Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html

<comment><USER2> Does anyone know what Yegge has been up to? I thought maybe he moved his blogging over to Google+ or something, but that hasn't been updated since 2012 either.

After his effusive praise for pre-Rails-fever Ruby in his initial foray with it, I've been extremely interested in what he thinks of it now, or how long he stuck with it.

edit: The link for convenience: [http://steve- yegge.blogspot.com/2006/09/bloggers-block-4-rub...](http://steve- yegge.blogspot.com/2006/09/bloggers-block-4-ruby-and-java-and.html)

I have to highly agree with Jeff Atwood's sentiment, in his explanation of why he was OK with using Ruby for Discourse:

[http://blog.codinghorror.com/why-ruby/](http://blog.codinghorror.com/why- ruby/)

Quoting Yegge:

 _For the most part, Ruby took Perl 's string processing and Unix integration as-is, meaning the syntax is identical, and so right there, before anything else happens, you already have the Best of Perl. And that's a great start, especially if you don't take the Rest of Perl._

 _But then Matz took the best of list processing from Lisp, and the best of OO from Smalltalk and other languages, and the best of iterators from CLU, and pretty much the best of everything from everyone._

 _And he somehow made it all work together so well that you don 't even notice that it has all that stuff. I learned Ruby faster than any other language, out of maybe 30 or 40 total; it took me about 3 days before I was more comfortable using Ruby than I was in Perl, after eight years of Perl hacking. It's so consistent that you start being able to guess how things will work, and you're right most of the time. It's beautiful. And fun. And practical._

<comment><USER3> He's been active on Twitter lately: [https://twitter.com/Steve_Yegge](https://twitter.com/Steve_Yegge)

<comment><USER4> 3 tweets this year is not what I would call active...

<comment><USER3> By that I meant, he has posted on Twitter in the last month, so at least that's a sign that he's probably still alive...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great, now I have to go back and spend 3 hours re-reading all his blog posts...... wait its steve yegge, make that 30 hours;)

Other good posts on that blog:

\- [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2006/03/math-for- programmers....](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2006/03/math-for- programmers.html)

\- [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2009/04/have-you-ever- legaliz...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized- marijuana.html)

\- [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2008/06/done-and-gets- things-...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2008/06/done-and-gets-things- smart.html)

\- [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2008/05/dynamic-languages- str...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2008/05/dynamic-languages-strike- back.html)

\- [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2008/03/get-that-job-at- googl...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2008/03/get-that-job-at-google.html)

\- [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2008/01/emergency-elisp.html](http://steve- yegge.blogspot.ca/2008/01/emergency-elisp.html)

The abstract, long reads with a good message:

\- [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2007/06/rich-programmer- food....](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2007/06/rich-programmer-food.html)

\- [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2007/06/that-old- marshmallow-...](http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2007/06/that-old-marshmallow- maze-spell.html)

\- [http://steve-yegge.blogspot.ca/2006/12/parabola.html](http://steve- yegge.blogspot.ca/2006/12/parabola.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> I miss Steve Yegge! Please come back!

<comment><USER7> Me too - I wish I could read his internal rants at Google. I can't find something to replace the kind of blogging he did.

And I think I'm not alone in this: [http://blog.fogus.me/2011/03/27/the-long- lost-art-of-thought...](http://blog.fogus.me/2011/03/27/the-long-lost-art-of- thoughtfulness-in-blogging/)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm still laughing over: 'The number zero is simply lambda(), and 1 is lambda(lambda()), 2 is lambda(lambda(lambda())), and so on. Every single Thing in this legendary region, be it noun, verb or otherwise, is constructed from the primal verb "lambda".'

<comment><USER8> Yeah, well, I wasn't precisely laughing when I saw it on my Formal Languages and Computability course...

Check Church numerals: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_encoding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_encoding)

<comment><AUTHOR> The reason I was laughing was because I could imagine it happening - know I know it's true I'm not sure how I feel about it.

<comment><USER9> It's a mathematical formalism for minimizing the number of distinct entities in minimalistic theories of numbers, and providing definitions of "number" that are as well-defined as possible, which turns out to be harder than it appears at first blush. In practice, it isn't generally directly used, except in places where proper facilities for using integers haven't yet been created (C++ templates at a certain point, some older Haskell type code before ints become promotable to the type level, etc). (And just to be clear, I'm not saying they've never been used in real code, but that it's a serious code smell to _need_ to use them in real code. They get inefficient, fast; given that they're often showing up in type checking algorithms they can get inefficient superlinearly in their size.)

<comment><USER10> I vaguely remember that church numerals (or was it some other encoding ?) have been used to minimize conditional jumps in code. If someone is familiar with how that works, would love to hear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Don't think its this is just limited to java

(Stop writing classes - python) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9pEzgHorH0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9pEzgHorH0)

</comment><comment><USER12> Steve Yegge. Classic.

</comment><comment><USER13> That is one of my favourite articles. Ever.

</comment><comment><USER14> > This story... is neither a story for the faint of heart nor for the critical > of mouth. If you're easily offended, or prone to being a disagreeable knave > in blog comments, please stop reading now.

That's a neat trick, limiting your blog post to people who won't be critical of it.

<comment><USER15> You ignored the most important word in the message when crafting your reply. Which, amusingly, means you're exactly the target of that message.

<comment><USER14> I'm honestly not sure which word you're referring to.

<comment><USER15> "Knave." In other words, he said "if you're just a combative jerk, stay away" but you managed to read it as "if you disagree, stay away".

<comment><USER14> Knave doesn't mean combative, it means deceitful (or servant/worker which I doubt he means here). The most important phrase in my reading is "critical of mouth."

Also, reading a paragraph wrong doesn't make a person a combative jerk. Nor does being critical.

<comment><USER15> No, but going out of your way to be offended certainly qualifies.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Soon, Drones May Be Able to Make Lethal Decisions on Their Own - <AUTHOR> http://www.nationaljournal.com/national-security/soon-drones-may-be-able-to-make-lethal-decisions-on-their-own-20131008

<comment><USER2> This isn't surprising. I think the future of warfare will be massive armies of drones controlled by algorithms. If we can remove the pilot from the equation, we can drastically increase the size of our military. That's not to say that algorithmic warfare will be _good_. I'm merely saying it is inevitable.

<comment><USER3> Can't we just do that in a computer and pretend that things were destroyed and killed? Maybe calculate the transfer of wealth that would have occurred as a consequence of inferior algorithms leading to the destruction of your virtual societies?

<comment><USER4> Then you'd need a real army to enforce the victory.

<comment><USER3> I'm sure the financial sector is ready to take on such a challenge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Landmines already make lethal decisions on their own. They just use far simpler heuristics.

There's not going to be some big red switch that is flipped and suddenly the machines decide what to shoot at. Instead there will just be a gradual extension of fire control mechanisms.

<comment><USER6> _Landmines already make lethal decisions on their own. They just use far simpler heuristics._

And they have an appalling track record for making the wrong decision, because those simple heuristics also tend to produce answers like "Kill this five- year-old child because they're playing in a field where a war took place twenty years ago".

If you're trying to make an argument for why automated killing machines are a bad idea, landmines are just about the perfect example.

</comment></comment><comment> luke-stanley "on Their Own" isn't correct, there is still legal liability, even if it's distant, someone has to ok the algo, someone has to fund it, people have to start the process off... Heat seeking missiles aren't new, and are also automated yet lethal...

</comment><comment><USER7> Lethal Autonomous Robots are inevitable. They think faster than humans, are much more tactically coordinated and all of them can be updated with new instructions and bug fixes. Just ask a marine captain how difficult it is to bug fix and update his men and you can see the value.

The best way to use drones is to think of them as the appendages or hands of one robotic brain instead of individual units. The beauty of networked robots is that they are _ultimately_ coordinated, one knows what all the others know at all times. This is the absolute dream of military commanders. They would adopt the idea much more readily if it didn't put them out of a job. The only reason we can hang on the nostalgia of men at war is because the US hasn't faced a serious military threat in a very long time. Eventually this will no longer be the case and drone on drone combat will be the only reasonable option.

One objection that people have is that drones will eliminate the human cost of war and make destructive combat more common. I say that frequent combat is just fine as long as humans aren't involved. In the future opposing sides will resolve conflicts by destroying a few hundred million dollars of equipment instead of destroying human lives. I'm hoping that total war will be phased out as machines become powerful enough to dominate the battlefield.

<comment><USER6> _Lethal Autonomous Robots are inevitable. They think faster than humans_

On the contrary. They _follow orders_ faster than humans. They don't _think_ at all, in the sense that a human can with their adaptability and ethical awareness and ability to make a judgement call that a situation is not something the predetermined rules were designed to handle.

This is the main reason I don't see LARs becoming widely used. They are superior to human warriors in the kind of war that is decided by split-second reactions, when you know exactly who the enemy is and you're otherwise roughly evenly matched. Very few modern wars are actually like that.

 _The beauty of networked robots is that they are ultimately coordinated, one knows what all the others know at all times. This is the absolute dream of military commanders._

But that dream becomes a nightmare if the system is ever compromised. Of course, no battlefield-wide, 100% computer-driven, 100% remote-controlled system would ever be deployed with a security vulnerability, for the same reasons that no military equipment ever fails under combat conditions, no military unit in the field ever finds itself unable to communicate with its commanders, no computer virus has ever found its way into a secure installation, no software bug has ever caused military equipment to fail, and no human involved in the military or intelligence communities or their suppliers has ever been disloyal.

 _One objection that people have is that drones will eliminate the human cost of war and make destructive combat more common._

What is the point of having these machines, if they will not ultimately result in a human cost? Weapons of war are made for one purpose, and one purpose only: to be able to kill people. Any more desirable outcomes, like taking control of a hostile country without actually killing everyone, tend to be predicated on the threat that you can do so if you need to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What if a drone could drop something like a small cluster-bomb munition, but instead of bomblets, the payload was a bunch of smaller quadcopter drones equipped with TASERs and programmed to immobilize anyone in the area? This wouldn't be free of fatalities, but it could involve far fewer of them.

<comment><USER9> And then what? You'd have to have a commando team in these tribal areas close enough to catch the incapacitated victims before they can stand up again.

<comment><USER8> I was thinking in the context of domestic use along the border or for use with drug interdiction.

Also, I can think of uses for temporarily incapacitating people. The US government sends in an airstrike along a corridor covered by airbases. However, when the opposing air forces try to scramble their jets, their pilots are incapacitated and harassed by quadcopter drones deployed from a container dropped earlier by a stealthed drone. I think there would be a lot of uses for such capability for special forces units.

<comment><USER10> A cluster bomb delivered in that same container would be cheaper, more effective and with less risk to fail.

In military applications, it is almost always easier to permanently incapacitate people. Tech for temporary incapacitation is needed only in those very rare cases where we really, really need someone alive; where the capture is so vital that it's worth risking and often spending our troop lives to achieve that.

<comment><USER8> _> A cluster bomb delivered in that same container would be cheaper, more effective and with less risk to fail._

Yes. This scheme is bending over backwards to try not to kill people. Just killing them would be much simpler.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Good TED talk for why that shouldn't happen:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYYx_im5QI)

</comment><comment><USER12> I for one look forward to Judgement Day...

</comment><comment><USER13> Sorry, but machines do not make decisions, never will. Humans that create machines make decisions.

<comment><USER3>
        void decide() {
            while(((float)rand() / RAND_MAX) > 0.00000001);
            push_the_button();
        }

        int main() { decide(); }

Relevant: [http://www.vagrearg.org/content/edm](http://www.vagrearg.org/content/edm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So, what you're saying is "Eagle Eye" might come true soon then?

</comment><comment><USER15> whadya think of the redesigned site?

<comment><USER16> I think if you want to maintain the image of a respected journal you should probably disable commenting on the site..</comment></comment>


Emscripten and WebAssembly - <AUTHOR> https://kripken.github.io/talks/wasm.html#/ <comment><USER2> i'm using the emscriptenised version of bullet physics library for a web pool simulation - it does work surprisingly well.</comment>


Why does JavaScript require Require.js - <AUTHOR> http://rockyj.in/2012/10/15/why_does_js_require_requirejs.html

<comment><USER2> Require.js is great combined with [LiveReload]( <http://livereload.com/> ) during development time. It's the fastest method I know of to reload your page and see the changes.

</comment><comment><USER3> Module support is (maybe?) coming in ECMAScript 6.</comment>


Lawdiscuss.com - Stack Exchange site for legal advice - <AUTHOR> http://www.lawdiscuss.com

<comment><USER2> I am sure if they figure out a way to make the best answers and best advice givers float to the top, similar to the seeking alpha cred system it will become very useful. Information wants to be free and the law is free to access, but difficult to gain access to for the layman.

My concern is the legal profession makes it's bacon by keeping the law mysterious and vexing. Legalese is often needlessly complicated and obfuscates a contracts true intention. As long as lawyers and law students continue writing in Plain English this will be a great tool to cut through all the crap.

<comment><USER3> The nature of reality is the cause of the legal professions complexity. Legalese is simply a tool used in order to make the communication more precise and uniform (you could say the same thing about programming). Without legalese, you would undoubtedly see a dramatic rise in court filings (like in programming, you would see more bugs).

It's similar to programming in that you are attempting to draw up rules/parameters for a game, but more challenging because the system it operates in is usually less constrained.

Take this for what it's worth; I would call myself neither an expert in law or programming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hello HN, thank you for all the great comments! My name is Munish Dayal, I'm a newly admitted attorney in California and we started this site not long ago because we thought that most of the Legal Q&A sites weren't that great (a lot of them charge money). I briefly worked as a corporate lawyer at a firm in California that charges obscene rates but I wanted to say that I am personally going to try to make an effort to answer every question on the site that I can, especially for entrepreneurs bootstrapping their own startups that may not have resources to seek counsel, no matter how small. My passion is working with startups since I'm attempting to start my own so I am happy to at least try to answer any of your questions. I can't guarantee that it will always be a definitive answer but I hope it will at least help you.

I wanted to address a few concerns - I am building up a stable of attorneys, new and experienced to answer questions so the people answering your questions on our site aren't just a bunch of clueless law students. I know our design isn't that great (I'm not much of a designer) but we are going to work on it. George Grellas - you are right to point out that the quality will be variable and this will never replace a talented, experienced attorney (like yourself) that is necessary for startups seeking capital; I can't guarantee I will know something about every question, but we are shooting for it as a resource. I will keep checking this thread but thank you all for the support and I hope you will find this useful.

</comment><comment><USER5> This might prove useful as a resource but I suspect it will be highly variable in the quality of advice one can glean from it (just a quick perusal: a good answer on what it means to do a trademark; a very superficial one on what form of entity one should set up for a small business; and no answer to the perennially vexing question, "Why are there so many lawyers?").

I also think that the open-ended format, permitting users to ask questions about any legal subject imaginable, will tend to limit the site's usefulness for specialized areas like startup advice.

</comment><comment><USER6> They also need to give everyone a default "IANAL" badge, which they _lose_ if they're photographed holding 1) a piece of paper saying "Hi, LawDiscuss.com, I'm $username!" and a legible law school diploma.

<comment><USER7> Except aren't there rules about lawyers giving advice to people who aren't their clients?

<comment><USER6> I think grellas can answer this better than I can. I imagine it's something like what happens with stocks: a broker can say "I like IBM. I think it's going up from here," but has to footnote it with "This is not advice, and is no substitute for your own research. Ask a financial advisor before etc."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm sure this site will get a lot of feedback along the lines of "I don't know how useful this will be," but I could see this being very useful if it gets enough traction. Let's not forget that many programmers consult for hundreds of dollars an hour for over hundreds of different technologies and yet Stack Overflow is very successful. You also don't need to be a lawyer to suggest something, a simple "I had this issue once and this is what I did" anecdote could still be useful for the questioner.

</comment><comment><USER9> Looks like it has some growing pains. Most of the links at the top jsut link back to the main page. Alot of people have the "Tumbleweed" badge - "Asked a questions with no answers, no comments, and low views for a week".

It's an interesting idea but I'm not sure how many lawyers who normally charge hundreds of dollars an hour to answer stuff like this will really decide they want to do it for free. I'd like to see it take off but I think it may have a tough time.

<comment><USER10> To say nothing of the fact that laws are radically different in each jurisdiction. A correct answer for Palo Alto would say nothing about a legal situation in Toronto.

While the site's term of use cover the "duty of care" stuff, I see a lot of potential pitfalls for lawyers using this site and not many benefits.

<comment><USER11> A correct answer for California says very little about a correct answer in Nevada, let alone in another country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The law isn't quite the same as software development. Seems like the correct answer would often depend on a huge amount of context.

</comment><comment><USER12> Something about the whole Stack Overflow/Exchange-type answer site look is very off-putting.

<comment><USER13> What is off-putting about it? Please elaborate as I've found SO very, very helpful. Specifically, these points have made the site so helpful:

\- The badge system rewards good answers.

\- The most popular questions and answers float to the top.

\- The accepted answer gets floated to the top.

\- Questions and answers can be edited by other users for clarification

\- Community wikis provide invaluable information from users about certain topics that aren't question based

\- The site is fast and responsive.

My only complaints are based on reviving topics. Old topics seem to be forgotten. But if you try to repost an old topic for some updated answers, the question is closed because of reposting.

kyro, what have you found to be very off-putting?

<comment><USER12> It's way too cluttered with bold colors and bold fonts. I'm always so overwhelmed and confused when I land on a site like that. All the information is in your face.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm honestly surprised some sort of "Legal Overflow" site wasn't created earlier, so props to these guys for giving it a shot. Based on the responses it looks like they already have a few guys with a legal background prepared to answer questions as best as they can, so maybe that will provide the "seed users" they need to provide value. Whether those guys are experienced legal professionals or just some buddies in law school is up in the air though.

<comment><USER15> Others have been created before. One that I've personally tried is <http://www.lawguru.com/> (absolutely no affiliation)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The first few sentences of each answer are disclaimers and add a lot of noise. Any way to push the disclaimers to the end of the answers?

<comment><USER4> Sure I will definitely implement that from now on,just felt it was important to point it out initially.</comment></comment>


The $61,392 Book Launch That Let Me Quit My Job - <AUTHOR> https://adamwathan.me/the-book-launch-that-let-me-quit-my-job/ <comment><USER2> Blog post is really great. Favorite section is the "What I think worked" section, tips for staying motivated and getting to launch. Also after reading this becomes apparent how much freaking work goes into this stuff!!!

Welp, off to make my "tripwire" product.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is nuts!</comment>


HTC disagrees with Apple's actions and will fully defend itself - <AUTHOR> http://www.htc.com/us/press/htc-disagrees-with-apples-actions/10

<comment><USER2> Good. HTC must challenge Apple's actions because Apple's really getting out of hand in their assertions of ownership.

<comment><USER3> _Apple's really getting out of hand in their assertions of ownership._

Could you be more specific?

<comment><USER4> Apple has had a history of thinking it invented something (when it, itself, was inspired by another product) and believing they own it 100%

A good example is Keynote. Sun/Lighthouse developed a great presentation app called Concurrence that ran on NeXT's set of computers. When Steve sold NeXT to Apple and they went on to develop Keynote, he thought that was his invention, when really it's rather obvious where he got his inspiration from.

Plenty of other stories like these with Apple (and for that matter, all the other giants)

<comment><USER5> Another example is their patent on unlocking a device with a gesture. Asides from Windows Mobile already using gestures for unlocks prior to iPhone beind released, achieving tasks with gestures has been around for years and adding a particular task 'unlocking a phone' doesn't make that novel.

<comment><USER3> Apple has no patent on the general _concept_ of "unlocking a device with a gesture". They have a patent on their implementation. You can't patent a concept.

This would be clearer if patent titles were prefixed with "A", as in "A method...", etc. Most people seem to read them as "The method...", which when combined with the linear format (even though claims are dependent), makes almost all of them sound much more broad than they actually are.

You might might get a better idea of what the patent is intended to cover by noting the _differences_ between implementations, rather than the similarities. I won't speak to that myself, as I have never seen the Windows Mobile implementation.

<comment><USER6> you got it totally backwards

concept is exactly what you apply a patent for, implementation is application of concept

<comment><USER3> I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. You cannot patent a concept, only inventions. You don't have to actually build the invention, but it does have to be a concrete thing and and not a wholly abstract idea. This is why patents have specific claims, descriptions, and diagrams associated with them, and not just titles.

For instance, you can obtain a patent on a self-cleaning cat box by describing one and how it works[1], but if someone comes along and invents another self- cleaning cat box that works via some totally different method[2], your patent does not apply. You do not own the patent on the _concept_ of a self-cleaning cat box, only the subset of all possible self-cleaning cat boxes that work more or less the way yours does.

[1]: <http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5113801> [2]: <http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6701868>

<comment><USER7> That's how it _should_ be. It seems to me that some of the software patents have crossed that line, as have the "business method" patents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> HTC [spent a week checking that Google had it's back and then] disagrees with Apple's actions and will defend itself.

At the moment I can only see this battle doing 2 things: A: free press coverage [read "advertising"] for both Apple and HTC regardless of outcome. B: driving a wedge between die hard fans of both Apple and Google/HTC

</comment><comment><USER4> It's really a giant game of Chess, here. Apple can't possibly expect to win this lawsuit.

Jonathan Swartz, former CEO of Sun, had an excellent blog post on the subject: [http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good- artis...](http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artists-copy- great-artists-steal/)

<comment><USER9> Wasn't he CEO at the time of the Kodak suit. That was probably not handled well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Seriously, I wouldn't expect it any other way.

Definitely HTC would not agree with Apple's actions and would not defend itself.

This won't happen: Apple: HTC, I'm suing you for blah blah blah...... HTC: OK, I give up.

<comment><USER11> Well obviously not "OK I give up" but it could (and often end up) as an out of court settlement before anything happens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This press release didn't say anything. It could have been one line long. "We feel Apple's case has no merit, and we will fight it" or something of the like. That's the only interesting thing it said. Then it just went into "HTC is awesome", which has nothing to do with the case.

<comment><USER5> It made the point that HTC has been doing touch based mobile phones for longer than Apple has.

Apple tried to portray HTC as imitators in their announcement. This is a good damn good counter to that.

<comment><USER13> Isn't the case about multi-touch though? Or am I mistaken?

<comment><USER5> The case is about using gestures to unlock phones, bouncing when a menu is scrolled too far, and other items. If Apple managed to get patents on multitouch (which was close 40 years old by the time iPhone came out) they're not involved here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I can sympathisize with newcomers being frustrated by patents for technologies which seem like 2nd nature to them.

But what patents does HTC itself hold and enforce? I'd like to find that out, cause you know, 'live by the sword, die by the sword...'

<comment><USER15> Considering this: HTC is a Taiwanese company. Taiwan has sane patent laws, unlike the US. So they're unlikely to have a large arsenal of frivolous patents.

<comment><USER14> Well, that doesn't stop them from filing with the US patent office. Here's one they did file, citing an earlier 2008 patent in Taiwan, <http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0264157.html>.

It appears to be a patent for a mobile phone touch-screen 'slide-to-lock' interface. Hmmm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Dreamy I know, but you'd hope that a coalition would form to defend HTC from this, unless they rather be next:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came..>.

</comment><comment><USER17> It's petty to take sides in either end of this - I doubt anyone is well read enough on the patent portfolios of either company to pass a legitimately informed comment.

<comment><USER18> Then I guess I'm petty, because my next phone is going to be made by HTC.

<comment><USER17> I'm not suggesting that at all - you should always buy whatever is best for you regardless of politics. (Loyalty is for suckers.)

However I hope there is a total blood shed and all out patent war. I don't personally agree to the current method in which patents are used. It's a system desperately needing an overhaul. (Which is simply not going to happen.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So does this mean anything? Or is this what they would say even if they were really hoping to settle?

<comment><USER9> I think the telling part is that don't have anything to hit back with. Apple came at them with 20 patents and only has to make 1 stick. Apple and Nokia will probably settle (it seems more about price and licensing then winning), but HTC needs to win and that is extremely difficult with these patents. Check the Sun/Kodak history for an example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Can someone explain to me why is this a top story on HN, and why should i care?

This sounds exactly just like celebrity gossip, just substitute people with big companies. I just can't grasp why is this interesting and why people are upvoting this?

<comment><USER21> I care deeply about it because we have to live in a world where companies can say they own your product because it looks like theirs. They will make broad claims and see what sticks. If the company attacking you is big enough, that usually means doom for you.

<comment><USER3> _companies can say they own your product because it looks like theirs_

What are you referring to specifically? Is there a specific one of the patents in the Apple/HTC case that you feel is purely cosmetic, or are you referring to something else?

<comment><USER21> The most basic one is the "one-click" Amazon patent. Most of Apple's patents on forms of interaction with touchscreens or other touch-sensitive devices are little more than reflections of physical interaction with objects.

<comment><USER13> So simple anyone could have done it, right?

<comment><USER22> This is the key point. Many inventions are 'obvious in retrospect'. The Amazon 1-click patent is one of those annoying things where it seems obvious, but no one had ever done it and it's a huge boon to businesses (it makes impulse buying almost automatic).

For many of these patents, people will say it's obvious, but it's only obvious now that we've seen it all. No one else had ever done it before, so what's obvious about it?

<comment><USER21> Nobody could have done that much earlier because the pieces were not in place. No web technology was invented before the web.

1-click appeared pretty much at the same time someone had the idea of storing credit card information on a web server.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Telecoms companies decide Google should pay for YouTube content delivery - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/news/telecoms-companies-decide-google-should-pay-for-youtube-content-delivery-20100412/

<comment><USER2> I followed the given FT link ( [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8f5d6128-4400-11df-9235-00144feab4...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/8f5d6128-4400-11df-9235-00144feab49a.html) ), because I could not quite believe anyone responsible had said that.

Seems I should really up my expectations. Those telco CEOs do seem to think they can charge twice for the same service. They bill their customers, and go to the regulators to charge Google/etc.

While the regulators are looking into it, perhaps they could also look into things like the "4 euro/week" subscriptions to wallpapers and ringtones, plus the premium SMS charges for 1-in-30 drawings of movie tickets, etc. The telcos' cut of those interesting money-transfer operations may not be big enough.</comment>


The Charges Are Flying Over a Test of Tesla's Charging Network - <AUTHOR> http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/the-charges-are-flying-over-a-test-of-teslas-charging-network/ <comment><USER2> As best as I can tell (unless Tesla releases data showing otherwise), the reporter _probably_ did not intentionally sabotage the results, but made a number of errors possibly because he was trying to simulate a "mass consumer" driver. On the one hand, he should have known better. On the other hand, I can imagine similar things happening to some subset of new Tesla owners who fail to read up on what to do with the new technology, and it is fair to point those faults out.

I imagine the reporter's article would have rubbed Musk the wrong way a lot less if the reporter had made it more clear what was going on and that some of the things that happened were the results of mistakes made (whether or not you might expect consumers to make the same mistakes).

For example: if the reporter had explained that he was intentionally trying to simulate "normal use" by not plugging in the car at night. If the article had said, "The owner's manual said to plug in overnight, repeatedly, but I chose not to in order to see what might happen if a less educated consumer were driving the car," I imagine the article would have gotten more sympathy. The article, as I read it, didn't really get into that, and seemed to simply imply a failure on Tesla's part.

<comment><USER3> "If the reporter had explained that he was intentionally trying to simulate "normal use" by not plugging in the car at night."

That runs at odds with a claim made on Tesla's site: "The Model S battery will not lose a significant amount of charge when parked for long periods of time. For example, Model S owners can park at the airport without plugging in." (<http://www.teslamotors.com/models/facts>)

Either Tesla is lying when it claims that it won't lose a significant amount of charge, or Tesla is not lying (which would imply that not charging overnight doesn't really matter)

<comment><USER2> Interesting, the manual says: "Tesla strongly recommends leaving Model S plugged in when not in use" and "The most important way to preserve the Battery is to LEAVE YOUR MODEL S PLUGGED IN when you're not using it" and "Tesla recommends charging Model S each night or when convenient to maintain optimum driving range and battery health. If you go on vacation, plug in your Model S before you leave."*

But this also doesn't say that you can expect to lose 65 mile range in the cold if it's not plugged in. This is very good information to know and not at all what's implied by the link you provide, but it would have been good if the article had discussed all this in full context.

* [http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachme...](http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/ms_owners_guide.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In reading the rebuttal here, I can't shake the feeling that one cannot take anything uttered from Elon Musk's mouth at face value when it concerns his baby, Tesla (and probably also SpaceX). He appears absolutely dedicated to the success of his companies. He is a visionary, a True Beliver, and he will do anything to advance his cause, even at the expense of personal credibility--so it is important to unspin what he says, and give it the maximum amount of scrutiny, because you can be sure he using every trick at his disposal to put the situation in the best possible light.

In this respect, he sounds like a political candidate, and, to be fair, many other CEOs behave like this.

<comment><USER5> > I can't shake the feeling that one cannot take anything uttered from Elon > Musk's mouth at face value when it concerns his baby ...

There's no need for that -- Musk has the car's logs, which describe the miles driven, the speeds, and the battery's state of charge. Under the circumstances, this is not a case of "he said, she said" -- i's a matter of unambiguous computer records.

If the computer records contradict what Musk said, he's in big trouble, but I doubt it will come out that way. And consider the consequences if Musk reported something different than the records show -- and Musk knows this. Why would he knowingly sabotage his own company?

<comment><USER6> > And consider the consequences if Musk reported something different than the > records show -- and Musk knows this. Why would he knowingly sabotage his own > company?

Wouldn't a privileged DBA be able to make the data look like just about anything? Also, the location logging system as a whole isn't necessarily infallible.

<comment><USER7> Indeed, if that location data's GPS, it can get pretty distorted in the city. Especially if there's a lot of thick cloud coverage.

<comment><USER8> The Tesla dash runs Android, doesn't it? I wonder if it can use wifi & cellular data to help correct GPS like most mobile devices can.

<comment><USER5> > The Tesla dash runs Android, doesn't it? I wonder if it can use wifi & > cellular data to help correct GPS like most mobile devices can.

Unless the car is under a wet forest canopy, the GPS position will be more accurate than the other ways of determining position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This reply to Musk's criticism essentially concedes its truth -- the correspondent didn't fully charge the battery, just as Musk claimed, he did add some gratuitous miles to his route as Musk claimed, and he exceeded the speed limit as Musk claimed.

There are factors that made this a tough (some will say "realistic") test, particularly the low temperature. But the correspondent's ignorance might have been the biggest obstacle: "... I was under the impression that stop-and-go driving at low speeds in the city would help, not hurt, my mileage." Really? Repeated acceleration and deceleration will help the overall mileage? The fact that the car has regenerative braking can only reduce the losses created by stop-and-go driving, not eliminate them entirely (the best regenerative braking schemes can only recover a fraction of the energy lost in braking).

Musk's reaction to this account is understandable -- this technology is in its infancy, and public perceptions, accurate or not, could make or break Tesla.

<comment><USER9> _he did add some gratuitous miles_

Two miles is "gratuitous"? That's a rounding error, even on my bicycle!

 _and he exceeded the speed limit as Musk claimed_

Does Tesla expect drivers to adhere to posted speed limits even when prevailing speeds are much higher (as they are on I-95)?

edit: CamperBob2 wrote "Apparently the reporter was averaging 81 MPH, going by an earlier comment."

As far as I can tell, that figure is based on a Reddit post from yesterday ([http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/18c15x/tesla_ceo...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/18c15x/tesla_ceo_elon_musk_accuses_new_york_times_of/c8dmzp9)) which in turn is assuming that the times and mileage on the travel map were exact. It could be. But then again, those times could be estimates (note that 7 out of 9 time stamps appear rounded to the nearest 5 minute mark). I guess we'll know when Tesla releases the logs.

<comment><USER10> Apparently the reporter was _averaging_ 81 MPH, going by an earlier comment. I don't know if that's true or not, but that is a very high average speed and it will have serious effects on fuel economy.

To average 81 MPH in traffic, you are going to need to spend a fair amount of time north of 90 MPH. If the charging station intervals were based on expected speeds closer to 55-65 MPH, then the idea that the trip could be made at 80+ was questionable from the outset.

So, yeah, there's adhering to posted speed limits for best fuel economy, there's driving with the traffic for maximum safety, and then there's full- blown Mad Max mode, which is apparently what you do when you want to make the car you're testing look bad.

<comment><USER11> That doesn't seem very plausible. What's the other comment? Averaging 81 MPH is nearly impossible in the Northeast.

<comment><USER10> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5205378> was the post I was thinking of. Not exactly specific, you're right.

<comment><USER11> Ah, that seems more plausible if the speed limit was 75 for that stretch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The last paragraph is the guilty admission by Tesla, "He said that the East Coast charging stations should be 140 miles apart, not 200 miles, to take into account the traffic and temperature extremes in this part of the country."

As I commented here on the prior article on HN, <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5203654>

Musk is trying to get ahead of the story. Instead of the headlines being, "driver stranded in the cold" it was "NYT faked article".

Musk/Tesla is yet to show any data, the jury is still out. But given, it's taken them this long, it seems to me, Tesla got the effect they wanted and will most likely not publish anything that will drastically contradict NYT's reporter.

</comment><comment><USER13> _Based on that advice, I was under the impression that stop-and-go driving at low speeds in the city would help, not hurt, my mileage._

How does someone this unaware of how transportation works end up in a position to be reviewing cars in a professional setting?

<comment><USER14> As has been brought up in previous discussions, his primary role is as a "Green" correspondent, not an auto columnist. However, his inference wasn't all that crazy- consider, for example, that published mpg for the Prius is higher for city driving than on highways.

Edit: Further, Tesla's own blog states the following, which could probably influence many to infer what Broder did:

 _In contrast slower city driving speeds are more efficient and electric vehicles have a unique benefit in stop and go, low-speed driving due to regenerative braking_

<http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range>

<comment><USER15> There's highway, city and "stop and go" city. It doesn't matter what kind of car you have, gridlock is going to be inefficient.

<comment><USER14> At some speed, driving fast on the highway will eventually be less efficient than driving in very bad gridlock. It isn't entirely unreasonable to incorrectly estimate the intersection of two causes of inefficiency in driving.

It's probably possible to design a car so aerodynamically inefficient at 35+ mph that stop and go is preferable to cruising at even moderate speeds.

<comment><USER8> ...although it should be noted that the Model S has the second best drag coefficient on the market today (it was the first before a new Benz was released in 2013):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Honestly, the simple fact that there is a discussion regarding the range of the Model S shows that its still an issue. Will it work for some? Sure. Will it work for most? Probably not.

<comment><USER17> I don't think that is logical.

I can pick fights on the internet about evolution, but that does not have any bearing on the reality of the situation. If these cars got 5k miles to the charge I could still start "discussion" about the range, but that wouldn't show that range is still an issue.

The fact that anything is "being discussed" means nothing at all. You have to analyze the validity of the points being raised in that discussion.

<comment><USER16> "If these cars got 5k miles to the charge I could still start "discussion" about the range, but that wouldn't show that range is still an issue."

Sure there would be, but it would be a positive discussion.

Allow me to be more specific since you want to nitpick my choice of words. The simple fact that there are questions regarding the range of this vehicle shows there is an issue.

If this vehicle had a similar range to that of the majority of vehicles no one would be arguing about the range, because no one would care. If anything everyone would be raving about this car because it would literally be the future of the car industry.

<comment><USER17> > Sure there would be, but it would be a positive discussion.

Not at all, I could start a conversation with any tone I wished.

I'm not trying to nitpick words, I just don't think that you can make any conclusions about reality just by noting that people are discussing something, in a positive manner or otherwise. There just isn't any relationship between reality and what people discuss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This car is clearly not intended for long distances. These charger stations seem like a hassle. Waiting 1 hour at a Charge station for your "tank" to fill seems crazy since it adds on an hour of traveling time to any road trip. Seems painful to me. This car would cause me anxiety.

<comment><USER19> I'm curious if it would be practical even for some workday commutes on a very cold day.

I live just outside of Toronto (there's a Tesla store here), and while it's not as cold as Calgary or Winnipeg, it can get pretty damned cold. Power outlets aren't widely available in all parking lots.

I know people who make ~75 mile round trips commuting from the burbs. After reading the NYT article, I'd be a little nervous to make the trip home if I had to leave my car out in the blistering cold for a full work day where there was no charging station even if I did charge the battery fully the night before.

\--edit-- I also read somewhere that there are no Supercharger stations in Canada... yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How has this fallen of the front page so quickly, yet the story from Musk's perspective is treated as irrefutable? Right now this is still mostly in hearsay mode, proving the bias in HN readers (at least those ostensibly flagging and down-voting this story into oblivion).

<comment><USER20> Tech geeks have a hard-on for Elon Musk. The same is true for HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is a valuable lesson for all startups. Tesla's in a dust up around a use case that they don't really need to address for a while longer and can still be very successful. Imagine how many people today fall into the category of i) Being able to afford this car ii) Owning only this car vs having a gasoline car and iii) Caring about traveling such long distances in the extreme cold?

Some, for sure, but not many and not enough to dampen demand. The majority of electric car owners aren't going to undertake this trip at all (vs fly) or would use a second car to do so. Better to have said "We're still 18 months away from having enough charging stations and batter life to tackle this type of trip" and shrugging as you cash checks from people who'll do a 13 mile commute on the 101 or 95.

<comment><USER19> >> a use case that they don't really need to address for a while longer

Well, there's a Tesla store in Toronto.

Toronto gets pretty cold in the winter, and traffic is pretty nightmarish getting in and out of the city during rush hour. And there's no way you're going to sit in this traffic without a heater on.

There are lots of affluent people who live in the burbs outside of Toronto who make 120+km round trips (~75 miles) who will get stuck in really bad traffic to and from work, and probably leave their car parked in a spot that doesn't have access to an outlet during the work day.

If the battery charge is going to drop that significantly on a cold day, I think it would make some people think twice about a Tesla (for the homeward leg of a winter commute) if they didn't already have a winter car or backup plan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> The key sentence from Broder's followup is: "But the test that Tesla offered was of the Supercharger, not of the Model S, which we already know is a much- praised car. "

The first question is: is that what Tesla proposed, and was the proposal based on a cold-weather long-distance round-trip journey using _only_ Superchargers?

If so, then Tesla bit off more than it could chew. If no, then Broder is misrepresenting Tesla's Supercharger service -- is it a waypoint recharge to extend driving range reasonably _in conjunction_ with normal overnight charging as would ordinarily be practiced, or is it a service on which long- distance travelers can rely on exclusively?

My suspicion is the former (in which case Broder is at fault). This still leaves Tesla with a serious image problem (and a ruffled, if still understanding reviewer at The New York Times). For all the attractions and upsides of EVs, range, and cold-weather range degredation, remain significant issues.

But in this case, Musk's reliance on log data doesn't seem entirely relevant: it's operator behavior and compliance which need to be addressed.

</comment><comment><USER23> I like the comment on the submitted article that Teslas should come with a bike rack and bicycle as a back-up plan. "On second thought, just buy a bicycle. You will get there faster and more reliably." In this jest is truth for my family, because we live at least 1,000 miles from the nearest currently installed Tesla Supercharger station

<http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger>

and yet my wife and I can use our bicycles year-round in our cold-weather but bicycle-friendly city,

[http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/1-bike- city-m...](http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/1-bike-city- minneapolis)

so we can be even more environmentally friendly than the buyers of the big, heavy, expensive Tesla Model S by using our bicycles.

As the New York Times reporter follows up,

"Virtually everyone says that I should have plugged in the car overnight in Connecticut, particularly given the cold temperature. But the test that Tesla offered was of the Supercharger, not of the Model S, which we already know is a much-praised car. This evaluation was intended to demonstrate its practicality as a 'normal use,' no-compromise car, as Tesla markets it. Now that Tesla is striving to be a mass-market automaker, it cannot realistically expect all 20,000 buyers a year (the Model S sales goal) to be electric-car acolytes who will plug in at every Walmart stop.

"Knowing then what I know now about the car, its sensitivity to cold and additional ways to maximize range, I certainly would have treated the test differently. But the conclusion might not have been any better for Tesla."

P.S. I see from the pattern of votes so far on this comment that some fellow participant here is not amused by my suggestion that a bicycle is a more environmentally friendly form of alternative vehicle for someone living in snowy Minnesota than a Tesla Model S. But I am serious. There is NO WAY I would sink so much of my family's budget into buying a car like that when I can obtain more reliable transportation at a much lower price. That's the tough squeeze that Tesla Motors is in. There was an extensive, and on the whole more favorable, review of the Model S from The Verge

[http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/12/3969260/going-the- distance...](http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/12/3969260/going-the-distance- driving-tesla-model-s-in-the-real-world)

submitted to HN earlier today (most participants missed the discussion on that article)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5208154>

and the author of that report takes care to mention, "Tesla hopes for its first quarter of black ink this year after a decade of operation, but make no mistake, it's still in the throes of startupdom. Much of its working capital has come from nearly half a billion dollars in low-interest rate government loans. It has just a few dozen dealers around the world." I'm not going to be lining up to buy the first Tesla car for sale in Minnesota unless both the charging network and the car's cold-weather performance are massively improved.

P.P.S. While I still have my edit window, I should mention that one blogger on business writes "Why Tesla's Elon Musk Should Consult The Communications Playbook,"

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/02/12/d...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2013/02/12/dear- elon-shut-up/)

and a Forbes staff writer on the global auto industry writes, "Fake Or Not, New York Times' Tesla Review Speaks Truth About Electric Cars,"

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2013/02/11/fake- or-n...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2013/02/11/fake-or-not-new- york-times-tesla-review-speaks-truth-about-electric-cars/)

suggesting that not all business writers have been impressed by Elon Musk's response to the first New York Times report so far.

<comment><USER24> > I'm not going to be lining up to buy the first Tesla car for sale in > Minnesota unless both the charging network and the car's cold-weather > performance are massively improved.

Who cares?

Why does everyone want to voice their opinion so loudly on a product that doesn't even meet their needs?

It is that you can't accept some status-symbol high-tech gadget wasn't made with you in mind?

Of course the Telsa is not for everyone, it's new and cutting-edge and trying to re-define something common-place, which will likely take years or even decades.

I'm not buying a Ford F-150, or a Porsche, or a freaking smart phone either, but all of those are products that many customers are buying and finding a very good use for. Good for them. I'm going to keep my mouth shut about those products, because they are not for me.

<comment><USER11> It's not really shocking, is it? When the next big thing that is getting great reviews doesn't work for you, that's a big disappointment. It's like living in Verizon country back when the iPhone came out as an AT&T exclusive.

<comment><USER24> > It's not really shocking, is it?

Yes, it is.

I try to keep my consumption in check, and I'm shocked people can be so offended when the next big thing doesn't fit their needs. People are actually upset they can't spend their money on it. Unreal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "While Tesla officials and many armchair experts have said I should have accepted the time penalty to top off the battery in Delaware at the Max Range setting, Tesla warns specifically that this shortens the battery's life."

I wonder by how much?

</comment><comment><USER26> Is this supposed to be some kind of 400+ horsepower road tripping car, or a great sedan that handles all of your daily driving needs? I'm a bit surprised that this kind of test is necessary. Even 150 miles on one charge should be plenty unless the market for this is drastically different than I thought. Range is important, for sure. But it shouldn't be a primary concern for a 4000 pound electric vehicle. I suppose if Elon thinks that's what it should be then that's what it should be and I really hope it works out well.

<comment><USER27> "Range Anxiety" is a very real (irrational) concern of a large slice of Americans. Regardless of how many trips they make within an electric vehicle's range, they will place outsize importance on edge cases.

And between range and recharge times, I really can't see all-electric cars taking off among that group. Something like the Chevy Volt's "range extender" ICE seems the only way to reach anyone who's worried about road-trip-style range.

Even if the supercharger network was 100% in-place, those people are going to turn up their nose at a 30-60 minute recharge stop.

<comment><USER28> I don't think range anxiety is irrational. I may be that I only need extended range in 5% of my driving, but unless I own a second vehicle or am prepared to rent a vehicle for that 5%, it essentially makes a it a non-starter. In other words, it doesn't matter how infrequent those edge cases are, if they are necessary and without reasonable workarounds, then the design is a failure (for this specific use case.)

Now, I'm in one of the more sparsely populated states in the union, so my views and needs are colored by long distances it takes to get anywhere here.

<comment><USER27> To be clear: range anxiety is not irrational because no-one should be concerned about range. Range anxiety is irrational if and when someone is giving _outsize_ importance to the edge cases.

It's specifically about the people who _don't_ do an objective analysis of how often the edge cases happen, whether alternatives are sufficient, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems like a PR person screw-up. Testing the car at almost maximum range in the winter is just a disaster waiting to happen. You can quibble with the details and things the reporter allegedly did wrong, but I would bet that a decent percentage of these attempted trips would end in failure. What if the reporter had hit traffic in the NY Metro area? I mean, that never happens, right?

That's just dumb for a story you are setting up in the media.

</comment><comment><USER29> Bad on Musk using the charge "fake". It's pretty clear the article was written in good faith; he's lucky the author didn't respond in alpha-male kind.

</comment><comment><USER30> "She said to shut off the cruise control to take advantage of battery regeneration from occasional braking and slowing down."

There's either a fundamental misunderstanding here or Tesla just owned physics. Braking is never, ever a good idea for power preservation. (Slowing down is another story, but if "occasional braking" was actually in the advice, that's abysmal).

</comment><comment><USER31> It it just me or is Tesla getting all the running in the electric car stakes?

either they are atreets abead of Toyota and GM or are the other car manufacturers simply letting Tesla take all the knocks as consumers get used to the new ideas?

<comment><USER32> Toyota is partnering with them for tech.

So Tesla is protecting their ongoing consulting relationship/tech share with this as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> This headline is altogether too clever for its own good.

<comment><USER34> They probably expected to get more mileage out of it than they ended up with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> just replace the battery once you stop at the charging station with a fully charged one. you know, hydraulics, robots and stuff. but give the customer enough time to go to the toilet room. we don't want the customer to be in a hurry and having a bad feeling because her car is just there in the way doing nothing. heck, you can even populate your station's roof with cheap mirrors that reflect light all at the same point, make energy and call it an art project. don't screw this up. who knows when will EVs see the street if this project dies because of bad user experience. just replace the damn thing in 5 min and let the machinery do some futuristic sounds so that ppl feel important/ a part of "i'm so cool club". you could check how's the car's computer doing while you're at it... if nothing else works, edward bernays is your man.

<comment><USER5> > just replace the battery once you stop at the charging station with a fully > charged one.

The Tesla battery weighs 990 pounds and is built into the car. There are proposals like yours for other electric cars, cars that may be designed to simplify battery removal, but in the long term, I think improvements in battery technology will eventually make them more reliable and longer-lasting.

<comment><USER35> Your battery is for some reason low on energy. You must charge it or call a tow truck. There's no tech that will charge your battery faster than replacing it.

<comment><USER5> Yes, but for most present electric cars, this is not an option. Certainly not for the Tesla.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Could you review my Startup? - <AUTHOR>

Amzini is a resource specialized to help you find, compare, and learn about the best social networks for your particular interests/needs.
We're looking for an honest assessment of the site and how effectively it achieves these goals.
http://www.amzini.com
Thank you! <comment><USER2> I think it could be interesting for another startup founder in some niche area to find community websites in their niche. Is that the target audience? If so it's a really small niche that's probably not going to pay you a whole lot.

Also, calling it a "social network" search engine is misleading. Twitter and Facebook are social networks; the other 898 are online communities around special interests.

I'd think long and hard about what problem you are solving, and sell the benefits rather than the features on your homepage. Watch this video from the Instagram founders: <http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2738>

My gut reaction is that this is a solution looking for a problem.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the feedback. The site aims to help two core target audiences.

I) Small Business - Businesses are starting to recognize the value of using social media in marketing. Facebook and Twitter especially are 'musts' for most small businesses. While these 'shotgun' approaches are useful, getting involved in niche networks/communities provides a much more targeted environment where it is easier to establish your brand and connect with potential customers.

II) For regular social network users, there is value in having a community and platform that is specialized for a particular purpose. If I like reading books, I may like to join a community where my profile is a bookshelf and I share reading lists and favorite authors. If I use a traditional search engine to find one, I come across mainly dead links, sign up pages, and other clutter making it hard to easily find the best one for my needs.

Rawsyntax - The second point you make has been a major concern in initial feedback. One issue is that Amzini actually has to create awareness that there are social networks for almost any purpose before its value becomes apparent.

Initial monitoring and feedback suggests Amzini has been able to pique interest and acquire new visitors, but metrics for repeat visits have shown signs of problems.

Now that I've explained the value/target audience further, do you see a need for such a service? And if so, how could the site be changed to better convey the value to you from the onset?

</comment><comment><USER3> It's got a nice clean design, but you are going to need a lot marketing capital to get people to use it. You are dealing with two kinds of people:

        1) The people who have found their niche and are happy

        2) The people who haven't found their niche

If they can't find their niche on their own, how will they find you?

</comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of the 1990's Yahoo! for the web. I like the site, keep it functional. _Improve_ it don't _expand_ it. You need to figure out how to get recurring traffic (I have an idea or two - badass idea to be honest but also quite obvious so I think you might know already).

<comment><AUTHOR> At this point, the emphasis is definitely on improving rather than expanding. I realize it's much better to do one thing very well than do everything okay.

I've been thinking a lot about the recurring traffic issue lately, but I'd love to hear your ideas. Even if I have thought of it, another perspective is always useful. Thanks!

<comment><USER4> Make it like the tweetdeck of Social Networking. So if I have 15 profiles on 15 different social networks, give me 1 user name and password, through your site, that gives me a window into all my profiles, kind of like tabs on a web browser or something, I can tab through each network through your site. So your site is the only place I go to check all my profiles. You shift from being a discovery tool to a profile management console = major recurrence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there a need for this?

I've never had a need to search for social networks that meet my interests

</comment><comment><USER6> I find it easy to navigate and it is useful in discovering new sites if you're a neophyte (like me!). I've already found 2 interesting new websites that I've never heard of before that I have bookmarked.

OP: But how will you monetize this?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm glad you like it! All the interesting ways to monetize the site come after Amzini reaches a critical mass of users. The focus now is on usability and site improvement rather than CTRs and other Ad metrics.

If Amzini can get a large amount of traffic, we will be able to do things such as offering thorough sponsored reviews to give social networks/communities exposure, create industry reports and do other consulting-type work, offer premium plans for small business/marketers for additional features, and create interesting info-graphics or articles to help maintain high traffic.

The difficult part is getting to a 'critical mass' of users to establish Amzini in the market and allow more ways to monetize the site than Adsense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Who is this for?</comment>


Virtual Reality Platform Created for Lab Animals - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/computing/hardware/virtual-reality-platform-created-for-lab-animals <comment><USER2> At first, I thought about how cruel it was to the animals. Then I remembered downloading an app for my cat, that would display a mouse moving from one side of the screen, all the way to the other side until it disappeared. My cat loved playing with the app. She would search for the tiny mouse underneath my iPhone until it re-appeared on the other side.

</comment><comment><USER3> Already submitted a link to the original paper. Actually, Andrew Straw is for the last two years in Freiburg, Germany. A portion of his work was done also here, not only in Vienna, as the article cites.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15072896](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15072896)

</comment><comment><USER4> At first I thought this was going to be "Earth".</comment>


The Apple Arm MacBook future is coming, maybe sooner than people expect - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/choco_bit/status/1266200305009676289 <comment><USER2> What does this mean for Intel?</comment>


Advanced Range Instrumentation Aircraft (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://afspacemuseum.org/ccafs/ARIA/ <comment><AUTHOR> I first heard about this from the YouTube channel EEVdiscover:

[https://youtube.com/watch?v=9Dy5_unLa74](https://youtube.com/watch?v=9Dy5_unLa74)

It puts into perspective that they'd thought this out early enough to develop and commission aircraft to support this.

Makes me think what other large projects NASA had to set up to make things work.

</comment><comment><USER2> > Water (thrust augmentation) 5,600 lbs.

Does anyone know what this is referring to?

<comment><USER3> Looks like spraying water into the engines increases thrust. See: [https://www.aircraftnerds.com/2018/08/thrust- augmentation.ht...](https://www.aircraftnerds.com/2018/08/thrust- augmentation.html)

Edit: big oversimplification on my part, but I'm not an expert.

<comment><USER4> Sounds like it works like an intercooler on a turbocharged car engine. It cools the intake charge to increase its density to cram more air into the combustion chamber.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > The Timing Subsystem is a central timing facility for the ARIA electronic > system. Its primary function is to generate time codes and precision pulse > repetition rates which are recorded with the data to allow for time > correlation in interpreting spacecraft events when the tapes are processed. > In addition, the subsystem provides each equipment operator with displays of > Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)

Oh wow, crazy: in 1969, the UTC time would have been a negative number!

<comment><USER6> No, you're thinking of the UNIX epoch. UTC began in the early 1960s. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time)

The IRIG standards for time codes also date to around this time.</comment></comment>


Developing NASA's mission software with Java - <AUTHOR> https://jaxenter.com/developing-nasas-mission-software-with-java-108114.html <comment><USER3> >One of the unique requirements is that we must use accredited software. This means that we can't just pull in third-party JAR files at will, but we can use anything already contained within the JDK.

This policy seems dubious to me. It forces the teams to roll their own immature versions of things rather than rely on heavily used (and thus heavily battle-tested) 3rd party libraries. (Any special code screening applied to internal code could also be applied to open-source 3rd party code too).

</comment><comment><USER4> tl;dr: Java FX was convenient for data visualization. all computation software still not java, mission control and other realtime stuff definitely not java.

To be fair I worked with netbeans as well for a while and definitely like it better than eclipse. never tried Java FX because Swing is so convenient once you get the hang of the layout managers and you can drop to Graphics2D anyway for everything else.

<comment><USER5> God forbid someone should think something positive was said about Java.

> Java FX was convenient for data visualization

Was? They clearly gush over it and mention that they are replacing legacy systems with Java - without specifying 'data visualization' as the only use.

 _" At the FDF [Flight Dynamics Facility] we've been using Java for all of our new application development, and intend to continue doing so"._

> mission control and other realtime stuff definitely not java.

"Definitely" is your interjection. _" JavaFX [..] start out as 'nice to have's, the usefulness quickly becomes apparent in the operations environment. Before long, JavaFX becomes a first class citizen in the ground system software."_

They seem to be happy with it and not precluding any particular uses.

<comment><USER6> "Ground system software" is the software that isn't part of the platform - <USER2> same verbiage is used for aerospace development. I've worked on bomber platforms that had test software written in Labview, and I'd say the same thing - "definitely not mission control or platform software".

<comment><USER7> As I said in another comment, Java is most definitely used to write hard realtime, safety-critical software in both embedded and server systems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Warning, article is product placement for Netbeans. Author bio at the bottom: "Geertjan Wielenga is a principal product manager in Oracle for NetBeans".

<comment><USER9> No it's not. It just happens to be the IDE they use at NASA - probably because it's made by Oracle and meets their requirements.

Additionally, the article is about how:

>Four of NASA's top engineers explain the role that Java, JavaFX and NetBeans play in NASA's space missions.

Hardly what I would call product placement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> JavaFX sounds interesting. How is it compared to Swing?

<comment><USER11> JavaFX is kind of a reaction to all that was wrong with Swing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't use Java, but I found this fascinating. Very interesting article.</comment>


When naming your GitHub repo, check the list of porn movies to avoid DMCA - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jezdez/django-constance/issues/89?

<comment><USER2> It seems wrong that a repo rename be necessary because someone somewhere happened to make a similarly named porn movie.

I entirely sympathize with the repo owner who does not want to engage in legal interaction. I guess in practice it all boils down to where the burden of proof lies. I'd expect that the onus be on "Takedown Piracy LLC" to prove the repo contains infringing content and not on the repo owner to demonstrate that it doesn't. Does anyone know how this works?

</comment><comment><USER3> So, is there a good machine readable list of porn movie names, to use as a material for random-repo-name-generator? :)

<comment><USER4> That was my first thought as well. However, with them going after single words like "edge" and "thrust", I believe this is not possible.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thread on reddit: [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2ryitw/when_nam...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2ryitw/when_naming_your_github_repo_check_the_current/)

</comment><comment><USER5> This is exactly what class action suits are for.</comment>


Tennessee begins free community college plan - <AUTHOR> http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2014/04/16/tennessee-lawmakers-approve-free-community-college-plan/7772245/ <comment><USER2> I said this here recently, but I think it bears repeating: When I attended the University of California at Berkeley in the fun 1960's, there was no tuition for in-state students. Zero. There were 27,000 students at that time just at that one campus.

It would be hard to quantify the return on investment to the taxpayers, but free quality higher education must have contributed to the thriving California economy and culture.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7013042](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7013042)

<comment><USER3> There's been a general decline in California's willingness to fund the UC system, which is mostly what ended that. Surprisingly, the UC system doesn't seem to have had significant cost-per-student growth (unlike many universities), so it should still be able to provide free education if it were funded at the same levels as in the '60s. But it isn't: adjusted for inflation and population, it's had about 50-70% of its support cut compared to the peak years (depending on what you take as a starting point), which has been mostly made up for by tuition. Partly also by expanding cash-cow programs, like professional masters programs, and by admitting a smaller proportion of in- state students, since out-of-state students pay much higher tuition.

I collected some numbers on that a few years ago: [http://www.kmjn.org/misc/uc_funding.txt](http://www.kmjn.org/misc/uc_funding.txt). That table shows total and per-student support; the latter is partly impacted by the growth in student numbers. But if you convert the numbers for each year to percent of state GDP, or support per resident, there's a large decline in those terms as well (in GDP terms, from roughly 0.3% to 0.1%).

Interestingly there's no real correlation between partisan politics and the numbers. Funding was generally high under both Republican and Democratic administrations in earlier years, and has been cut under both administrations in more recent years. My guess is that as a "discretionary" line in the budget the UC is just relatively easy to chop, when someone making up a budget needs to close some holes, so it ended up bearing the brunt of the recent budget crisis that was caused by other parts of the budget.

<comment><USER4> > My guess is that as a "discretionary" line in the budget the UC is just > relatively easy to chop, when someone making up a budget needs to close some > holes, so it ended up bearing the brunt of the recent budget crisis that was > caused by other parts of the budget.

More like, it came down to cutting education, cutting pensions, or cutting healthcare spending. This is a problem across the entire country, but California has more generous pension and healthcare promises, so the problem is especially acute there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As the article points out, one major reason why people don't enroll in community college, even if it's free, is that they need to work full-time (and sometimes even more than full-time) to support themselves (and sometimes their families), leaving little or no time to devote to college studies.

I'd be curious to hear some creative solutions to that problem.

<comment><USER6> In Denmark, students get a sizable stipend (I heard 1000EUR a month).

<comment><USER7> There are something like 17 million enrolled higher education students in the US, and with the current exchange rate, that would equal about 24 billion USD in stipends. Not really sure such a thing is politically tractable, not to mention the quality of the product (the degree) varies highly by college.

For reference, it appears Denmark has about 230,000 enrolled college students.

<comment><USER3> Denmark spends about 0.7% of GDP on the "SU" student support system [1]. The same proportion of American GDP would be $110 billion; $24 billion would be a mere 0.15% of GDP. So I don't think there's a feasibility issue; it's clearly _possible_ to spend as much as 0.7% of GDP on such a scheme. The U.S. has many more students, but also a much larger economy. I agree that such a scheme would be politically difficult to pass in the United States, though. I suspect the U.S. will end up spending a pretty large amount of money anyway, but on a more haphazard scheme rather than direct grants, such as occasional student- loan amnesties, or more heavily subsidized loan interest rates.

[1] Somewhat outdated figures, but I believe still roughly accurate: [http://www.sustyrelsen.dk/udst/in_english/cost_of_study/kap4...](http://www.sustyrelsen.dk/udst/in_english/cost_of_study/kap4.htm#Direct%20public%20support)

<comment><USER8> But if higher education was already free, why would the poor go to war for corporate America, defending big oil wherever needed around the world ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This sounds great until the part about taking money away from the Hope 4 Year Scholarships comes up. At the same time they reduce the Hope Scholarship, they continue to raise state tuition costs, making it that much harder to attend a 4 year school. This feels more like Haslam trying to establish a legacy more than actually helping people.

</comment><comment><USER10> The Southern Institute of Technology [1] in New Zealand has had free tuition funded by the local city council for over a decade now. The city justified it because the students bring a lot of money into the local economy. Much the same as any government providing a subsidy to a local employer.

[1] [http://www.sit.ac.nz/pages/about/fees](http://www.sit.ac.nz/pages/about/fees)

</comment><comment><USER11> This is good news for my fellow Tennesseans. The only thing that still bothers me is that we use lottery, with all it's baggage, to fund these schooling initiatives. Well, let's be honest, I don't like that we have a lottery period. It is interesting, however, to see this kind of policy planning. Lower-income, lower-educated people tend to play the lottery more, which in turn funds programs that makes it easier for lower-income people to go to college, which hopefully reduces the number of lower-income, lower-educated people in the state. Making education more accessible is an awesome goal, and I hope that it works out here.

</comment><comment><USER12> One of the larger potential benefits is that kids planning on earning a bachelors degree from a TN university can now drastically reduce their overall cost of education by spending the first two years in a community college for free.

</comment><comment><USER13> Good for us (tennesseean here).

I sincerely hope these colleges are providing quality courses and lesson plans. This could be a major win for the state's workforce/ future hiring for our company here.

I also think this is a great outlet for TN lottery money - but I very much hope can trickle more into early education as well to provide much better starts for young kids around the state. Its much easier to start strong than catch up later (cough, Memphis/ Shelby County, allow casinos downtown and use money for elementary education, please).</comment>


Time Warner Cable Modem Fee Is "Hi-Tech Consumer Fraud," Lawsuits Allege - <AUTHOR> http://gothamist.com/2012/11/13/twc_modem_fee_is_hi-tech_consumer_f.php <comment><USER2> About two years ago I signed up for UVerse. There was no modem fee. 6 months later, there was a $2 fee. Six months again, $4. And then 6 months later it was $6.

At that point I actually noticed the fee (I hadn't really looked before that) and so I went in to complain. Here was basically my conversation:

Why did you raise the modem fee in January?

Because we hadn't raised it in a while?

Did you give me better service?

No.

How do you justify raising the fee on old equipment?

Because we hadn't raised it in a while.

But my equipment is getting older and less valuable

Oh, is your modem broken? Do you want a new one?

No! I just want to know how you justify raising the rates on equipment that is unchanged on service that is unchanged. You raised your rate and provided no additional benefit to me and your costs actually went down.

Because we hadn't raised it in a while.

That's when I left.

<comment><USER3> To be fair, a front line customer service agent is probably an unreliable source of corporate strategy, or really anything in general. In fact, I'm quite sure Comcast customer service can make Mother Theresa herself look like an evil megalomaniac.

<comment><USER4> That's the brilliance though. The TSA, customer service, and every other wish- they-could-be fascist organization operates by distancing enforcement from policy decisions.

Every try debating a TSA agent about how many explosive shoes they've seen in their careers? They just have a job to do. They aren't allowed to think -- they just follow their state diagram. "Shoes on? Yell until shoes come off. Why? Because that's what the chart says."

<comment><USER5> Those workers are not paid enough to pay attention. I wish we could remove the Rapiscan machines and use that money to train and pay TSA staff. Then we might get security instead of just the theater.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I recently signed up for services with Insight (owned by TWC), and was told while I'm permitted to bring my own modem, they require I take delivery of their "free" modem when service was installed. At the end of the signup process they required I agree to a 1 year commitment on the service. When I asked why this 1 year commitment was required, the response was "Because we're giving you a free modem".

Brilliant.

<comment><USER7> Same experience with Insight here (KY, USA). Since Time Warner recently bought out Insight, I wonder how that is affecting things like fees. I've been experiencing some connectivity issues lately as well, like they are imposing changes on the network (throttling?).

Related: Elsewhere (FL, USA) I was able to avoid fees by providing my own modem for a residential account (Comcast cable internet). Apparently, though, this is not an option for business accounts which require a modem rental (why?)

<comment><USER8> Comcast Business uses a modem with custom firmware that provides, among other things, a Management Interface for remote management, and specific support for multiple static IP addresses behind the modem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have two experiences with Time Warner Cable to share:

\- TWC refuses to offer "wideband" service with a static IP. If you want a static IP, you must pay for TWC "Business Class" (>$99/mo.) for speeds much slower than with Wideband.

\- Forgot to pay my bill one month. Some TWC employee stops by my office and tapes a flyer to the door. It basically says to call him or he will be the person who disconnects my service. I call him. He wants nothing less than my credit card number. Says I have to 'go through him' or it'll cost me an extra $100 and he'll disconnect me anyway. It seemed very sketch. I called the main TWC number and told my story. They asked me to fax a copy of the flyer I found on my door. After a couple of weeks of calls back-and-forth with one of the 'higher-up' billing people, I'm finally told that they had no idea an employee was going door-to-door and posting those flyers. Apparently, he made the flyer himself. I was never told any more about it, but the whole thing seemed very strange and was the start of me loosing faith in TWC. I now think even less of TWC because of their negative reactions to Google Fiber. I think that TWC cares about one thing, & one thing only --- profit. I hate to say it, but they are worse than Comcast (but not DirectTV [1])!

1\. Washington State Attorney General's Office - complaint against DirectTV: [http://atg.wa.gov/uploadedFiles/Home/News/Press_Releases/200...](http://atg.wa.gov/uploadedFiles/Home/News/Press_Releases/2009/DIRECTVComplaint2009-12-14.pdf)

<comment><USER10> > I think that TWC cares about one thing, & one thing only --- profit.

You do know TWC is a business right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This whole rent-the-router/modem-you-absolutely-need-to-use-our-service is getting more and more popular.

Here in Germany one big cable-ISP (Kabel Deutschland), while not charging for the modem itself, wants you to fork over for enabling WiFi on it.

_Enabling_ it via firmware, mind you. Every modem has the hardware capability, however depending if you fork over the 5€ per month they'll enable or disable it via forced firmware updates.

Sadly, it seems the days where you got a subsidized router for a certain percentage of the retail cost with your contract, as it was for almost all telcos a few years ago, are gone :(

<comment><USER12> These are easy to circumvent almost without exception. I have a cable modem that disables bridged mode unless you "ask nicely" and get a firmware update to enabled it. The solution was simply to modify the form being submitted, since the change in the firmware was purely adding an <option/> to the template!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm probably missing some details, but what exactly makes this a scam? I completely agree that charging some fee like $7/month (how Comcast does it where I live) is absurd, but how is it a scam? One can always buy his/her own modem and not have this fee. At what point does the consumer need to be responsible for his/her own decisions?

<comment><USER14> The story seems light on details, I am guessing by your post you didn't really read it, but it seems to me like the way they added the fees break specific consumer protection laws.

If I am already in a contract, and the company alters the price on me during that contract period, how was I capable of making a decision?

The right answer is that the other side broke the contract and voided it, but if it was through a "confusing notice of the fee in a junk mail postcard they'll throw in the garbage" then I may have missed the window to politely exit the contract.

Then again, if I went to all of the trouble waiting for a cable man to show up and install my new cable, only to have the price altered a few months later, they have not only wasted my time but also set themselves up for a potential run in with the FTC by advertising something as $XXX a year which really turns out to be $YYY a year. Price differences are often what make a consumer choose one service over another so it most certainly matters in that regards.

<comment><USER15> >confusing notice of the fee in a junk mail postcard

        <post type="devils-advocate">

There's nothing "confusing" about the wording on the postcard. If you get something that's very clearly from your cable company and you chuck it in the trash, you are (and should be) responsible for the consequences of not reading it. It could be a bill, a disconnect notice, or any number of things.

That's not even getting into the fact that it's a backdoor rate raise, but cmon. There's nothing sneaky about it as far as the customer is concerned.

<comment><USER16> What if it got lost in the mail and never delivered? Is the reciever responsible for that?

It seems like if they are amending your contract, the sender should at least need proof that the reciever got the notice and has agreed (snail mail with signature required, phone call, email with link to website, etc..)

<comment><USER15> >What if it got lost in the mail and never delivered? Is the reciever responsible for that?

What happens if a bill gets lost in the mail and never delivered?

<comment><USER17> The bill isn't a legally binding contract.

<comment><USER15> The contract generally says something about failure to pay bills on time...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm on Time Warner because where I live there is no viable alternative. After they added the modem rental fee, I went out and bought my own cable modem (I highly recommend doing this, with the current fee your own modem will pay for itself within a year). I brought back my old modem, switched the service to use my new modem and thought that was the end of it.

The bill for the month when I was transitioned had a prorated modem lease fee, so that was good, but the next month had a full modem rental fee charge! I noticed this on the bill and called customer service and they adjusted the charge and said it won't appear in the future, but if you bought your own modem like I did, beware of the possibility of them continuing to charge you the fee.

</comment><comment><USER19> Our Comcast modem fee went from $0 -> $3 -> $5 -> $8 in a years time between 2010-2011. No notice on 2 of those fee changes. Once it finally reached $8 last year I bought my own Docsis 3 modem for ~$70 and gave back the Docsis 2 rental they gave me. Glad someone is getting them for their highway robbery.

<comment> X-Istence When I signed up for my Comcast internet I looked at the cost of modem rental, and then looked at the price of a modem. If I use the modem for 1 month more than a year, I have paid less.

Easy proposition at that point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is reminiscent of phone rentals that used to be routine when using a landline. Eventually most consumers ended up buying their own phones, but there have been instances reported where companies happily continue charging their less savvy customers [1].

This is definitely unethical. It's even more frustrating when you're in an area where there's a telecom monopoly and you're essentially forced into accepting these twisted business practices. Is this something that should be outright outlawed?

[http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-08-20/news/17982976_1_p...](http://articles.nydailynews.com/1995-08-20/news/17982976_1_phones- at-t-rental-customers)

<comment><USER21> My grandmother is an in home nurse. One of her clients passed away a few years ago. She still had the Ma Bell bakelite phone and was still paying $15/month to rent it. Considering that she was 95 when she passed and probably retired around 60 that is one hell of a lease.

I imagine there is some small group of near-retirement ATT employees processing these payments every month in some dark basement somewhere.

<comment><USER22> $15/month * 12 months/year * (95-60) years = $5400

The lease for just one year is $180.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Am I the only one that doesn't think this is a big deal?

I get cable through TWC, and it is far and away the worst ISP experience I've ever had.

However, equipment lease'ing seems like a completely legitimate practice; the 'backdoor' charges have always been clearly itemized on my bill (and explained up front), and were removed when I purchased my own cable modem without any hassle. Furthermore, if TWC bills ahead (its their practice here), that itemized bill should come with enough time to purchase your own and avoid the charges altogether.

If the charges arren't itemized, or if they force you to use their equipment, I can see a point. Is that the case?

</comment><comment><USER24> I used a cheap $20 DOCSIS 2 Cisco cable modem with my Comcast service. That's compared to the rental fee of $3 a month. When I switched to DSL they wanted $100 for the modem or a $6/mn charge. I went to Craigslist and found someone selling the exact same DSL modem for $35. Despite having gigabit ethernet and wifi I just put it into Bridge mode and use my own routers and switches where I can use TomatoUSB firmware.

I'll never rent or buy a modem from an ISP again.

<comment><USER25> This isn't about you and me. It's about the million other subscribers that TWC or Verizon or Comcast are bilking to the tune of millions of dollars a year.

<comment><USER24> I was trying to point out how ridiculous the prices they charge are for everyone and that it's a total rip off. Unfortunately, most people don't know any better and they make it really hard to not get charged for "Professional" install.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Comcast Business Class pulled this little stunt around the same time as well.

But unlike Time Warner, they already had a vague statement in the contract saying they could change the fee charged for the cable modem at any time.

They seemed to not understand that regardless of whether it was in the contract, silently taking my continued paying of the bill (which most customers are on auto payment) as agreement to their new fees is a completely unethical way of doing business.

Real notification means calling me personally and letting me know; not just adding the fee to my bill and taking my automatic payment of it as acceptance.

If they would have given me a new modem, I could see the fee being justified. But I had already had their service for almost two years before they decided to start charging for it.

In fact, when I originally signed up, I was told that the reason the modem was free (and there was no monthly fee) is because I signed up for a contract.

Totally bollocks.

</comment><comment><USER27> TWC wanted to charge me $500 or so if I didn't return my modem. I had to get to a return point on the other side of town (in LA!) between 9-5 Mon-Fri.

Compare that to ATT who would charge me $100 and allowed me to return it with a prepaid FedEx sticker in the box it came in.

</comment><comment><USER28> tl;dr Time Warner decides to begin charging existing customers a rental fee for existing (previously free?) broadband equipment.

<comment><USER29> I called up TWC to complain as I figure that after 2 years of service they've more than covered the cheap RCA modem they gave me. I was told that some customers were paying $2.50 and some were paying $0 so they were going to charge $3.95 to make it fair. They also pointed out that sometimes the modems break so they are on the hook to give you a new one, which is why the fee is reasonable.

The list of approved modems is here: [http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/residential- home/support/t...](http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/residential- home/support/topics/internet/buy-your-modem.html)

Checking today the list is a lot more reasonable, when they first released the news they would only support the SBG6580 (~$135) and SB6141, which nobody seems to carry. The SB6121 is around $80.

I'm still confused why they'll lease me a cheap DOCSIS 2 modem but expect me to buy an expensive DOCSIS 3.

<comment><USER30>
      > I'm still confused why they'll lease me a cheap
      > DOCSIS 2 modem but expect me to buy an expensive
      > DOCSIS 3.

It's pretty simple. If the alternatives are all $80+, people will be less likely to buy them, and will just bend over to take the new monthly fees.

It's sort of an 'illusion of options.' They'll give you options, but make it as inconvenient as possible in order to discourage too many people from exercising them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is so they can lie about prices in advertisements. Time Warner offers internet for $40 a month, it just happens to cost $48.

</comment><comment><USER32> RCN, on the other hand, simply raised my rate without even apologizing. They pretended to give me a promotion of "increased speed" and then the promotion "expired" and my rate went up. And oops, the old speed and old rate was no longer being offered.</comment>


What the Great Gatsby has to do with startups - <AUTHOR> http://rogerhuang.co/what-the-great-gatsby-has-to-do-with-startups/ <comment><USER2> Your 'share on social media' sidebar hides the close button for your 'sign up your newsletter' sidebar.</comment>