Chance of Dying From Backscatter Radiation Same as Chance of Terrorism - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/11/18/chances <comment><USER3> Actual web page: <http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/bodyscan.html>

Actual article: [https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.public.asu.edu...](https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.public.asu.edu/~atppr/RPD- Final-Form.pdf&pli=1)

The first thing you'll learn in radiation safety is that the nature of the dose matters a lot. Sometimes you're A-OK if you can survive the initial dose. Other doses are accumulative. It depends on the energy of the radiation, the tissue's scattering cross-section, the time, and the flux, among other things.

This means that the Sievert (a unit of biological impact due to radiation) is only meaningful in the context of the dose geometry. It's great for talking about a chest X-ray, where the dose is spread out over a big volume of tissue. Where it's unclear is in the case of rapidly-thermalizing or compton-scattered particles: like backscatter. Look at the graph in that article. Something like half of the energy is deposited in the first couple centimeters of tissue.

We haven't done this before, and don't have a good model for the long-term effects. My guess? This kind of exposure is a hell of a lot worse for melanomas than a chest X-ray delivering the same energy. Claiming compliance to a metric like the ANSI limits is meaningless.

Edit: Oh, and the concern raised over the beam stopping and delivering a couple Sv to a quarter-sized patch of skin is definitely scary. We did exactly that to several people with medical cyclotrons.

Edit: I should also mention that tissues have varying tolerance to radiation. Rapidly-dividing cells tend to be hit the hardest, which is why your stomach lining, skin, and hair slough off after acute ionizing rad exposure. Your skin, stomach, lungs, breast and thyroid are also the most frequent to undergo cancer in radiation-linked longitudinal studies. See, for example,

<http://pats.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/5/9/934>

<comment><USER4> This is a grossly irresponsible abuse of statistics. What's even stranger is that _the author agrees_. In his paper (conclusions, page 15):

> _The major public health effect of concern at low doses of ionizing > radiation is cancer. There is clear evidence of cancer induction at > effective dose above about 200 mSv. Below an effective dose of about 100 mSv > radiogenic cancer mortality risk estimates for all cancers is highly > uncertain. 16 It is not possible to determine reliably whether a radiogenic > risk is present in an X-ray screening population because of the high > spontaneous incidence of cancer and multifactorial nature of disease > causation 17._

> _Use of collective dose to estimate public health impacts when large > populations are exposed to trivial doses is inappropriate and not > reasonable. The assumptions implicit in the collective dose calculation > conceal large biological and statistical uncertainties.16 If an individual > passenger is not harmed by X-ray screening then the population isn't > either._

"Inappropriate and not reasonable". Yet on his webpage (not submitted to peer review), he does exactly that.

<comment><USER5> > _Use of_ collective _dose to estimate public health impacts when large > populations are exposed to trivial doses is inappropriate and not > reasonable._

First, let's make sure we are clear about the difference between collective (for a population) and _cumulative_ (adding up repeated doses for an individual).

Second, "inappropriate" and "not reasonable" tend to be weasel words with regard to scientific findings. The real issue is that the effects of small doses haven't been rigorously studied, unlike with high doses.

Rather than actually study them, we see brusque dismissals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So, the risk from a backscatter radiation machine is roughly equal to the risk from terrorism.

The Federal Government, via the FDA, tells us that the risk of the backscatter machine is "minuscule".

Therefore, in the Federal government's own risk terminology, the risk from terrorism is "miniscule".

Why are we spending all this money on a "miniscule" threat? Why are sexually molesting the population over a "miniscule" threat? (Rhetorical.)

(I say "sexually molesting" on the grounds that if I personally performed those same actions on a stranger, that is what it would be called. It would continue to be called that if I tricked this person into giving "consent" for false reasons. A doctor has a compelling reason. I do not grant that excuse to the TSA. I also do not think I am being unduly inflammatory, I think it's just plain fair.)

<comment><USER7> Terrorism can in both small and very large ways effect entire nations. backscatter radiation? Not so much. It's illogical to compare the two and make judgments on based solely on the death rate. You don't need to kill people (all of them) to influence them.

<comment><USER8> So then perhaps the best way to protect a nation from terrorism is not to be influenced by it.

<comment><USER9> I hesitate to say "of course", because it sounds trite, and the underlying issue is serious. But this is precisely what we did in the UK during the IRA (Irish terrorist organisation) years. And we were encouraged to do that by the media and government. And as stiff upper lipped Brits, we did so with pride :)

I myself saw the outcomes of three of the bombs personally -- by which I mean still smoking -- and picnicked on the Regent's Park bandstand on the Sunday which was blown up on the Tuesday; the bomb would have been there at the time.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park_and_Regent%27s_Park_b...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park_and_Regent%27s_Park_bombings)

None of this changed my behaviour at the time, nor did it appear to do so for anyone else, other than being vigilant for strange packages.

So yes, the correct response is not to be influenced by it. In other words, do not give up your way of life because of murdering cowards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm going to go ahead and take this to mean that the TSA just doubled my chances of death. Seems appropriate in the current climate of hysteria, and makes an excellent sound bite.

<comment><USER11> VVVVVV Ahh, ayup, you're correct. Brainfart.

<comment><USER12> Sorry for being pedantic, but no - these are probabilities not random variates. If the probability of either alone is p then the probability of one or the other or both is:

1 - (1-p)(1-p) = 1 - (1-2p+p^2) = 2p - p^2 ~ 2p

(where the last step is because p^2 << p because p << 1; the basic idea is that it's "certainty minus the probability that neither occur")

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't think I know anyone who isn't spitting mad about this TSA thing.

Quite an accomplishment, really, for the feds to manage to unite the entire country - left, right, center, and from every strata of society - on a given issue. I didn't think such a thing was possible.

<comment><USER14> The accomplishment is amazing. I guess our country really still does care about liberty and -- imagine this -- the constitution.

Trouble is, are people going to do anything with their "spitting mad[ness]?" I hope they do.

<comment><USER15> I think they just have an irrational fear of radiation outside the doctor's office (whether or not that's valid here) - due to it being crammed down their throats for decades - and a _massive_ aversion to being seen naked - <USER2> largely due to it being crammed down their throats for decades.

If they like liberty, why did/do they not get as spitting mad about the Patriot Act, the DMCA, and the ACTA? I'm guessing it's because their naked butts aren't staring them in the face after being irradiated.

<comment><USER16> Upvoted you, but I would like to add that I'm spitting mad and not afraid of radiation or being naked. I think at least part of it is simply mass hysteria. It's very easy when other people are upset to get swept up into it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This discussion is properly focused at the core of the matter, the cost benefit analysis.

Some of the costs are easy to see, like the acute embarrassment some experience from an intimate "pat down" if they elect to avoid any risk from x-ray radiation.

Others are much more difficult, such as potential health consequences of the x-ray radiation exposure. Since the TSA has refused to disclose the x-ray flux, it is hard to even get started. The comparisons the TSA makes with other radiation sources are flawed because they assume the dose is uniform throughout your body when it is actually highest at the surface.

But even if an outside evaluator did have good numbers to start with, in the end the best you can expect are extrapolations using data from dramatically different radiation exposure, which is the nature of calculating radiation risks. The only way to have a non-extrapolated number is to expose half of a sample population to the scanner radiation and measure outcomes for 50 years.

Avoided consequences are easier to calculate. Of the 8,000,000,000 or so US domestic air travelers of the past ten years, zero have smuggled a bomb on board, and zero have attempted to. Zero out of billions of passengers.

The worst consequences are the loss of an aircraft. A terrorist cannot take control of an aircraft using a bomb, only destroy it. An X-ray scanner will not stop someone from bringing a knife onboard (even if it could, it is probably not possible to take control of an aircraft with a knife due to cockpit doors, passenger awareness, etc.)

So, cost benefit sum-up: zero attempts to smuggle bomb onto domestic flight over past 10 years, unknown but likely low health risk, consequences limited to loss of one aircraft due to screening failure.

<comment><USER18> > Of the 100,000,000,000 or so US domestic air travelers of the past ten > years, zero have smuggled a bomb on board, and zero have attempted to.

At least two have succeeded in smuggling a bomb on board, but failed to detonate them. Look up the "Christmas bomber" and the "shoe bomber".

<comment><USER19> Neither of those were "US domestic air travelers"; both boarded U.S.-bound international flights in Europe.

<comment><USER18> You're right they're not domestic. I've lived in and have family in Europe so I have tendency to not view Canada and Europe as completely foreign. So, anyway, Lockerbie, shoe bomber, Xmas bomber all actually not US departures. Sorry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> 1 in 30M? so, with over 600M passengers per year, that's roughly 20 people a year who would get cancer (and die?) because of those machines. I'm not sure how credible are those stats, but I wouldn't want to be making decisions at the TSA right now...

<comment><USER21> Not everyone gets screened. So only a fraction of those 600M passengers are getting a dose.

<comment><USER22> at the moment... not long ago not everyone went through the metal detectors...

<comment><USER23> seriously? when was that? was it not so long ago we had armed plane hijackings almost every month?

<comment><USER24> well, since you asked: [http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/airplane_terro...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/11/airplane_terror.html)

<comment><USER22> thanks for that, excellent read. many forget that guns were allowed on flights until relatively recently, not everyone was xrayed and hijacking was common.

also like the point raised in the comments that the main thing that killed off the IRA as a major terrorist movement in Europe, was when their American supporters finally remembered what terrorism was in 2001.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> More tellingly, on an average two-hour flight, you'd receive about 100 times the radiation from a single scan.

But, by using the transitive property, you're more likely to die from radiation at flying altitudes than from a terrorist attack on said airplane.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to include the link:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X- ray#Health_effect...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X- ray#Health_effects)

Which comes from:

[http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/radexp.htm...](http://hyperphysics.phy- astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/radexp.html)

Which explicitly states its references.

<comment><USER3> This comparison is meaningless.

The risk of cancer is caused by DNA errors. Your cells are constantly checking and repairing your DNA for mutations and damage. They can usually repair or detect a low error rate, like the kind you get from living at high altitude, in a house with a minor radon source, or flying on a plane. What they _can't_ deal with as well is a sudden burst of many errors. Backscatter X-ray scanners deliver their entire dose to a tissue region in a few microseconds. That's the kind of exposure we're talking about, and it has an entirely different biological impact.

<comment><USER4> > _What they can't deal with as well is a sudden burst of many errors._

Actually that is false, as far as low doses:

> _When you are asked whether there is a critical time period over which 1 rem > of dose may have a greater biological impact than it might otherwise have, > the answer is "No." One rem of dose is sufficiently low that whether it was > delivered within one second or spread over a year or more, we would not > expect any difference in biological effects._

<https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q8325.html>

(For comparison, 1 uSv = 0.1 mrem).

> _The risk of cancer is caused by DNA errors. Your cells are constantly > checking and repairing your DNA for mutations and damage. They can usually > repair or detect a low error rate_

But in this dose regime, ionization events are so rare, that they are so far apart that no cell experiences more than one. There is no variation in error rate.

<comment><USER5> Let me quote from your own source:

 _"There have been numerous biological experiments conducted, with nonhuman organisms, that demonstrate that the rate at which radiation dose is delivered can affect the extent of biological response. Thus a sufficiently high dose delivered over a period of a few minutes may be expected to have a greater biological impact than the same dose spread over a year."_

The only question is what constitutes a "sufficiently high" dose, due to extrapolation. See 5).

THEIR OWN POSITION PAPER on backscatter scanners recommends per-screening and per-year (time limit!) maximums FAR below the threshold that they claimed wasn't a problem in the first place -- see 8).

4) Further, the terse "no" answer looked disingenuous. The cited position paper link was broken but I tracked it down.

It appears to be "Radiation Risk in Perspective", PS010-2 (which I assume is the updated version of PS010-1).

It has nothing to say about doses over short time periods.

<http://www.hps.org/hpspublications/positionstatements.html>

5) The issue seems to be that there is very little data about low-dose exposures, so regulations are based on extrapolation from high-dose exposures.

See <http://www.ncrponline.org/PDFs/TST_NRC%20_04-08-08.pdf> (third slide)

6) What it does say is this:

"the Health Physics Society recommends against _quantitative_ estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem above that received from natural sources."

7) The whole point of their objection was that we lack the empirical evidence to extrapolate from high doses to low doses. Then the article you cite does exactly that. They go from saying, "we lack proof that the answer is X" to saying, "the answer is ~X".

8) The recommended standard _"limits the reference effective dose delivered to the subject to 0.25 microsieverts (25 microrem) per screening. Additionally, a screening facility should not expose any individual to more than 250 microsieverts (25 millirem) reference effective dose in a year."_

"Use of Ionizing Radiation for Security Screening Individuals" PS017-1

<http://www.hps.org/hpspublications/positionstatements.html>

How they can go from saying in the first paper, _"However, below 5–10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent"_ to supporting a maximum of 0.025 rem per year is entirely unclear.

Except that the Health Physics Society seems to have turned into a pro- industry spokesgroup.

The current president works for Dade Moeller, who are embroiled in a number of controversies, to put it lightly.

A lot of extremely damaging information is cited in the original link below.

 _""Hirsch then zeroed in on Dade Moeller's radiation plan and on the controversial company itself, whose namesake testified back in the 1990s that money spent on cleaning up Cold War-era nuclear facilities was being wasted since there would be a cure for cancer."_

Original comment:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1889673>

<comment><USER4> > _THEIR OWN POSITION PAPER on backscatter scanners recommends per-screening > and per-year (time limit!) maximums FAR below the threshold that they > claimed wasn't a problem in the first place -- see 8)._

> _...How they can go from saying in the first paper, "However, below 5–10 rem > (which includes occupational and environmental exposures), risks of health > effects are either too small to be observed or are nonexistent" to > supporting a maximum of 0.025 rem per year is entirely unclear._

Where they support that 0.025 rem/year recommendation, they explain that the point is to keep "individual doses _as low as reasonably achievable_ (ALARA) while achieving the desired objective." (Same source, PS017-1).

And you mischarcterize their claims. HPS does not claim <5 rem doses are "not a problem" -- they said the effects are such are " _either too small to be observed_ or nonexistent". (It does not follow that a health effect too small to be epidemologically noticable is "not a problem"). "Too small to be observed" is NOT a quantifier of significance; it is an explanation for the lack of empirical observations. That position statement (PS010-2) is a recommendation against _quantiative estimation_ of the effects of <5 rem radiation doses, not an assertion of their absolute safety.

> _It appears to be "Radiation Risk in Perspective", PS010-2 (which I assume > is the updated version of PS010-1). It has nothing to say about doses over > short time periods._

It does not appear to have been referenced for that purpose.

<comment><USER5> > _It does not appear to have been referenced for that purpose._

Your comment referenced it for that purpose.

Your comment about dose per unit time not mattering referenced an article which referenced their position paper which didn't support what the article said. Hence the article was simply the _opinion of the author_.

> _(And you mischarcterize their claims. HPS does not claim <5 rem doses are > "not a problem" -- they said the effects are such are "either too small to > be observed or nonexistent". (It does not follow that a health effect too > small to be epidemologically noticable is "not a problem")._

"Nonexistent" sounds like "not a problem" to me.

"Too small to be observed" is the same. How is a problem that causes _no observable effects_ a problem? That's the practical definition of "not a problem".

And if dose per unit time doesn't matter, then their per-screening and annual limits for these small doses wouldn't matter. They are contradicting themselves.

Further, as mentioned, they are not an independent safety group. They are an industry group for the pro-nuclear lobby. This is like relying on the Business Software Alliance (BSA, a front group for Microsoft and other large software corporations) for opinions on the harmful nature of DRM, copyright laws, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Oh, well if they're equal, then that means this is a perfectly proportional and appropriate response.

<comment><USER27> That only holds if being sexually molested and having naked pictures of yourself taken is weighted at zero.

Furthermore, this statistic in no way indicates that these screenings reduce the risk of dying in a terrorist attack. 1 plus 1 does not equal 0. You've allegedly doubled your risk of dying, not reduced it.

<comment><USER28> Well, you're right to question what the reduction in risk these scanners produce, but your first point is way off. The cost of terrorist attacks is hardly limited to death. Those planes and buildings aren't free. Not that cancer treatments are, either, but if you weigh in the psychological damage to the public (you know, why they call it "terrorism"), terrorist attacks are far more costly.

<comment><USER27> The real cost of terrorism is having to deal with all the people talking about "the real cost of terrorism", and instituting retarded policies like these scanners/molestation sessions.

Planes and buildings are cheap as shit in comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Peter Rez ... calculated the risk of getting cancer from a single scan at > about 1 in 30 million

His odds were for a single flight, but I wonder if the scanner radiation has a cumulative effect?

Surviving a plane flight has no impact on the likelihood of the next one, so taking a lot of flights would edge the odds in favour of dying from the scanner cancer.

But then there`s the wide difference in the type of death.

<comment><USER30> > _But then there's the wide difference in the type of death._

Good point, I would rather die in a terrorist attack than after months of chemo and hospital food… that said, one is a lot more premature! (Edit: Actually, if you got cancer from the scanner, it would _probably_ kill you within a few years.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Airport in Orlando opts out of using TSA to screen their passengers:

[http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/florida- airp...](http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/florida-airport-to- opt-out-of-tsa-screening)

<comment><USER31> This is the best news I've heard on this topic. If enough airports were to do this, things would change at the TSA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> America is a nation of goose-stepping cowards willing to give up their most fundamental freedoms based on an incredibly unlikely event. They'll shove cheeseburgers down their gaping maws and virtually guarantee they get diabetes and heart disease, which is vastly more likely to kill them, while cowering and whimpering about terrorism.

I live in Newark. I'd be about 100 times more likely to get killed walking to the bus to get to the airport than I would be in the plane, even if we had no security at all.

Anyone willing to tolerate this shit is a drooling fascist who also doesn't understand security if they think this bullshit will stop even one determined and competent terrorist.

We should do security like El-Al, modifying it of course for the practical differences between the threats we face, and for our own constitutional protections. People say that would be "expensive" but then, these are the same morons who think we should piss away fundamental rights millions of Americans have fought and died for for hundreds of years. And these morons want to talk of "expensive?" Please.

</comment><comment><USER33> With all due respect to Dr. Reiz, and the Dept. of Physics at ASU, I think I'll be taking my advice from the group of doctors from UCSF (a school well known and respected for its medical research) who wrote a formal letter to the president's science advisor. The letter is worth reading.

"Agard and several of his UCSF colleagues recently wrote a letter to John Holdren the president's science adviser, asking for a more thorough look at the risks of exposing all those airline passengers to X-rays. The other signers are John Sedat, a molecular biologist and the group's leader; Marc Shuman, a cancer specialist; and Robert Stroud, a biochemist and biophysicist."

Story here: [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1268330...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126833083)

Letter here: <http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2010/05/17/concern.pdf>

<comment><USER34> I'll go with the physics prof. He did some calculations, admittedly imperfect, based on generally known principles of dosimetry, and got what seems like a reasonable order of magnitude result.

All the MD's at UCSF said was "oh noes, the possibility of radiation danger isn't ruled out _precisely_ by a previously done study, it might be dangerous." I'd be very curious to know whether they would use this same logic on a less politically charged topic.

<comment><USER33> Reasonable doesn't necessarily mean correct. In the face of specific questions raised by doctors with expertise in this specific field, is reasonable is good enough?

From the NPR article:

"The stated dose — about .02 microsieverts, a medical unit of radiation — is averaged over the whole body, members of the UCSF group said in interviews. But they maintain that if the dose is calculated as what gets deposited in the skin, the number would be higher, though how much higher is unclear."

The observation about how high a dose gets deposited is a very specific observation made by people who actively apply radiation to people on a daily basis.

<comment><USER34> _In the face of specific questions raised by doctors with expertise in this specific field, is reasonable is good enough?_

You are trying to appeal to authority. That's a logical fallacy.

Radiation transport, ionization mechanisms, and dosimetry are all fairly well understood topics. Not perfectly, but well enough that one can make reasonably good ab-initio predictions. The physicist is doing exactly that.

Now, ab-initio dosimetry calculations are sometimes off by largish factors, (e.g., 500%) due to reactions of certain tissues. But they are rarely off by orders of magnitude, which they would need to be in this case for us to actually care.

The doctors at UCSF are just scaremongering, regardless of their credentials.

<comment><USER35> _Radiation transport, ionization mechanisms, and dosimetry are all fairly well understood topics. Not perfectly, but well enough that one can make reasonably good ab-initio predictions._

There are a lot of people that would disagree with this statement as it applies to the human body. I think its fair to say that there is no such thing as ab-initio studies when it comes to human reaction to radiation (at least none that are worth a lick).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This article from NPR a few days ago has a lot more details, and gives context for the estimates: [http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protest...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/11/12/131275949/protests- mount-over-safety-and-privacy-of-airport-scanners)

</comment><comment><USER37> If the argument that the risk of backscatter radiation damage is acceptable, and it is the same risk as the chance of terrorism, then by extension the risk of terrorism is acceptable as well. So basically this isn't about terrorism, it is about taking away our liberty.

</comment><comment><USER38> Sigh.

While interesting, arguing about the methods used to violate your basic civil rights only distracts from the real discussion about YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED BY THE VERY GOVERNMENT FORMED TO PROTECT THEM.

Keep your eye on the ball people.

</comment><comment><USER39> Direct link to article: [http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/16/5477568-are-...](http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/16/5477568-are- airport-x-ray-scanners-harmful)

</comment><comment><USER40> Do you know who else was told that the product they were dealing with was completely safe?

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

The group who would come to be known as the Radium Girls. They were told that Radium was safe if ingested, and many of them would lick the tips of their paint brushes, or paint their teeth and nails with the substance. Soon after they began suffering radiation poisoning, but were discredited of their claims by the company publicly defaming them as contracting syphilis.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'm just thankful that the TSA makes people mail home their keychain Swiss Army knives with 1-inch, non-locking blades. Goodness knows what sort of carnage someone could inflict with that. Almost as much as with a ballpoint pen, which I notice they are still allowing. For shame.

I will not feel truly safe until each of us is forced to change into a hospital gown, be cavity-searched, and be duct-taped inside of a cargo container for the duration of the flight.

</comment><comment><USER42> My takeaway: -I don't like the privacy ramifications of these scans. -I don't like being bombarded with additional radiation for no good reason, regardless of whether people _think_ it will harm you.

Just as I will get an x-ray for a good reason, but decline getting one for a silly reason, I would decline this if able. Maybe taking an aspirin a day is bad for you, maybe it's not, but I'm not going to start doing it for no reason.

So one more reason I don't like the scan.

</comment><comment><USER43> Yes, but the peace of mind one experiences while being groped or ionized makes it all worth while.

Regarding how much radiation you receive on the plane itself, I always try to sit away from the window and on the north side of the plane if possible.

<comment><USER44> My impression was that the increased radiation experienced on a flight was due to cosmic radiation, not radiation from the sun. So it shouldn't matter where you sit on the plane, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> After reading about the backscatter, i'm wondering why i was so much against the gropping. Nobody got cancer from being gropped, and after 10th or 20th time i may even start to enjoy it. Some hands would become familiar... :)

</comment><comment><USER46> I can't believe that even on HN there are so many posts about something so dumb. Our country is up in arms about some new X-ray machines that a corrupt defense contractor sold to an overzealous department of homeland security in a panic after 9/11, and yet we are hardly this angry about the 2 wars we are fighting or the fact that the New Start treaty is about to be ran over with a bulldozer.

Please, let's get over the stupid X-rays machines. Let Fox News and CNN cover this one.

<comment><USER14> I can believe it, and you know why? Because our country still cares about personal American liberty.

Viva la libertad!

<comment><USER46> Sometimes I get hyperbolic. What I mean to say is that these machines are a symptom of a larger problem. The time that we spend trying to get rid of these machines is time that we don't spend on solving the real problems.

I love freedom, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Maybe I suck at basic prob/stats but if you remove the scanners, I bet the chance of a plane getting blown up by a terrorist is significantly increased. ;)

<comment><USER48> Two things have made the US safer

1- Pilots with guns & keeping the doors closed for the full flight

2- Passengers not willing to allow others on the plane do harm to the plane. If passengers see things happen now, they will stand up and makes attempts to stop them. We won't have a 9/11 style hijacking. Even if someone gets a box cutter in, people will take them down before they'll let them take the plane.

I can't imagine how these body scanners would make us significantly safer.

<comment><USER49> What we are trying to stop has shifted from someone hijacking the plane to someone trying to blow it up. However, this is not a new threat at all, and there are always more ways of getting a bomb on the plane as well as more targets.

<comment><USER48> Perhaps, but why do we still focus then so much on 'hijacking' items, like knitting needles that would do little good in making bombs? We haven't reverted to pre 9/11 search coverage of hijack items. Actually, we haven't backed down at all on anything.

It seems that once something is identified a threat, it will always now be seen as a threat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The effect of you dying from terrorism is not the same as the effect of you dying from backscatter radiation.

From a utilitarian standpoint, the chance of dying from something is not the most important factor in deciding where to put resources.

I'd also say, the neither of these numbers can be known in any accuracy right now, and there would be fast disagreement on any guess at what they might be.

</comment><comment><USER51> So my chances of dying have been doubled?</comment>


Ask HN: College Advice - <AUTHOR>

tl;dr: incoming cs freshmen at uiuc. Is it worth transferring, what are my chances, I think I might have been able to fair better.
I'm an incoming cs freshmen at UIUC. UIUC was a bit of a safety for me (though in hindsight maybe it should've been a safety/target). My feelings about going there are really sort of mixed, for various reasons, and I'm, very idly at this point, considering possibly transferring to a different school.
1. Should I even bother? I'm very serious and passionate about going into CS - from what little I've seen of the school so far I'm fond of its overall student community and the CS community - the very fact that there is a noticeable CS community is something that's important to me, and part of why I picked UIUC over my other main option, NYU. Anyway, my point is that there are few schools that beat UIUC in CS anyway. In my mind, the places that are better than it for undergrad cs are MIT, Stanford, probably CMU, and possibly Berkeley - I think UIUC is better or at least on par with any other CS department, and none of the ones close to UIUC have other qualities (eg, being a better overall school) that would make me want to transfer there. So, given that those are my choices, should I bother transferring? I hear MIT and Stanford have very very low transfer accept rates. CMU and Berkeley seemed a bit more promising, but the figure I saw for CMU was overall, not for SCS, and I think I heard somewhere that Berkeley only accepts junior transfers. Are any of those departments better by enough to make it worth disrupting my time at UIUC and readjusting to a new place?
I have anecdotal bias against this: my dad had been rejected from Wharton as a high school senior and went to NYU. He was pretty happy there, had pretty good grades, liked the people, but he still wanted to try for Wharton and got in as a transfer. He then hated it at Wharton - it took him 5 years to graduate, his grades were pretty bad, and he couldn't get any jobs. He says he would've been much better off going to NYU, which was at the time pretty far behind Wharton for economics and business, what he was interested in. So I don't want this to happen to me - I don't want to leave somewhere I may be perfectly happy at and doing well in for a "better" school where I'll end up doing worse for unforeseen reasons.
2. What are my chances, at any of the places I mentioned (MIT, Stanford, CMU, Berkeley)? My junior GPA was a 3.933 - it's probably going to drop a bit from my senior year grades, but hopefully not too much. SAT was a 2270 (super score from 2 tests - 690r, 780m, 800w). If I begin to seriously consider transferring I'd probably retake them and actually study this time. SAT II math2c was an 800, chem was a 680 (I'll probably retake, and study this time). My ECs were okay, not terrific, hopefully I'll have some research or an internship at UIUC to talk about.
As far as how I faired this year: my two main choices were MIT and CMU - I got rejected at MIT and waitlisted at CMU (I know some people from this year and last who were about as or possibly less qualified than me who got in to SCS at CMU, but they had applied ED - I applied regular decision). I also applied to Princeton, Columbia, and Cornell kind of randomly (ie, without having shown any kind of interest in them) - got rejected from them. Like I mentioned, I also got in to NYU, and also to Rutgers. I had also applied to UMich and got wait listed, though I'd say that was probably because I applied right on the deadline and also had shown no interest - a friend of mine who did get into UMich (and had applied earlier) got flat out rejected from CMU (while I got wait-listed). I hadn't applied to Berkeley or Stanford. I doubt I would've gotten into Stanford, and relatively optimistic about Berkeley, based on how other people from my school faired.
Friends of mine were sort of surprised that I didn't get in to MIT and CMU. A friend of mine who did get into MIT had once told me: "You're definitely getting into CMU. I'm willing to bet that you will get into every school you applied, with the possible exception of Princeton." Me: "And MIT?" him: "No - you'll get in. I am 100% sure". He seemed pretty convinced at times that I was going to keep him out of MIT - ended up working out for him, though. A teacher of ours said to me (in private): "[MIT] took [him] and not you? Well, maybe they only wanted to take one person from our school" (which wasn't the case, but anyway). Another friend (the one who got in to CMU), also told me (after I had heard from my schools) that he had been sure I'd get into MIT. I'm mentioning this stuff just to explain why it's sort of in my head that I might want to try to transfer. <comment><USER2> As a web developer, I got started by being passionate in my field. I have never gone to college though, so my advice is somewhat limited.

If I were to go to college today then I think I would either skip CS and go into something like statistics or do something like a double major. My choice would depend on how long I would have to spend in school vs. how quick I could get out into the wild.

The idea here is that programmers who have some sort of niche specialization are more valuable than those who are only programmers. If I'm passionate about CS, then I can learn some of the subjects taught in CS on my own. Something like statistics is not the same case, I would probably benefit from the more structured framework.

Given a choice between self teaching a major, I would probably try teaching myself the subjects taught in a CS major. Programming by itself is much more vocational (and likely easier to self teach as a result) than something like statistics. Programming is also relatively easy to prove competency through publishing written code, working on open source projects and building a reputation. I know that CS is a lot more than programming, but I think learning the programming portion is good enough when combined with another major.

I'm not sure about specific schools. I get the feeling like there are a certain number of schools where the name will help sell its graduates and then anything below that level is just relatively more money and not necessarily more return. Another twist is that entrepreneurs and start-up workers may never get asked about college degrees. Personally, I have never been asked for a resume or college degrees.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, down the line I think I might want to eventually become a CS professor, so having a degree in CS is pretty important to me. I do do some web development occasionally, and could see myself making money off of it for some time, but I think/hope I'll ultimately be going into areas where a CS degree is more important/relevant.

I also really value community; I tend to learn a lot from my peers and also am often inspired by being around other intelligent people. Honestly, education from coursework is only a part of what I'm looking for from college, and maybe even a small part. I'm looking forward more to research opportunities and being around people with similar interests and passions than I am just attending classes.

And I'm interested in math, too, and was considering double-majoring in it, but UIUCs system for double majors is kind of weird, and I might just end up with a minor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> As I grew up in the same town as UIUC, I'm admittedly biased on this, but if you're just looking to get a top-rate CS education, there aren't many better options.

However, if you do end up putting in for transfers to other schools, you should make sure you're not misusing homonyms in your essays. You consistently used 'faired' in your post, where in the context you meant 'fared'. This would likely be a huge red flag to anyone reading your entrance essays, and is akin to saying something is a 'waist of time' or 'arrow-dynamic'.

Anyway, the point is that you're already enrolled in a top CS program. I know a number of people who tried to transfer schools, and it rarely worked out as they planned (similar to your dad's situation with Wharton) - as the new guy, it's often difficult to break into set circles of friends.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ak - I'm bad with a lot of homonyms.

Also, just curious, why were you brought up in Champaign-Urbana? Did your parents teach at UIUC or they just happened to live there?

<comment><USER3> My dad grew up there, plus both my parents got their undergrad degrees at UIUC.

If you're worried about having access to cool research, you can also apply to be an intern at NCSA while an undergrad. I interned there while I was in high school, so I know you don't need to be at any specific level of education for them to take a look at you.

The homonym issue can be subtle, and I don't think many spell-checkers will pick it up (maybe Microsoft Word, but I don't use that anymore). It might be best to have someone you know who is more aware of these things have a look through anything you send in with an application.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I tend to give college essays more care and review than I do posts on hacker news.

<comment><USER3> Best of luck with whatever you decide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> UIUC is a top 10 CS school. Not sure you need to sweat it.

(CMU BS ECE '96 here)

Reading resumes, the right school helps but is not enough to get my attention alone.

</comment><comment><USER5> Just find a place where you will be _happy_ for four years, and work and play hard there...and try not to overanalyze. If I had my education to do over, I wouldn't have worried about name recognition _whatsoever_ (it's just not that important in the real world), and differences in what programs offer (or don't) are _nothing_ compared to the drive to learn that you have (or don't).

<comment><AUTHOR> The thing is, though, that I find that my own drive is often affected by what kinds of people are around me. I got into CS on my own, but I noticed my passion for and skill in it developing a lot when I was around other people who were strong in CS.</comment></comment>


Richard Stallman coming to Singapore - <AUTHOR> http://freesoftware.sg/ Richard Stallman is coming to Singapore. <comment><USER2> Poor Singapore people. They don't realize what they have gotten themselves into.

<comment><USER3> I think we do. Some of us, anyway.

It's funny to think that 20-30 years ago, Stallman might not even have been allowed into the country. IIRC we used to turn away long-haired hippie types or take them aside for questioning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't buy him a parrot!

<comment><USER5> And don't ask him about his breakfast plans!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Perhaps playing "OB Marker Bingo" at his speech is in order?

</comment><comment><USER7> Shucks, I have my first holiday in 9 months, and it has to coincide with his talk...

<comment><USER8> Is this because you live in Singapore and are going away somewhere else but don't want to miss his talk?

Or is it because you live elsewhere and are planning to holiday in Singapore but can't stand the idea of being in the same city as stallman?

<comment><USER7> His earlier talk in Singapore 13 years ago was a life changing moment for me. And dammit, "dont buy him a parrot" gets upvoted and you and I are getting downvoted .... for what exactly?</comment></comment></comment>


Programming for Grade 8 - <AUTHOR> https://henrikwarne.com/2017/12/17/programming-for-grade-8/ <comment><USER2> 8th grader here! I've been programming for a relatively years (maybe around 7-8, very basic stuff of course, like turtle games and scratch. Huge thanks to my Dad :) ), and this seems like a really really great thing to do.

Most people in my grade I think would be able to make it through making a calculator, but maybe with some trouble. I'm also not sure if many of them have the attention span either.

I think my favorite thing about this is how it's all text based. My school currently does an event every year called "hour of code" where you do some visual programming for about 40 minutes (class period cuts it off). It's usually the same thing every year, and it seems like people don't learn anything new at them.

I hope your students keep on learning, and you keep on teaching!

<comment><USER3> Hour of Code includes options that use JavaScript and Python (and a handful of less mainstream options). If you are allowed to choose, you can use the filter on the side to select 'Language: Typing'.

Hour of Code Activities | [https://code.org/learn](https://code.org/learn)

<comment><USER2> I've seen those! They're definitely better, but we're not really _supposed_ to choose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As someone who had programming in the 8th grade (Basic/turbo), the knowledge I received was a short-term one. Anything complex like calculators, games did not work for me/my peers. 8th grade math/logical thinking is not at the level you'd need as the concepts are way too abstract.

However, my second semester as a freshman high school (technical school) we did programming theory followed by quick labs (coding exercises in C, same "no-magic" principle) and then it all made sense. However, we first had like a month without any code where we were taught different data structures, functions, differences between declaring/defining, etc. That knowledge is still in use today.

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure I agree with that.

We were introduced to Logo briefly in second grade (admittedly, I don't think the programming concepts really stuck at that point).

Then we were introduced to BASIC briefly in fifth grade. For some of us at least, concepts like conditionals and loops did stick. I remember going home and insisting my dad install a BASIC interpreter on his computer so I could write more programs.

BASIC doesn't really have the concept of a function, but we were already being taught about abstractions like "f(x) = x + 1" in seventh grade algebra, so I don't see why programming would be too abstract for an eighth grader.

You might not want to try to teach them Java or Erlang, but procedural or imperative Python like the article describes should be well within the abilities of a significant subset of kids that age.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wrote my first program in 6th grade using the java Robot class to move the mouse and clear out my inventory on the online game Runescape. I had no intention of learning programming back then, i just hated all the tedious clicking lol. This got me super excited about programming, and im a dev now.

</comment><comment><USER7> The approach the school I worked with was similar, with a 4th step:

* Hello, World!

* Calculator

* Guess the number

* Control the robot.

They got a handful of nodemcu devboards, wired in a screen, some motors and IR lights/detectors, and the student got to go wild.

<comment><AUTHOR> The class I wrote about also used Lego robots, but I was not involved in that, so I have no first-hand knowledge of it (although I heard many students liked them as well).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is great! What was the time frame? Did you do several lessens, one hour each? How many? Or one/many complete morning(s) / afternoon(s)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! It lasted from end of October till last week. I did three lessons of about one hour each. Olle did one lesson too where I wasn't there. The rest was their regular teacher, Caroline. I answered some mails with questions, and sent here some more example programs in between.</comment></comment>


Appcelerator Acquires Aptana - <AUTHOR> http://www.appcelerator.com/appcelerator-acquires-aptana

<comment><USER2> This is great news for the Appcelerator guys, but I've gotten so used to writing Titanium apps in TextMate, that I'm not sure I'd really need a dedicated IDE!

Still happy for the company though.

<comment><USER3> Just to make the point clear they said in the conference call today that they have no intention of forcing anyone to use an IDE and people using TextMate can go on doing so without interruption.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would absolutely love to see titanium support and great javascript integration in aptana studio.

I love both these companies products, I just hope they don't nerf pydev or radrails in the process :/

</comment><comment><USER5> It would be great if this shortened the wait for a Titanium JS debugger...

</comment><comment><USER6> This should be awesome. I really enjoy Appcelerator's Titanium dev kit and I think it will really come to life with its own IDE/editor. Congrats to both companies it's a great buy.

</comment><comment><USER7> Cool. Those are both good products. Heaven forbid, an acquisition that actually makes sense!

</comment><comment><USER8> Good news. Titanium has always been missing a default IDE/editor.</comment>


Designing the Perfect Date and Time Picker (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2017/07/designing-perfect-date-time-picker/ <comment><USER2> It makes me sad how so many of those examples are Month-Day-Year.

Imo the perfect date and time picker should respect ISO8601.

<comment><USER3> No, it should respect the locale settings of your browser.

<comment><USER4> In the case where you have text input, wouldn't the best approach be to support both the locale settings and ISO8601? Unlike M/D/Y and D/M/Y where dates can be ambiguous, as far as I know there's no locale where a locale- specific date and ISO8601 can be mutually ambiguous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> On this subject: does anyone have an example of a time picker that supports unambiguously picking a time in the "fall back" hour in political timezones with daylight saving time part of the year? I've never actually seen one. It's only relevant for one hour out of the year, so you want it to be unobtrusive (maybe invisible) most of the time, and intuitive when it's relevant.

<comment><USER6> More than a couple of our vendors have been frustrated by my insistence that they properly support daylight saving time. Both switch overs have their own set of unique potential problems but if a vendor has an API as part of their product and we're going to build automation on top of it, this twice a year undefined behavior generator isn't acceptable. It surprises me how many companies seem to have an severe allergy to using UTC or even including TZ data with their time/date data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> See also (2018): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17548486](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17548486)

</comment><comment><USER8> At first I read "Designing the Perfect Date" and missed the rest of the headline. Now I'm disappointed because I was hoping for tips on how to design the Perfect Date for my girlfriend. So, any tips?</comment>


MI5 recruiting digital intelligence specialists, but £27k? - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/careers/3304924/mi5-wants-it-specialists/

<comment><USER2> The questionnaire to "to assess your suitability for a role" as an "IT Security Exploitation Officer" is actually pretty good.

[https://www.mi5.gov.uk/careers/it-security-test-your- knowled...](https://www.mi5.gov.uk/careers/it-security-test-your- knowledge.aspx)

You enter the following string into an application:

        "AAAAAAAAAAAABBBBCCCCCDDDD"

The program crashes with a message:

        "Access violation executing 0x43434343"

a) This is likely to be an example of what sort of security vulnerability?

b) How might this leave a machine vulnerable to code execution?

c) This appears to relate to the use of the strcpy function. What improvements might you suggest the developer add?

d) Running this application on newer operating system results in different behaviour. Why?

<comment><USER3> The systems admin ones are crazily basic:

 _On a Linux server what command line tools might you use to perform the following functions?

a) view the firewall configuration

b) format a partition using the ext3 filesystem

c) viewing the configuration of the eth0 network interface

d) unpack the file archive.tar

e) create a symlink_

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You get what you pay for. How can they expect to get commitment and security on those sort of wages? How can they expect someone to resist a little temptation / extortion when they are paid breadlien wages? It is an insult. The majority of IT workers are unerpaid, but this is ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've often wondered about the sucky pay issue - particularly for those working in London. I can only hope/guess that there are some benefits like subsidised housing that make these roles tenable.

<comment><USER6> You will get nothing at all.

You can just about survive in London on that.

<comment><USER7> If it's anything like the MoD, you'd get lots of holiday, and generous expense systems

<comment><USER6> Good for employees but when a contractor, you're lucky not to have to sue them :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's pretty standard for postgrad salaries in the UK in the public sector. The various agencies aren't high payers.

You will get pretty much no help from anyone including social or subsidised housing so you'll be stuck in a flat share or a crap rental.

You'll get a worthless pension though.

Go private sector!</comment>


Show HN: A superquick checklist to evaluate any inventory software for Retail - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com/here-s-a-quick-checklist-on-how-you-can-evaluate-an-inventory-management-system-which-suits-your-ac8967f99c41 <comment><USER2> Looks more like a feature list of your own one doesn't it?</comment>


The Italian entrepreneur who moved his team and got funded in 19 days - <AUTHOR> http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/01/12/the-italian-entrepreneur-who-moved-his-team-and-got-funded-in-19-days/ <comment><USER2> There are for sure strong cultural problems in Italy that are blocking innovation, but unfortunately it's not just a matter of getting money. Most of the time the real problem is in the founders. People usually don't like the idea of working very hard for something with a big amount of uncertainty about what the outcome will be, many are still very focused in getting a 'stable' position somewhere.

Another problem is that in general there is no trust in the idea that you can create business in the Internet. In part this is due to the fact that the online advertising market in Italy is smallish at best, that users are rarely willing to pay for services, and other stuff like that.

But... I think italians too often overlook what is good about Italy, and if there was not this cultural brake we could do much more interesting things. For instance there is a model where it is normal for a son to stay in the home of the parents up to 30 years old or more, without the need of earning at all. This means that you can use a few years to develop your startup without any required money.

Also in my opinion Italy is a place with many talents. It's not hard to find good people, there are many programmers as in the 80s home computing and electronic was a real boom here as an hobby, and schools are still in decent shape.

So what should Italian entrepreneur do? It's hard to focus on the italian internet market as it's small, but it is either not very easy to penetrate the US market from Italy. It's a very hard question. I would say that probably it makes sense to still beat on the US market for a technological company, but perhaps not just with finished products for the end user, but also with business to business technology, or electronics (things like Arduino).

Unfortunately some fields where we could be very successful require money that is hard to find, otherwise Italy could be the "Apple" of all the things apple is not doing, mixing good design and technology. From alarm clocks to other kind of appliances that are usually poorly designed and ugly to see.

Well just a number of random ideas...

<comment><USER3> Living with parents at 30 is not just a cultural inertia, neither a mere economic read out. It is a symptom of lazyness. I am Italian, I fled the country when I was 24 (10 years ago) and I cannot even think how one could be productive while living with mamma. Founding something requires a lot of responsability and many of those who live with their parents they do so because they are not ready to take any.

As for targeting the US market I agree, partly. In fact I think it's even easier than that. Simply, whatever you do, do it in english. You will attract not just the US market, but potentially everyone. edit: spelling

<comment><USER4> I'm Italian and I'm living abroad since 7 years, but I'd be careful with:

> Living with parents at 30 [...] is a symptom of lazyness.

Years ago, the finance ministry Padoa-Schioppa said that in Italy there's a generation of lazy and spoiled children ("bamboccioni") and was strongly attacked.

I can honestly think of many situations of guys/girls (expecially in the South) that cannot afford living on their own in their late 20s/30s... and not because they don't want to.

All this is really sad.

<comment><USER3> I used to think the same. Then I lived 4 years in the US and I found a generation of 20 years old kids who live by themselves - well, with flatmates - while studying and working shifts at McDonald.

Kids do share apartments in SF or NYC and those cities are not less expensive than Milan or Rome. If one REALLY wants to leave their parents' nest, one CAN do it. Most people who live with their parents do so because they believe that paying a rent is a waste of money and you oughta buy your own place, rather.

<comment><USER5> > Most people who live with their parents do so because they believe that > paying a rent is a waste of money and you oughta buy your own place, rather.

I never understood that argument. What about opportunity costs?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The main problem with Italy is that the country is led by people who have absolutely no clue: and I don't mean just politicians. Big names in finance, industry, entrepreneurship, banks. Most of them are there just because of their connections and they are sinking the country.

Nobody invested in Marco because there's nobody there good enough to recognize what is worth and what is not. They would not be able to invest in google, either.

This is not just a problem for tech startup, it is a problem for anyone who needs money or encouragement to fund anything slightly innovative. Someone told me they tried to convince big companies to open an embedded childcare department, something that is absolutely normal abroad because it increases dependents time at work and even make money to the company. They went all the way around and could not find anyone interested.

Just nuke that country already.

<comment><USER6> Sounds like a lot of opportunity for success to me (all your competitors have clueless management). What stops someone from disrupting all these clueless people? Just money?

<comment><USER3> The problem is that the clueless people are literally leading the country and that makes everything difficult. When I say that I wish a nuke I am obviously exhagerating, but I am not when I say that I wish a civil revolution.

The job market is a mess because the job market regulation is a mess. Finances are a mess because tax regulations is a mess: 50% for some people and 0% for others (tax fraud is easy peasy for certain professions). Culturally we are sinking since universities are regulated like in a third word country and most academics never even published a paper in all their lifes.

Technically, if you had private money you could start an Italian Ycombinator and get return because it's full of talents. Yet, your return will be better if you were to do the same in most other countries so why bother?

<comment><USER6> >Yet, your return will be better if you were to do the same in most other countries so why bother?

Well, with something like YC sure, but anything else you might bother because it's the country you grow up and you know it well. Also because any of those countries that are easier to do will also have more, tougher competition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Jesus. What on earth is "Etsy for cloud services"?

<comment><USER8> Saying that it's a service that you can use to build mashups would have been a lot less intriguing ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> How did they "move" to SF -- esp. regarding visa issues -- is what we'd like to know... Tell us more!

<comment><USER10> I might have misread the article but I don't recall anything about actually _moving_ to the US.

Going to the US for up to 3 months (or 6 if you actually apply for a B visa) as a "business visitor" under the VWP would allow you to do most of the activities relating to funding and attending conferences, etc. You just couldn't do any "work" or plan to stay.

<comment><USER9> > I don't recall anything about actually moving to the US

It's right there in the title and in this sentence (last sentence of paragraph 2): _the team decided they would pack their bags and move across the Atlantic for good_

I don't understand much about visa rules; from a distance it seems the rules are very strict and complex, but enforced unevenly; I would love to read a comprehensive article on this subject.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The career pessimists in US should read the comments here. Many in america dont understand how good the system in US is and that is the problem. BTB, i am saying this as a outsider (indian) living in US.

</comment><comment><USER12> Worth to note that it's not Europe that is the problem, it's Italy. I absolutely love that country for many things, but business/economical-wise it is really screwed, and latests news that come from there, about national debt and such, draw rather catastrophic image of their nearest future.

<comment><USER13> On the contrary, I think you'll find raising money is equally difficult in, say, London. I know some well-connected people, with a track record of previous successful businesses and exits and connections throughout the VC/angel community who still struggle to raise seed funding for pre-revenue ideas (even some which are showing traction).

Compare that to the Valley, where it seems that the main test of whether you can raise money is to put a mirror in front of your mouth and check that some water vapor condenses on the mirror (if there is no water vapor, the entrepreneur is dead. do not fund)...

<comment><AUTHOR> At least you can create a company (a Ltd) in the UK easily. It's at least one order of magnitude more expensive in Italy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Better title: "How hard work, determination, and a move got a start-up to second base."

Great story and lots to inspire, especially

 _...the team went to every last event in Silicon Valley, called every person they knew and asked around for help._

But in all the hoopla, it's easy to forget that getting funding is not the goal, it's just one of many intermediate steps. In spite of appearances, the _real_ hard work is just beginning.

</comment><comment><USER15> Causation versus correlation..</comment>


Darpa is looking for a 100Gbit link - <AUTHOR> http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/12/14.aspx

<comment><AUTHOR> I know some folks working on the 700Mhz spectrum had some ideas there, I wonder if this can get them funded.</comment>


MDialog acquired by Google - <AUTHOR> http://www.mdialog.com/

<comment><USER2> Does anybody know what will happen to the current MDialog employees?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Congrats guys!</comment>


Innovation, Permission and Risk - <AUTHOR> https://livestream.com/internetsociety/iotgov/videos/172548792 <comment><AUTHOR> great talk. posted by my IOT policy friend: [https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gilad- iot](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gilad-iot)</comment>


FCC's favors for Sinclair are the natural byproduct of a pro-industry agenda - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/15/fccs-favors-for-sinclair-are-the-natural-byproduct-of-a-pro-industry-agenda <comment><USER2> So Sinclair gets the favors of "deregulation"? What about Sinclair's competitors? I bet they get some, but not what Sinclair gets.

This isn't pro-industry, it's pro-crony, or maybe more traditionally, mercantilism. When there's only one or two service providers in a market, there's no free market any more.

Humbug! "Free market for thee, but not for me!" would be a better title for this article.</comment>


Inequality Is Not the Problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.greshm.org/blog/inequality-is-not-the-problem/ <comment><USER2> This is a nice idea but not practical, although there may be a temporary positive outcome from providing a basic income to everyone, in a capatalist system eventually inflation will negate this effect. Landlords would raise rents almost immediately and the wealthy would pressure governments to raise interest rates to protect their in equal wealth, which would in fact cause more people to fall from middle class to poor. That being said I am very much in favor of having a social safety net which provides the necessities of life to anyone or any group of people that have fallen on hard times. This should and does come in the form of public services such as public healthcare, public education, public broadcasting as well as countless other charitable organizations and non profits, which are subsidized by taxes and or tax deductions.</comment>


Coroutine iters in Common Lisp - <AUTHOR> http://vicsydev.blogspot.com/2017/01/coroutine-iters-in-common-lisp.html <comment><USER2> I have long thought that a coroutine mechanism was one of the most unfortunate omissions from the ANSI Common Lisp standard. The Lisp Machines had a mechanism called "stack groups" that supported efficient coroutines, but I guess it wasn't considered critical for Common Lisp to have such a thing. As you've noticed, though, adding coroutines in a way that's general, efficient, and portable is very hard.

<comment><USER3> Coroutines are a hack that is inferior to both real threads (OS supported, true concurrency) and delimited continuations (are functions that multiply instantiate, compose and recurse). Both of these mechanisms can easily simulate coroutines.

Many Common Lisp implementations have threads so effectively, Common Lisp _de facto_ supports coroutines.

<comment><AUTHOR> I went ahead and brain dumped the most obvious multi-threaded solution I could come up with, to get some performance facts to go with all the rumors. It comes out roughly 5x slower than using conditions/restarts. Just in case someone was wondering where we are atm...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Shameless plug: I had created a similar library[0] for common lisp, though it didn't use conditions and restarts, also lacked a definitive yield construct. It still is profound how a major feature for other programming language is trivial to add to common lisp.

[0]: [https://github.com/ykm/cl-iterators](https://github.com/ykm/cl- iterators)

<comment><AUTHOR> But you still require extensions to cut up the algorithm in discrete blocks, right?

Much thanks to macros, as usual; without that support, the approach wouldn't really be feasible for general purpose use.

<comment><USER4> Hmmm, frankly its just a CLOS object, with the defmethods controlling the iteration. I tried to model the object like Python iterators, however the API ended up a bit more like Haskell.

<comment><AUTHOR> Aight, just to clarify; the step wise, stuttering experience that normally comes with extending iterators is what I'm trying to get away from here :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I presented a very similar implementation here: [http://lisp-univ- etc.blogspot.com/2016/05/improving-lisp-ux-...](http://lisp-univ- etc.blogspot.com/2016/05/improving-lisp-ux-one-form-at-time.html) Still, a lot of interesting questions remain, which are discussed here: [http://lisp-univ- etc.blogspot.com/2016/05/improving-lisp-ux-...](http://lisp-univ- etc.blogspot.com/2016/05/improving-lisp-ux-one-form-at- time.html#comment-2682947352)

</comment><comment><USER3> TXR Lisp is a dialect with CL roots, supporting delimited continuations.

They can be used directly via a lower-level API or via the obtain/yield mechanism.

[http://www.nongnu.org/txr/txr- manpage.html#N-01C4E6B4](http://www.nongnu.org/txr/txr- manpage.html#N-01C4E6B4)

Here is an example of obtain/yield wrapped in the object system to create green-thread-like objects:

[http://www.nongnu.org/txr/rosetta-solutions- main.html#Synchr...](http://www.nongnu.org/txr/rosetta-solutions- main.html#Synchronous%20concurrency)

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, never heard of TXR before. Too close for comfort on first blush though, changing arbitrary details in existing programming languages divides. Even having both Scheme and Common Lisp so close together takes a lot of energy that could be used more constructively. Thanks for the links.

<comment><USER3> Oh well; I'm not interested in making a conforming implementation of ANSI Lisp.

Some things are worth throwing out. For instance setq and setf are "onions in the varnish". Lisp has a set function which is rarely used. Because it exists, we cannot give the general assignment operator the name it wants: set. The q in setq refers to its historic relationship with set: "like set but with the var implicitly quoted". This relationship broke decades ago when Lisp went lexical: (setq x y) is (set 'x y) only when x is a dynamic var. And of course setq is redundant since every setq can be replaced with setf, and setf even replaces set since symbol-value is an accessor. Can I be blamed for not wanting to reproduce this baggage and just having one set macro?

It may seem like a small thing, but most programmers are used to assignment just being =. The name "set" is still reasonably acceptable. We see it in vi, some shells, and such. "set" with a gratuitous letter added for fifty-year-old reasons: not so much.

<comment><AUTHOR> Me neither, as much as I love that standard and the people involved in making it happen :) Just getting the implementation details right is at least a life time effort. And like you say, a lot could be improved and some is still missing. But as a solid, mature foundation; it beats the mine field that is exploratory language design.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Create you own digital voice - <AUTHOR> https://www.lyrebird.ai <comment><USER2> 2\. Biometric Data We Collect

When using the Services, you may choose to provide us with Your Voice, Digital Voice, or Digital Voice Messages (collectively, "Biometric Data")—including, without limitation, by recording or uploading an audio file of Your Voice. We collect this Biometric Data. Please note that Biometric Data may include, without limitation, data that may allow someone to identify/contact you and non-public data.

</comment><comment><USER2> When you use our Services, we disclose Biometric Data as described in this Section 5, strictly for legitimate business purposes and not to exceed the maximum extent permitted by law. By entering this Agreement, you provide express written consent to our disclosure of Biometric Data as described in this Section 5.

We will disclose Biometric Data to our third party service providers who perform services on our behalf, to (1) provide you with, maintain, improve, and enhance our Services; (2) facilitate creation of user accounts; and/or (3) provide other services to our Users.

If you choose to post content from our Services (e.g., a Digital Voice Message) to a social networking site (e.g., Facebook or Twitter) ("SNS"), we will disclose Biometric Data to the SNS to the extent necessary to effectuate your posting of content. You hereby acknowledge and agree that you are solely responsible for your use of SNSs, and we are not responsible or liable for your use of any such SNSs.

If you direct us to share your Biometric Data with others, we will provide your Biometric Data to those others in accordance with your directions.

We may also disclose Biometric Data under the following circumstances:

· To law enforcement agencies, including pursuant to a warrant, subpoena, or court order;

· In response to requests by regulatory, legal or government agencies;

· In connection with or during negotiation of any merger, financing or other transition involving the sale, transfer, or other divestiture of all or a portion of our business or assets, including to the extent such information is transferred as a business asset;

· In connection with any acquisition of us by another company, such that the acquiring company possesses the Biometric Data collected by us and will assume the rights and obligations regarding Biometric Data described in this Agreement;

· If we have a good-faith belief that we are legally required to do so;

· If it is necessary or appropriate to do so to protect our rights, property, or safety, or to defend against User or third-party claims or allegations, including to the extent necessary to enforce any agreements we have with you;

· If it is necessary or appropriate to do so to prevent physical injury or other harm to any person or entity, including yourself and members of the general public; or

· Under any other circumstance in which you provide us with express written consent to disclosure of your Biometric Data.

Just posting some of the biometric policy.</comment>


Ask HN: When you are getting acquired does documentation/code really matter? - <AUTHOR>

How important is documentation to any acquisition? Does it make or break the deal? In the long run is it important to build things on traditional stacks (Rails or Django) instead of rolling your own custom stack?<p>And finally, is it unheard of for a big company to be interested in your product, look at your code, then laugh you off? <comment><USER2> I've worked at a few small/mid-sized software firms that have been bought out by larger players.

Part of the due diligence that larger companies will undertake before acquiring any software IP is to determine the provenance and licensing of the software. So watch out for any bits of code copy/pasted from open source libraries and check that any third party libraries you use are correctly licensed.

A big company may pull out of an acquisition at any time, even after performing due diligence. They will never say "Ha ha! It's because your code is rubbish" because an acquisition is a business decision not a technical one.

</comment><comment><USER3> It depends on what they're acquiring you for. If they're acquiring you as a team of great programmers and they see your code is shit that probably isn't good.

If they're acquiring you because you built a product that has great adoption in the marketplace (YouTube), but your code is spaghetti they won't care very much.

If it's based on revenue they _really_ won't care.

In most cases your core team will be required to stay on at the new company long enough that any missing documentation will have had time to get written.

<comment><USER4> Great product and spaghetti code works for a while. They will buy you for market position but you will lose two years development down the line to bring the code into corporate standards. It will take to engineering managers to make it happen. From experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's always best to use good coding practices and follow generally accepted standards. You should at least use in-code docs for your own sake. In addition to the appearance of knowing what you are doing, it will be easier for new developers coming in to get up to speed. The big company coming in will act like it is a big deal, even if it isn't. It's all part of the negotiations.</comment>


How Emulsifiers Are Messing with Our Guts (and Making Us Fat) - <AUTHOR> http://civileats.com/2015/02/25/how-emulsifiers-are-messing-with-our-guts-and-making-us-fat/ <comment><USER2> So my suspicion is that the fundamental problem with emulsifiers is that they increase the surface area of the foods we eat. Food surface area seems to be a prime factor in how quickly we digest foods. In terms of carbs this leads to spikes in blood sugar and subsequent spikes in insulin which seems to be highly problematic both in insulin sensitivity and in tendency to keep snacking. I suspect a similar process is happening with emulsified lipids as well.

<comment><USER3> Interesting guess. Is it based on anything?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> (2015)

I wonder if any follow up studies have been done by now...</comment>


Learnable Programming - <AUTHOR> http://worrydream.com/LearnableProgramming/ <comment><USER2> I have a qweshtion how would i go about learning how to wright programs? I have an idea and want to wright it myself.</comment>


Porn industry exploits iPhone 4 feature - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/30/BU221ELOCK.DTL <comment><USER2> I admire those guys. Always innovating and trying all sorts of things.

Also I found a solution for the last bit about protecting kids. Don't buy your kids a damn iPhone, get them the phone that just calls/texts people if you're so concerned.</comment>


Highlights of the US Mobile Market Q1 2017 - <AUTHOR> http://www.chetansharma.com/publications/us-mobile-market-update-q1-2017/ <comment><AUTHOR> Key point:

\- The US mobile data services revenue has seen QoQ growth for 17 straight years until Q1 2017 when it saw its first negative growth for the quarter. (Q1 is generally a down quarter but for the first time the revenue growth dipped below zero).</comment>


Show HN: My script to get all iPad games on sale from the App Store - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamesontheipad.com/games/deals/all-ipad-games.php Decided to use the weekend to play around with the iTunes API so I made a site just for iPad games.
I'm always looking for a good iPad game (love the iPad as a gaming platform) so I've been pulling iPad games from the app store nightly (for last 3 nights) and comparing their prices.
Out of roughly 9K games that I could find 20 go on sale every day.
So far I've saved a whopping $4 on games and it took me 3 days to write it. If I got a weekend job anywhere else I'd probably make much more money than I saved and be able to buy more games than I did but where is the fun in that.
I know appshopper does deals but I just wanted a way to get discounted iPad games every day. <comment><USER2> The AppShopper app also allows you to view "price drops" on all apps. It's a very useful feature. It's nice to be able to browse the on-sale games on your site though.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm just figuring it all out as I go for now. There are certainly more things I want to add and I'll try to do so as I get a better understanding of helpful features. Price drop is certainly something I'll consider in the near future.

This was a weekend thing so I can't wait till I have some more free time to tinker with it.

If you have any other suggestions they are always welcome.

Thanks for your input!</comment></comment>


Steve Wozniak Endorses Lessig's Mayday Super PAC - <AUTHOR> http://theinternethasasuperpac.com/ <comment><USER2> > Ready to help us get big money out of politics?

Wolf-PAC [1] has the same declared goal (both focus on campaign finance reform, informally "getting money out of politics"), and the same means (~~both intend to call for a Constitutional Convention~~ [3]), I wonder if they might consider coordinating their efforts.

Ah, alright, did a cursory comparison of the two. Wolf PAC/Uygur's plan is to overturn key SCOTUS rulings (e.g. Citizens United v. FEC, Buckley v. Valeo) whereas Mayday PAC/Lessig's goal is to "unseat five congresspersons who are on the 'wrong side of this issue'". [2]

[1] [http://www.wolf-pac.com/](http://www.wolf-pac.com/)

[2] [http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn- har...](http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-harvard- professor-super-pac-big-money-politics-20140523-story.html)

[3] Edited to note that Lessig's PAC isn't planning on calling for a convention (Lessig himself has called for it in the past, I was making an assumption here.)

</comment><comment><USER3> I need more words and less marketing to convince me to send my cash to people who have far more cash than I do. I need a very specific and very concrete explanation of what they plan to do with it.

Is there a deeper link to documents with more detailed adult explanations of what they plan to do, how they plan to do it, and the specific criteria for support for a candidate? One that doesn't assume that I'm ignorant of the current state of campaign finance, SuperPACs, and recent SCOTUS decisions? Maybe a few names? I assume something like this exists, but I can't find it.

Or is this just LessigPAC, and I'm supposed to give money because I'm a fan or something?

<comment><USER4> It is completely explained on the site about the money.

1\. Whatever is raised is matched by some well-off people who are willing to match.

2\. They are raising $12m total

3\. The money goes into selected campaigns where they have a good chance to turn the election and make the candidates support the reform agenda. They hire professionals who do this kind of thing.

4\. None of the raised money is used for admin expenses.

5\. If it works out, they continue into 2016 to turn more elections.

The question is, do people give a s __*? Sadly, I 'm pessimistic.. Drop $50 on this I'd say a pretty cheap lottery ticket considering how sick the system currently is..

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I went through to donate and I have to be an American citizen to donate.. when big multi-nationals are pushing America (and by extension the planet) around then why should individuals from multiple-different-nations not be able to respond?

<comment><USER6> They should add an option so that foreigners can give money to individual americans on there - who in turn give it to the PAC.

<comment><USER7> IANAL: But please be careful. You may be breaking the law if you do this. Dinesh D'Souza is going to do jail time for something similar (using straw donors to circumvent existing campaign finance laws and limits).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They have a long way to go. I'm not sure they're going to make $5m. They only have $1.1m raised now, and only 2 weeks left.

<comment><USER9> Yes, it's running a bit behind that curve.

On the plus side, there is at least another 7 million out there that people want to go to this cause, as we can see by the matching amounts.

For the moment there is a 'all or nothing' effect, but that's for psychological reasons, and it may be working against them at this point. The people willing to put 7 million toward the cause probably still care, and will find other ways to donate it.

Please donate, and consider checking "I want my donation to be used to support MAYDAY.US, even if the goal has not been met by July 4th." This is one of those causes that seems fundamentally worth while to me, and your donation will mean even more if they come up short, because it will give them funds to keep fighting.

You should donate now. [https://pledge.mayday.us/pledge](https://pledge.mayday.us/pledge)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Does anyone know what the significance of the $5 million goal is? Did they look at the political landscape and decide that was how much money they needed to make an impact or is that just the amount they thought they could raise?

<comment><USER11> If you click the mayday button you get this page:

[https://mayday.us/](https://mayday.us/)

and this setence: "For 2014, our goal is $12 million. With that money, we will make fundamental reform the key issue in five congressional races. And win."

Also they raised 1 Mio before and everything gets doubled by individual donnors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What is amazing me is all the ignorance that is so boldly expressed by lessig: a democracy is not a republic since republic was designed to kill the democracy.

The biggest argument against republic being a possible implementation of democracy was made centuries ago by Pericles. He stated that any system favouring money will end in ploutocracy (having only the richer's interests being represented). Republic filter's out a lot of people from the game of being eligible. It selects on a random criteria that will always end to be money at the end.

Republic whatever its implementation can be always will result in a feedback loop based on resources: money, media time, «fame», knwoledge, wisdom... As a result whatever the rule you make it will always end up favouring in the representation the guys with money. (you need exposure of your argument to win, that always ends up in making a 1:1:1 relation of exposure=money=probability of winning)

Democracy's goal however is to have all the population being represented. So as you can see these 2 systems are de facto mutually exclusive.

The big question is «are the human naturally bad?» If answer is yes: you choose republic to ensure only a subset of «capable citizens» are elected, but in the process you will mathematically converge towards a ploutocracy that will favor the more powerful/rich. Else, if all citizen are considered equally «capable» you can pick up any random citizen for forming a government. Hence living in a republic is NOT possibly living in a democracy.

Republic is just an aristocracy: it ensures the representant of the people are selected in a small subset of the population that tends to have more patrimonial. subset of the population that will tend to pass law to ensure the conservatism in the society so that their money is secured.

</comment><comment><USER13> Am I being a little bit dumb - their goal is to demonstrate how corrosive money is in "buying" Congressional races by pouring money into congressional races to buy the race to make their point?

I seem to be going round again

<comment><USER14> Not quite. They're raising campaign money to try and influence five upcoming congressional elections in favor of campaign finance reform. To do that, I imagine they'll run ads in key districts in support of whichever candidate or another will agree to support and advance reform, or at least to unseat an incumbent who's been historically against reform. It's definitely ironic! They even admit as much towards the bottom of the main page; it's just the way politics are in the US raising and spending this much money is pretty much a necessity for the goals they have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Quite depressing how they don't seem to be able to reach their goal. I would donate in a heart beat, but I'm not a US citizen.

Unclear why you (US citizens) aren't all over this stuff.

</comment><comment><USER16> Can this reach a tipping point? HN may help get it there.

</comment><comment><USER17> The American Spring?

<comment><USER18> This is an interesting question. I'm located in Europe so I can't hear what the crowd is humbling.

-Do you think there is enough collective desire for a particular change? It's often hard to rally everyone for a "spring".

-Do you think this action has the power to overturn any decision making in the US democracy?

<comment><USER19> I doubt it, Canadian here so I can't speak to the mumblings. All I can off is anecdotal information from talking to Americans when I'm down there, and the middle class don't understand how poor they are in America compared to their wealthy. They seem to feel that they're almost wealthy, but what they don't realize is that the difference between the middle and lower classes is a rounding error compared to the wealth of the upper class. They also don't realize that a middle class Canadian has more disposable income than their southern equivalent, and yet Americans receives almost none of the free health care or other social safety nets. As a man whose had 6 major surgeries, two while unemployed after Dell closed up shop in Edmonton, I can say that without that safety net, I may very well have ended up on the street. Which you don't see a lot of here.

<comment><USER20> _All I can off is anecdotal information from talking to Americans when I 'm down there, and the middle class don't understand how poor they are in America compared to their wealthy. They seem to feel that they're almost wealthy, but what they don't realize is that the difference between the middle and lower classes is a rounding error compared to the wealth of the upper class._

That's not anecdotal. You're playing mind reader to fit your own political agenda. That's pretty rude to your friends....if even that's true.

 _They also don 't realize that a middle class Canadian has more disposable income than their southern equivalent, and yet Americans receives almost none of the free health care or other social safety nets_

And once again, a Canadian doesn't understand that health care isn't free no matter how many times they say it.

<comment><USER19> Actually Richard, that's conversation. Americans who do not pursue more detailed of factual news get fed a lot of bullshit.

And when we're talking about disposable income, that means the income after taxes, comparable to Americans after taxes, the health care is FREE because it was covered in the taxes before to make the calculation. We also call it free, because it is free to use the services, not free of cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Then we got the $1 Million matched by a group of donors who, unlike most political donors, would like to level the playing field, even if it means seeing their influence decreased."

... and with that I lose my trust in this PAC. Human nature has a pull towards being self-serving and this nature is amplified when large sums of wealth are on the line.

<comment><USER2> So what? They're not shareholders, they're donors.

Once money is donated to a Super PAC, it's the PAC's money to do with as they see fit. "PACs may make unlimited expenditures independently of a candidate or political party." Short of the agreement to match funds having extra stipulations (or Lessig putting those wealthy benefactors in charge of the PAC) there is nothing they can do about how the money gets spent.

<comment><USER22> Couldn't the donors agree to donate more if the PAC spends the already donated money in a certain way?

<comment><USER23> They could, but this PAC has only one goal, so the money either gets spend towards that goal or not. The donors would have to spend so much that everyone in the PAC organisation switches sides and goes for political ambition instead.</comment></comment></comment></comment>