so with gold buyers. They will offer the smallest amount that they think the gold seller with accept. The amount of gold or precious metal is a factor but not the sold variable.

I think #1-5 are pretty good services and shouldn't be lumped with the scams of #6. However, this article does highlight that people will pay for services like accessibility, insurance, portability, and security of assets that they already own.

<comment><USER13> > Check Cashing Is not true, most banks will but some (Wells Fargo) charge you > to cash a check they issue. At least they have when I've attempted to cash > my pay check there instead of my normal bank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think the argument about gold vs. dollars as assets is laughable. The author cherry-picked an 8 year period to compare 'historical prices'. I don't doubt that gold was a better position to be in during the last 8 years, but it's dishonest to say that gold is always a better investment than cash.

I expect long-run that gold will be a better position, but it tends to fluctuate wildly, and there are periods where cash is a better investment compared to gold.

</comment><comment><USER15> How about slot machines that actually advertise "Pays out 95%"! as if it were a good thing.

<comment><USER11> For most gamblers, that is a good thing. Sure, if you play for a long time your winnings average out to a 5% loss; that's how the casino makes its money. But over the short term the random element means that the slot machine can pay out much more than 100%. So people play in the hopes that they'll get lucky and hit a high-pay-out short-term streak.

No one would play if it paid out 95% on every pull.

Of course, the real gamblers play poker or blackjack, where the odds really can be in your favor, if you develop the necessary skills.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Almost everything we buy works this way. Every good you purchase is marked up in price from what the seller paid for it. The true value you receive is always less than what the seller receives. So trading money for goods or services you nearly always receive less value in exchange. It's just more apparent when we take away goods and services and just show exchanging money.

</comment><comment><USER17> Graphs with y-axes not at 0? Ick...

</comment><comment><USER18> And at the grocery store, I give them a dollar, and they give _zero_ cents back. Nothing, nada. Can you believe that scam? Implied value: food and stuff I need.

</comment><comment><USER19> Rule: Anytime money changes hands, someone will get in the middle to take a cut.</comment>


A place to create, distribute and consume RESTful APIs. What do you think? - <AUTHOR> http://thefosk.posterous.com/a-place-to-create-distribute-and-consume-rest-0

<comment><USER2> Looks interesting. We're doing something similar for internal development.

My only question is how well does the suto generating of client libraries work?</comment>


Does Your Code Pass The Turkey Test? - <AUTHOR> http://www.moserware.com/2008/02/does-your-code-pass-turkey-test.html

<comment><USER2> The question is, how much effort does it take to make your application pass such tests and how important is it that yours do so?

If you're making an application for filing income taxes in the US, say, I would argue only worrying about usability with ESL speakers and not worrying about how your program would work in Turkey or Japan or whatever.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's not just Turkey that does the date day/month/year. I believe only the US has the problem of being different.

<comment><USER2> So the solution is easy: ignore one of the biggest markets in the world and then pretend like the remaining cultures all do things the same.

.NET's support for internationalization extends to things that vary by language and country (they aren't all the same), like names of the days of the week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> i didn't know about the i/I problem (question 3 on their test), that's really neat

</comment><comment><USER5> Only on Thanksgiving.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the essence of what you do in your daily job? - <AUTHOR> Besides money, what is it that you do and in what ways does it fulfill you? <comment><USER2> Solve problems. Empower others to solve problems.

</comment><comment><USER3> Solve problems. Put in bugs. :-)</comment>


Could Revolution Come to Putin's Russia? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/could-revolution-come-to-putins-russia/250486/

<comment><USER2> I was there on Sakharova st. yesterday, somewhere in the crowd on the photo. It's been 3 weeks since these things started to happen. I have to say it was almost as much of a surprise to the russian opposition as it was to Kremlin.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is an A-grade flamewar material. While it is no doubt interesting, I'd rather have it kept off HN.

<comment><USER4> I don't see why it is so flamewar-ish, unless there are a large number of FSB sleeper agents hanging around here waiting for a chance to spread misinformation.

What's going on in Russia is pretty incredible. I have good friends there and am excited and scared for them in roughly equal measure. I am not sure it will come to "revolution" - or that anyone wants it to - but it is clear that things need to change, and change is slowly coming to the forefront of the national consciousness.

Russia is, after all, the largest country on Earth. What happens there will affect everywhere else. I'm not trying to boost this particular article, but I would say it behooves any worldly-minded entrepreneur to at least maintain a rough familiarity with world affairs.

<comment><USER3> > _I don't see why it is so flamewar-ish_

Because there's always (at least) two sides to each coin.

Putin might be a czar, but Russia under his rule restored much of its superpower status that was lost in the Soviet Union collapse. His exploitation of Russia's position of nearly monopolist resource exporter in the region is very clever, and it put a lot of smaller countries in Europe (Finland included) under substantial influence of Russia. Understandably this doesn't sit well with some other countries, and it's in their best interest to undermine Putin's order and to support and agitate the social unrest in Russia. So one may argue that the "revolution" is being stirred as much from the outside as from the inside. In fact, there's an alleged proof floating around (in a form of fiscal email exchanges between "independent non-profit pro-democracy" Russian media and social outlets and their US sponsors). That's not to say that the proof is real. It only means that there's a full-on media war on, and theatlantic.com might be representing just one side of it.

Now, do tell me this is not flamewar-ish :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> More importantly, when will revolution come to America? Russia isn't any more corrupt than the henchmen in control of Washington and Wall Street.

<comment><USER6> _Russia isn't any more corrupt than the henchmen in control of Washington and Wall Street._

Having just been to Russia for six weeks this summer, I am _so_ glad I'm living in America and not Russia. That said, I agree America is overdue for a revolution.</comment></comment>


Does your bookshelf teach concepts or just tools? - <AUTHOR> http://amy-shelton.blogspot.com/

<comment><USER2> I don't understand why I shouldn't have books that teach tools: It's transient stuff that keeping in my head isn't as useful as the concepts.

<comment><AUTHOR> It isn't that you shouldn't have those books. My point is mainly that once you read them and learn the tools, they just gather dust. I just went back and amended my post with an additional sentence. Basically, most of the books that teach tools are read once, Google later. Once I know about a tool, it is usually a lot faster to quickly search for a bit of refresher knowledge than to thumb through the book looking for some specific page.

<comment><USER2> Sounds like you need a kindle :D

I recommend the DX for technical users.

<comment><AUTHOR> Funny you should mention that. I'm definitely buying more electronic books (Kindle app for iPad). Somehow I feel better paying less for the electronic version. _But_ I still prefer a hard copy for the classics. :-)

<comment><USER2> In the process of weeding down our possessions in general, I've been ditching a lot of books.

Kindle on the iPad definitely works, however the batteried nature of the device makes Kindle on Mac and Kindle on well, a Kindle, more useful for certain things.

I usually actually read on Kindle on iPhone.

Real estate costs so much, I'd pay _more_ for ebooks than the dead tree version. That is an expensive bookshelf to keep.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I make it a point to only have books that I could see myself reading 10 years from now. This _occasionally_ applies to tools that have almost become concepts in themselves, like C or Unix shell scripting for example.

</comment><comment><USER4> amyshelton: In the future, you might want to link to the specific post and not just your homepage.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tip! Will do.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Chaturly - Persistent chat about any URL, with anyone - <AUTHOR> http://www.chaturly.com

<comment><USER2> The site wouldn't accept "youtube.com" as a valid URL - I had to type in the entire thing ([http://www.youtube.com](http://www.youtube.com)). You might want to fix that?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the validation on the URLs is pretty basic. That, along with listing the recent/popular URLs and usernames are probably the areas for my attention.</comment></comment>


Eating for marathons - <AUTHOR> http://foodia.org/blog/2011/05/eating-for-marathons/

<comment><USER2> "Simple, wholesome, real food—not too much, and consumed at exactly the right intervals before & after workouts—is the key to boosting athletic performance."

So what are the right intervals?

<comment><AUTHOR> The key on race day is to get as much water as your stomach can handle -- one coach (Benji Durden) recommends about a quart of water 1-2 hours before the race, and then almost a half bottle every 6 miles or so. That's a lot of water when you're trying to run 5:30/mile pace!

<comment><USER3> Be extremely careful if following this advice. Hyponatremia--dilution of the blood resulting in low levels of sodium--is a serious concern for marathon runners. Dehydration during a race won't kill you; hyponatremia might.

Absolutely, positively do _not_ "get as much water as your stomach can handle". Your stomach can handle enough water to kill you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Dehydration absolutely can kill you during a race. Ask most (if not all) race medics and/or first-aid volunteers and they'll tell you dehydration is by far the bigger issue at marathons.

You took that quote out of context. If you're an elite marathoner trying to run sub-3:00 pace, then I stand by my comment to get as much water as your stomach can handle. Hydration is the limiting factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I play soccer regularly and this insight is helpful. I should start to have a more analytical view of nutritions and performance from now on.</comment>