Typewriters are back, and we have Edward Snowden to thank - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/12/typewriters-are-back-and-we-have-edward-snowden-to-thank/ <comment><USER2> I've always liked that paragraph from W. Gibson's `Virtual Light`

> _The offices the girl rode between were electronically conterminous—in > effect, a single desktop, the map of distances obliterated by the seamless > and instantaneous nature of communication. Yet this very seamlessness, which > had rendered physical mail an expensive novelty, might as easily be viewed > as porosity, and as such created the need for the service the girl provided. > Physically transporting bits of information about a grid that consisted of > little else, she provided a degree of absolute security in the fluid > universe of data. With your memo in the girl's bag, you knew precisely where > it was; otherwise, your memo was nowhere, perhaps everywhere, in that > instant of transit._

</comment><comment><USER3> _" Earlier this year, German politician Patrick Sensburg announced that Germany's government officials might start using typewriters, as they are seen as being an "unhackable" technology."_

Yeah, about that...

[http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/07/using-old-school- typewr...](http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/07/using-old-school-typewriters- will-not-protect-you-from-snooping/)

[http://www.magicmargin.net/2012/12/silencing-chatty- selectri...](http://www.magicmargin.net/2012/12/silencing-chatty-selectrics- operation.html)

Unless they're going back to mechanical ones.

<comment><USER4> Typewriters are subject to attack, but it's a much more laborious and non- scalable process. It requires social engineering, infiltration, or else planting bugs, intercepting shipments, etc. It can be done, and certainly was done, back in the age of typewriters. But it requires some old-fashioned, boots-on-the-ground fieldwork. It's a lot tougher to place bugs in embassies today than it was in the 1970s. And in some respects, it's logistically tougher than hacking into computers, which can be done from any location on Earth. (Which is not to say that computer hacking doesn't benefit from social engineering strategies, of course).

"Unhackable" is a poor choice of words -- more like "practically speaking, tougher to hack." This is a speed bump, not a roadblock.

Of course, if the US were to adopt this sort of strategy, we'd have to make sure we're manufacturing the typewriters domestically. Which probably means setting up a puppet company somewhere in the States, purely for the sake of making typewriters for government contracts. And then you'd have to make sure _that_ company isn't socially engineered, infiltrated, or hacked. And so on, and so forth.

<comment><USER5> You might just need a sufficiently sensitive microphone on a computer in the next room.

<comment><USER4> Very good point. Though I am writing from the assumption that any organization sufficiently paranoid/sensitive enough to revert to the inconvenience of typewriters is also sensible enough to keep them in secure, externally- controlled locations, with sufficient air gaps, both electronically and accoustically. Basically, a "stone age saferoom." :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The laughter was nearly deafening when this product was introduced [http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/password-minder- the-b...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/05/password-minder-the-blank- notebook-that-got-laughed-out-of-production/)

I wonder whether its time has finally come.

Edit: It's worth noting that each typewriter is unique and will leave a telltale signature subject to identification [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter#Forensic_examinatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typewriter#Forensic_examination)

Of course, modern printers aren't immune to this and many models incorporate identifiers by the manufacturers to aid forensic investigation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography)

<comment><USER7> > Plus, the password minder features a discrete leatherette bound cover to > ensure your passwords stay secret.

First time I'm hearing about "security through leatherette".

<comment><USER6> It will look like every other book... intended to hold private information so they'll never suspect anything! ;)

I once had the bright idea to put passwords written on a small piece of paper and place it inside a 3.5" floppy. If it's in a pack of other unlabeled disks, that's going to be a nice fishing trip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Vinyl is one of the most notable technologies to have achieved a noticeable > revival, not only for its retro value but also for its superior sound > quality.

After this, I have trouble taking the rest of the article seriously...

<comment><USER9> I was under the impression that vinyl records sound better. Are you saying that they are not or that they haven't achieved a noticeable revival?

<comment><USER10> When you double-blind test you have people preferring better quality[1], which normally means carefully created MP3 is preferred to vinyl.

When you just ask them what they prefer they say whatever they want to say, which often means things like "vinyl is warmer".

There are some confounding factors. "Dynamic compression" (As ganzuul mentions, "loudness wars") does make a difference and MP3s (as created today) tend to have less variation between quiet and loud.

[1] the benefits of "better quality" stop at quite a low point. Most people can't hear any difference between 256k or 350k MP3 file. Very few people can hear a difference between 350k CBR and FLAC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> These seems completely unfounded. Even without the research to which other commenters have linked, it just seems plainly obvious that typewriters are vulnerable to all sorts of attack.

Is open source software and reasonably security practice really _that_ bad? I mean I know it's bad, but is it abandon-common-sense-and-just-grasp-at-straws bad?

<comment><USER12> If you're willing to use a typewriter you're willing to use a computer with no network connection, so all you need to do is block radio transmissions. A faraday cage can't cost that much compared to the other costs involved in espionage.

<comment><USER13> People can hop airgapped networks using speakers and microphones.

<comment><USER6> I had a discussion with a friend about The Thing[1], an invention by Léon Theremin and how ingenious it was that it required no external power source and can be turned on/off at will by transmitting at a certain frequency. The trouble with this is that it's still possible to identify the retransmission. In fact, this was how it was discovered.

What if the room had a length of surgical or other type of long tubing embedded into the wall so that the detector was a fair distance away? Essentially, a very crude stethoscope originating in a wall outlet or other place in the room that already has an orifice(s) and terminating at another location with a passive resonator.

By decoupling the transmitter from the audio source by using a non-electronic medium, it's possible to still eavesdrop on keystrokes even in an em-shielded room.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_(listening_device)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing_\(listening_device\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Reminds me of how Neal Stephenson in The Diamond Age taught us that a culture might control the copying of information by utilizing mechanical type to print newspapers, where each printing shows the grain of the type and is hard to simulate.

</comment><comment><USER15> Good, because the spy agencies of the world have an even deeper library of techniques to handle espionage off of typewriters than off of computers.

</comment><comment><USER16> Okay, you can get the "sound" of typewriters, for a larger part by switching to physical switch keyboards... I actually really like my unicomp.

As for the security aspect, a network or even workstations not connected to the internet goes a long way... you don't have to revert all the way back for security.

</comment><comment><USER17> Looks like my old mechanical typewriter still has a use.

I've also discovered when scanning old typewritten letters they seem to be remarkably resistant to my scanner's OCR software.

</comment><comment><USER18> It's disheartening how few people in this thread have actually read the article instead of reacting to the linkbait headline.

God forbid we shouldn't worship new technology as always better.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm just waiting for the Kickstarter project for an Open Hardware typewriter, so we can all inspect the design and/or build our own without backdoors.

</comment><comment><USER20> But analog typewriters can't even handle UTF-8, let alone all the other unicode nonsense.

Their carriage return implementation is pretty cool though.

</comment><comment><USER21> If you want the sound of a typewriter, just buy Model M for everyone. THE OFFICE SHOULD SOUND LIKE MACHINE-GUN FIRE.

</comment><comment><USER22> Snowden is to thank? What the actual fuck? No, fucked up governments are to thank /no filter</comment>


If new DBMS technologies are so scalable, why is Oracle still on top of TPC-C? - <AUTHOR> http://dbmsmusings.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/if-all-these-new-dbms-technologies-are.html

<comment><AUTHOR> The actual title is >80 chars:

"If all these new DBMS technologies are so scalable, why are Oracle and DB2 still on top of TPC-C? A roadmap to end their dominance."

The "roadmap to end their dominance" is very interesting: they have a new database model and prototype called "Calvin" that scales well with distributed transactions...

</comment><comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3982272>

</comment><comment><USER3> Oracle and DB2 are at the top because no other solution is mature, it does not mean the ACID transaction approach is the best.

Can they make ACID transactions scale? They make bold claims and I'm afraid it will be hard to live up to it.

Is it worthwhile to make ACID transactions scale? Perhaps it's more efficient to switch to a new model for massively parallel processing?

<comment><USER4> For the kind of application that TPC-C models ACID is non-negotiable, plain and simple.

It's one thing for there to be minor blips in data integrity to happen in the server's handling Google's search results or a social network's user data. But in a system that processes financial transactions, a blip in data integrity is an _accounting error_. An accounting error that could potentially expose the operator of the database system to serious financial harm or legal liability.

<comment><USER3> You assume that a single blip in data integrity will cause functional errors.

I think you can design systems that can fail "in theory", but don't in practice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> NoSQL is fool's gold

<comment><USER6> I'm convinced that "NoSQL" really means "We found out how flipping difficult it is to write a decent query optimizer, so we didn't write one. Your on your own."

Otherwise, I cannot think of a reason to eschew the Standard Query Language as an interface to one's database product.</comment></comment>


Powerset has launched - <AUTHOR> http://www.powerset.com/ <comment><USER2> I typed in "why is there air?", and it linked to the Bill Cosby album of that name on Wikipedia, but they forgot to quote the ?. Not really that impressed so far.</comment>


Giving the Dry-Erase Whiteboard a High-Tech Makeover – MIT Technology Review - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608554/giving-the-dry-erase-whiteboard-a-high-tech-makeover/ <comment><USER2> Good timing this. I just did an impromptu session with my lead designer to brainstorm some wireframe. It worked seamlessly. Awesome. Pls take my money (even tho it's free). People WILL pay for this.

</comment><comment><USER3> Love the computer vision part working in real-time. I wonder if this works if I just set up a permanent camera with a chromebox pointing at a whiteboard. Then I can have an always-on remote whiteboard

<comment><USER4> That's an awesome idea except that you really want to warn people that it's always streaming. You don't want sensitive info on the whiteboard easily accessible

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like it. The whiteboard seems to be an anachronism but in reality, I suspect its something people cling to. Just look at every office space. Whiteboard or Idea Paint galore!

</comment><comment><USER6> We have a smart board in our office that no one uses. I'll hav e to give this a spin to see if it sucks less. Hopefully far less...

</comment><comment><USER7> Just tried it out. Really cool stuff. So easy to use. I am going to have to add this to our toolset with my remote developers

</comment><comment><USER8> I have tried all the collaboration tools and I am usually skeptical but this one seems promising

</comment><comment><USER9> Our team is big on whiteboards for architecture, etc. This sounds awesoe

</comment><comment><USER10> Now if only they have a mobile app.....

<comment><USER11> Seconded.... Would be killer if they have support mobile for this.</comment></comment>


Why Lie Detector Tests Can't Be Trusted - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-lie-detector-tests-cant-be-trusted-180972724/ <comment><USER2> I took a polygraph twice for an NSA internship (TS/CSI Clearance). It's an interesting process.

In the first phase, you go over your security forms (SF-86 and related) in detail with your polygraph examiner. They ask a lot of detailed questions, sometimes including things you aren't legally required to disclose (drug use and foreign travel outside the listed time limits).

In the second phase, they hook you up to the polygraph and ask two series of very specific questions, one called "lifestyle" and one called "national security." Lifestyle questions include questions about drug use, possible crimes, etc., and national security questions include questions about foreign contacts, involvement in terrorism, etc. They're very specific, like "Are you withholding any information about your involvement with illegal drugs in the past ten years?"

About half the time (based on my discussions with other prospective interns), the examiner becomes convinced you're lying about one of these questions and really drills into you. Most of the polygraph examiners are past FBI or CIA interrogators, so they know how to make you very uncomfortable.

I was explicitly told that I failed my first polygraph (the examiner was convinced I used more drugs than I let on), but some of the other interns were drilled about crazier things, like contacts with foreign governments or involvement with terrorist groups.

If you're particularly desirable to the managers who're looking to hire you, they'll keep inviting you to take more polygraphs, and you'll eventually pass.

I ended up turning down the NSA internship for better opportunities after realizing that NSA folks are not the most fun people in the world to hang out with.

<comment><USER3> Forgive me for asking if you are uncomfortable saying, but were they correct about your drug use?

I'm coming very close to being 100% eligible for my security clearness but some of those questions would be tricky for me right now.

I've often wondered if I could round 8 years up to 10 to pass a polygraph.

<comment><USER2> Unless you used to have a serious meth or heroine problem I'd say you're fine. ;)

I was pretty honest about my drug use. The way they phrase the questions sometimes leaves you with a bit of doubt, though. Like, "How many times did you use this drug?" I'm not sure who keeps a really diligent record of how many times they do drugs at parties.

But, yeah, I tried to be as accurate as possible, modulo that doubt about how possible it is to accurately answer these questions.

<comment><USER4> At least when they interviewed me back in 1989, I was as honest with them as I could be about what I could remember, and I was honest with them about how much I couldn't remember.

I have no idea what the rules are now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have no idea why there is not an accurate calibration of polygraphs published. Here's a straightforward calibration:

Have the subject write down a random number from 1 to 1024. Perhaps this random number is assigned via a phone app. Have the subject put the paper in his pocket.

An maximally accurate polygraph will require no more than 10 questions to determine the number in the subject's pocket.

[However, I think we all know what the result would be, which is why nobody publishes a simple calibration like the above: It is not in an trained examiner's interest to expose the inaccuracy of polygraphs.]

<comment><USER6> Trying to keep a random number secret likely is less stressful than an actual lie. Even if lie detectors worked this wouldn't be a great approach. My way is better, scrap them for parts and buy beer for whatever is left over.

<comment><USER5> > _Trying to keep a random number secret likely is less stressful than an > actual lie._

Which begs the issue: If a lie detector is accurate only for answers that are stressful, then it sure looks like we need a detector to figure out if an answer is stressful or not.

Or to put it differently, now you have two problems: Lie detection and stressful-answer detection.

Nevertheless, I concede that your beer detection plan is superior.

<comment><USER7> Indeed it occurred to me when I took my LDTs that the test's basic premise is: our machine detects stress responses, and our questioner assumes repeated stress coincident with the same answer equates to a lie. Stated outright like that, everyone can see the assumption behind the test is obviously, irredeemably flawed.

Therefore I too must concede that the beer plan is flawless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Lie detector tests rely on psychological intimidation. The testee invariably gives up compromising information over the course of the test, allowing the tester to apply leverage or outright coercion. If no useful information is divulged, the test is marked a fail and requires a repeat.

<comment><USER9> Yes, exactly. Polygraphs are just a form of interrogation technique, disguised as "science". If the science was debunked, then the credibility of the machines would be questioned and the interrogation process would not yield as positive (if you can call it that) results. So the whole mystique of polygraphs must be guarded to keep up the facade of the lie detector's true capabilities.

<comment> the-pigeon I mean they have been debunked and anyone that Google's it knows it.

Doesn't mean they don't work as an intimidation tactic. Though most of the agencies that use them are probably filtering out a lot of good employees by putting them through a test designed to mess with them. Instead of focusing on whether the person has the skills needed for the job.

<comment><USER9> It's got to be pretty intimidating. Getting locked up in a room with the investigator, being told that you're not actually required to be there, but it will seriously jeopardize your chances of employment if you decide to leave or decline, etc. I'm sure it works well as an intimidation tactic, as you say.

People need jobs and are willing to put up with lots. Going through with a polygraph is likely just one of a number of the things that people in these industries have to put up with.

<comment><USER10> It is _extremely_ intimidating. My interviewer decided that he was going to tear me apart and that he _knew_ I was lying about something (I wasn't). He said he could only help me out if I admitted I was hiding something and told him why. I stuck to my guns, told him that I wasn't hiding anything, that I was sorry that it seemed like I was, and that I would be able to sleep soundly knowing I had been honest on my test, even if it appeared otherwise. He didn't like that a whole lot, but I told him I'd rather fail the process having told the truth than pass it having lied on it. Ended up leaving that job shortly after largely because I didn't want to do the polygraph. Fuck that noise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How is this not a joke?

I get the comments that it's an "enhanced interrogation technique", but it sounds like it requires the subjects to be at least a bit intimidated by it. If someone pointed a dowsing stick at you, you wouldn't be the slightest bit intimidated by it, no matter how mean looking it was.

What kind of strange culture lets a prop straight out of a 50s sci-fi flick instill respect in people? And how they do it? Surely it can't just be the Hollywood movies?

Sorry for breaking out in a bit of a rant, but I seriously can't wrap my mind around how these things could possibly be useful.

<comment><USER12> It's not the machine itself that's intimidating, it's the consequence of being caught lying and the accompanying loss of freedom or job opportunity.

<comment><USER11> Sure, but nobody chose a wizard's hat or a dowsing rod, so there must be some cultural significance to it completely beyond my understanding?

<comment><USER13> Sadly (and incredibly) this is not always true: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651)

<comment><USER12> "as much as US$60,000 each. The Iraqi government is said to have spent £52 million on the devices" \- Wow and no one thought hey let's test this baby out before we buy a thousand of them?

<comment><USER14> They did test them. Dowsing rods work very well in unblinded tests. That's a big part of why so many people believe in dowsing.

<comment><USER15> I'm gonna have to call BS on that. Finding water accidentally is astronomically more likely than finding a bomb.

<comment><USER14> Unblinded tests mean that the tester knows where the bomb is. Imagine you have a bomb on a table. Someone brings a bomb detector over and when they point it at the bomb, it indicates that a bomb is detected. Point it away, and it stops. This is a very convincing demonstration if you don't suspect shenanigans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The dumbest things about these polygraphs is that you're pretty much forced to lie if you want to pass. Some of the questions were vague and if you are a normal human being without a halo glowing on your head you would fail. Questions like "Do you love your parents?", "Have you ever spread gossip?", "Have you ever done anything immoral" (My interviewer specified watching pornography as something immoral).

Thankfully my interviewer was much nice and seemed to give me multiple tries, telling me that they might do another one later if I really failed.

Overall the interview process was OK. I guess the only invasive part was when they interviewed my neighbors in person without telling me. (When the FBI comes knocking on your door, you freak out)

I also turned down the internship because the pay was abysmal for IT. $15 an hour.

<comment><USER17> > watching pornography as something immoral

Well, there goes everyone.

<comment><USER18> "I disagree with the premise of the question."

<comment><USER19> It's a yes or no question

<comment><USER4> And I still disagree with the premise of the question, and so therefore I automatically fail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I passed a polygraph, I was untruthful and still passed. The person administering the test had done tbis for the FBI for 15 years. I had no special training.

<comment><USER21> Ye, well, e.g. Ted Bundy passed a polygraph. And the Green River Killer did too. But hey, another dude, innocent of course, did not pass the lie detector when they were looking for the Green River Killer. Oops

<comment><USER22> I've heard that they're not very useful with true sociopaths because they require you to be uncomfortable with lying.

<comment><USER23> Even then, unless they are coupled with a comprehensive psychological evaluation that could identify sociopathy, they could not be considered a useful tool (generously assuming that they have any truth-discerning usefulness to begin with).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Not quite a pseudoscience but not so accurate as to warrant allowing a person's life to be upended as has been documented on many occasions [0]. Unsurprisingly, there's a history of the polygraph industry litigating against third parties that question the reliability of polygraphs [1].

[0] [https://www.wired.com/story/inside-polygraph-job- screening-b...](https://www.wired.com/story/inside-polygraph-job-screening- black-mirror/)

[1] [https://antipolygraph.org/](https://antipolygraph.org/)

<comment><USER24> The polygraph is entirely scientific in the way it actually works: eliciting forced confessions under psychological coercion. However, for that coercion to be effective, the targets and the public at large must be convinced of a pseudoscientific idea that lies are detectable physiologically.

Hence the conflict between the promoters and the detractors, proving that it works would make it no longer work.

<comment><USER25> And how do we know whether a forced confession is true? False confessions do happen under other circumstances. Obviously, if the subject reveals something backed by evidence they wouldn't have known being innocent, that's one thing. But if we're using their confession as the evidence, then it's the same problem as any forced confession.

<comment><USER26> There are two different answers depending on who you ask.

The more ignorant will answer: it's obviously true because they confessed. Nobody would confess to a crime they didn't commit.

The more evil answer is: who cares? The public is reassured by a self-admitted criminal going to prison and I get re-elected.

<comment><USER25> Right, and both work until the conviction is overturned, the media makes a big deal out of it, and the Justice System is called into question yet again. Or it's not overturned, and someone makes a documentary followed by a dozen podcasts and online petitions. Which again calls into question how just the Justice System is, and how impartial a jury of your peers really is.

The Generation Why podcast will occasionally raise the point that if you try the same case more than once, you often get different results. Which really raises questions. Why didn't the judge allow certain information into the trial the first time, but another judge did the second time? How was the prosecution able to withhold information from the defense? Why on Earth did the jury find the defendant guilty despite no evidence tying them to the crime? Or in some cases, the opposite is true. How did the jury find the defendant innocent with that much evidence against them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Some relevant previous threads:

2018 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18431683)

2018 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120270](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120270)

2015 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10002889](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10002889)

2015 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9481385](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9481385)

2013 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6308878](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6308878)

2013 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6307479](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6307479)

2009 [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=428489](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=428489)

</comment><comment><USER28> > Bureaucratic usefulness, rather than any scientific validity, goes a long > way toward explaining why the polygraph became a standard instrument of the > American national security state.

In other words, it's pseudo-scientific bullshit.

<comment><USER29> meh. it's biometrics. How the data is incorporated into the subjective interrogator's experience and knowledge framework is where the weakness is. But don't blame the robot. IOW, the polygraph is just outputting data, the rigor of applying the data suffers from underdeveloped understanding, but if I were an interrogator I'd much rather have biometric data in my back pocket than not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I've done a few and never failed one. Was told to clench my butt cheeks really hard to get a pass. Another tip was to put a drawing pin into your shoe and push down onto it with your foot as hard s you were able to tolerate. And if you search online there are a few other techniques you can use to ace the tests. Most interesting for me was being told I'd failed a test I was later told I'd passed. It's sheer madness.

<comment><USER31> They often ask you explicitly if you know or have researched methods to defeat the polygraph. It's a lose/lose situation because most people have heard of such things or DID research out of curiosity facing taking a test, but admitting it makes you look bad. You generally don't get the chance to explain yourself, and if you do it just makes you look more guilty. The entire process is designed to give an excuse to arrive at the conclusions the entity administering the test wants to arrive at.

<comment><USER4> So, I would have totally failed the test repeatedly, because I would keep insisting on fully explaining the circumstances under which I had heard about the methods but not actively researched them.

And I would tell them to check my shoe and see that there is no thumbtack there. And check my cheek to prove that I'm not biting it in secret. And otherwise expose all the other methods that I know of, and prove that I'm not using any of them.

I'm sure that I would have frustrated the hell out of them, and they would have made damn sure that I always failed the tests, every time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Polygraphs aren't really used for lie detection. Think of it as a tool for an enhanced interview. It allows for the interviewer to have many more dimensions of straws to grasp at in assessing you. "Lies" are assessed as anomalous readings measured against control questions. This is something polygraphers are open about and inform you of the control stage during the start. Afterwards, it's all really an internal battle. There's even various stages cues wherein they might leave you in the room alone to fester in your thoughts. So really it's not whether youre a liar or not, but more of having a consistent nature

<comment><USER33> Knowing this, it seems like it would be very easy to throw them off your lying scent.

I've had a few experiences in my past that, when brought to memory, cause fairly large adrenaline spikes. Certainly, the memories increase my heart rate by just thinking intently about them.

In theory... couldn't you bring these thoughts to memory - at random? When asked about what you had for breakfast, for example. It would appear as an anomaly... But if you did that often enough, the interviewer couldn't trust the anomalies.

<comment><USER32> Sure if what you lied about is a big deal. The polygraph room is purposefully sound-dampened. I remember being able to abnormally hear more of my body (heartbeat, saliva, etc) in the room. What I'm getting at is that during a polygraph, it's very doubtful you're going to be daydreaming while undergoing a 4-5hr long interview lol. If you want to know how to 'cheat' the polygraph - I'll tell you.

There's no magic to it, you just have to really not give a shit about anything really. In the context of the US government, they want workers that are first and foremost, resilient to manipulation. Historically, the biggest traitors in the country have been money-driven, hence the emphasis on identifying huge debt areas. Such debt can be leveraged against people easily. The other thing to consider is, do you think they want someone that's _too_ honest? What about in the scenario that you're being interrogated by a foreign agency, you're telling the truth but you're sweating balls. A polygrapher can latch onto these signs and use them against you. And someone that's emotionless and doesn't really give a shit about anything good or bad? Pass the polygraph with flying colors, have fun swaying someone that can't be bought off nor exempts guilt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm fairly sure that you are required to take a lie detector to join the FBI, which makes me worry about the validity of all federal forensics. And now we're resuming executions...

<comment><USER21> If you're concerned about this, you really shouldn't read up on the actual "forensics" the FBI did in the past, like "hair analysis", because it will ruin your day:

[https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi- testimo...](https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-testimony-on- microscopic-hair-analysis-contained-errors-in-at-least-90-percent-of-cases-in- ongoing-review)

Or "bite mark analysis" (don't google that, it will ruin your day as well).

<comment><USER35> Is there a proper response to this other than just banging your head against a desktop until you're blissfully unconscious? I can't think of any other response that would properly articulate my response to skimming that article.

<comment><USER21> You can ask the Phantom of Heilbronn once you find her: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn)

I am sure, she has valuable input, seeing she is a criminal mastermind who avoided capture for a cool 15+ years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> They could probably double the accuracy by also adding in phrenology.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology)

Aldrich Ames didn't appear to have any trouble passing his, but I can't help but think if they added some phrenology in, they maybe could have caught him.

[https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/19/opinion/lie-detectors- lie...](https://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/19/opinion/lie-detectors-lie-tell-the- cia.html)

</comment><comment><USER37> There is a lot of great info on the subject at [https://antipolygraph.org/](https://antipolygraph.org/)

<comment><AUTHOR> The site offers a >200 page free PDF that details the failings of polygraph testing and lists extensive countermeasures [0].

[0] [https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie- detector.pdf](https://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I passed my NSA polygraph, though it was uncomfortable. However my psych interviewer was able to get disqualifying info out of me using just technique.

It was only years later while reading a book about the Shin Bet (Israeli military intelligence), I recognized the way I was manipulated.

No hard feelings, after all I was telling the truth, and I probably would have hated the job anyway.

<comment><USER2> What sort of disqualifying info, if you don't mind my asking?

There were a lot of interesting questions in the psych interview, from porn use to romantic relationships and digital pirating...

And, just spitballing, I wonder if it's a crime to lie in the psych interview. I know it is during the polygraph, since the examiners are federal investigators.

<comment><USER38> Let's just say at the time I was a bit of a heavy drinker.

And the technique basically was to spend about 15 minutes having possibly the most uncomfortable conversation I've ever had about sexual relationships, pornography, sexual fantasies, etc. -- none of which they actually cared about. The intent was to make me as absolutely uncomfortable as possible. Then he moved on to a few quick questions about drug and alcohol use, which was such a relief, that before I realized what I was doing, I had answered fully and truthfully.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I was polygraphed back in 2015. They polygraphed me three times, and then said that I failed the question regarding unauthorized foreign contacts. It was a very bizarre experience. They would often repeat stuff like "Don't try to make anything happen or stop anything from happening. Got it!?" during the questioning. I remember having to sit perfectly still, with a pad under my bottom as well as under my feet.

Amusingly, before polygraphing me I was asked if I had "read anything online" about the process, to which I shrugged and said "Hasn't everybody?" The entire process is ridiculous.

</comment><comment><USER40> I think part of the issue is that errors are not evenly distributed. There are many more false positives (detecting a lie when the subject is truthful) then false negatives. Most people assume errors are random, in this case they are not. Of course, this is combined with the other unreliability of the measurements make it close to a waste of time.

[[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human- beast/2013...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-human- beast/201303/do-lie-detectors-work)]

</comment><comment><USER41> George Costanza: It's not a lie if you believe it.

</comment><comment><USER42> Surely everyone knows first hand how much variation there is in the inner experience of telling a lie to realise that these tests are a sham.

</comment><comment><USER43> If we want to detect recognition of something they deny, we can go directly to the brain: [https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/detecting- dece...](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/detecting-deception)

Michael from VSauce already tried to countermeasure this method and failed.

[https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/forensic- psychology/poli...](https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/forensic- psychology/police-psychology/detection-of-deception-event-related-potential/)

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002770...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027709001310)

</comment><comment><USER44> Also just want to say this plainly. If you ever will take a polygraph in the future, you should read about it online even if you "have nothing to hide."

</comment><comment><USER45> The usefulness of the polygraph is not to detect lies, but is to be used as a enhanced interrogation tool.

</comment><comment><USER46> What drugs can you take to be able to cheat your way though a polygraph? Since polygraphs are based on producing anxiety I guess anxiolytics would work.

Would something like Phenibut suffice I wonder?

</comment><comment><USER47> Many people can believe their own lies which I guess will likely complicate any physiological pattern they try to correlate with a lie.

</comment><comment><USER48> Oh I get it, the title is a pun: the truth-telling machine itself is a lie.

</comment><comment><USER49> I've always looked at the polygraph as not really a lie detector but more so as the person taking it believe their own statements or doesn't get nervous.

</comment><comment><USER50> I see a lawsuit coming..

</comment><comment><USER51> They write an article on polygraphs and do not mention Aldrich Ames?

WTF, NYT?

</comment><comment><USER52> tl;dr (and I don't think it's even mentioned in the article)

You can cheat a polygraph by flexing your anal sphincter.

More: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsoI92BfmqY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsoI92BfmqY)

<comment><USER9> Some polygraph setups will include a "butt pad" that you sit on that can detect your flinching.

I think it's interesting because it somewhat supports the claim. If clinching didn't work or help in some way, why bother including a motion detector under your backside.

<comment><USER53> Those who believe clinching works also believe polygraphs work (except when clinching)

Remove the clinching illusion and you restore the polygraph illusion to that group.

<comment><USER9> Right. I don't honestly understand any justification for the "defenses" described (at various websites). If the polygraph just doesn't work, why attempt any "countermeasures". The whole thing is kind of funny.

I think you're exactly right. The fact that the "butt pad" is there means that you have to believe that clinching would have any effect one way or the other. So the butt pad is really just part of the overage mirage.

<comment><USER54> Or imagine someone comes into take a polygraph and you search their shoes and find a tack. You can be _pretty sure_ they came in expecting to tell some lies, and had a plan for "beating the machine".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I hold out hope for (f)MRI.

<comment><USER56> There's some research into guilt measurement with fMRI [1] but it's _very_ hard to test. When my lab tests fMRI thought identification, we need participants to write down exactly what they plan to think about for certain concepts (death, family, etc) and we need them to think about one particular strong memory multiple times. We know, or at least we believe we know, and the participant knows that we know, what they're thinking about. Anything else makes it hard/impossible to classify and won't be accepted in the literature.

Asking someone to pretend to lie in a lab environment, like say responding to "What's your name?" with the wrong answer on purpose, won't elicit the kind of arousal response we want to record like "Did you steal this car?". There's just not a good way to standardize and measure this kind of response without deceiving the participant - you might do some kind of social research on them and ask them questions they aren't prepared for, but understandably no IRB would allow that.

[1] [https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/13/8/830/328813](https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/13/8/830/328813)

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> There's a lot of hyperbolic claims being made in the article and these comments which seem unsupported by science. The answer to the question, "can polygraphs be utilized to draw out truth?", is a resounding yes:

>Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.

[https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/2#4](https://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/2#4)

Although it is not a silver bullet, it certainly has its applications, especially if the person being interviewed believes it works. Thus, the polygraph test makes sense in questioning sex offenders, for example:

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/135532508X29...](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/135532508X295165)

<comment><USER58> > Although it is not a silver bullet, it certainly has its applications, > especially if the person being interviewed believes it works.

The whole premise of a lie-detector test is that they are marketed to end user and the public at large as being both accurate and "scientific." That they yield results better than chance isn't particularly relevant: they are not what the sellers and users of them claim they are. The conclusions drawn from the readings of the machines are only loosely based on anything scientific and depend heavily on the interviewer's own personal biases. Yet they determine the fate of people's lives all the time.

<comment><USER57> Most science isn't accurate, that's why it's filled with p-values. They're often only reporting the mere hint of an effect which allows them to distinguish between a control and experimental population.

Polygraphs are almost certainly not reliable enough to convict someone on, but it's not admissible in court. That doesn't mean it can't be used to help coerce a confession or help lead an investigation. And the fact that you won't face up to the extraordinary amount of evidence showing that it can be useful suggests stubborn ignorance on your behalf.</comment></comment></comment>


The most successful founders don't always look good on paper - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/former-y-combinator-partner-founder-side-projects-2018-10 <comment><USER2> Thst's great but some people are going to school and working nearly FT jobs. No hobbies for them.</comment>


Show HN: We've made a cool iPhone case, what do you think? - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mouscase/mous-musicase-iphone-case-with-headphone-storage

<comment><USER2> I like it, but I don't think I could use it with my headphones (Sennheiser IE80's)?

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't the rotating thing little cumbersome, when you have to fold it back?</comment>


LinkerD picking up steam from ISTIO - <AUTHOR> https://searchitoperations.techtarget.com/news/252457734/Linkerd-vs-Istio-fray-dominates-service-mesh-battle <comment><USER2> As I help lead the Istio User Experience Working Group, I can confirm that there's a cost to telemetry gathered and sent to Mixer and that tuning the type and amount of telemetry sent can can a dramatic impact on the overhead involved in using the service mesh.

In general, the question of overhead is concern that most adopters of a service mesh ask. Akin to deploying an application performance monitoring agent to your server or an SNMP poller to your network, there's a price to be paid for the ability to observe and control your workloads. Illuminating this cost, understanding and controlling this cost is the goal of an open source project, Meshery ([https://layer5.io/meshery](https://layer5.io/meshery)). Meshery acts as a performance benchmark for multi-mesh performance comparison (an apples-to-apples comparison across different service meshes).

Note that it's not necessary for each sidecar proxy call to validate every network call with Mixer. Many of these validations are locally cached in the sidecar proxy and do not involve Mixer.</comment>


We don't mind paying for Google Reader - <AUTHOR>

Right guys? We have been using it for aeons, what if Google asked us to pay, let say, 10 us per year, why not?<p>At least we could still use that service.... pfffff <comment><USER2> I'd pay $50 a year for it.</comment>


Stop throwing cash at poor nations - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/22/stop-throwing-cash-at-poor-nations.html <comment><USER2> Rule of law and enforced property rights are everything. Absolutely everything.

Ever wonder how China was able to emerge from decades of regressive economic and industrial policies in a short span of time? International investors were willing to pour capital into post-Mao China because there was a strong central government presiding over an orderly society in which cheap labor was plentiful. Of course there were other factors that helped as well, like a cultural obsession with education that has generated a wellspring of human capital.

Cheap labor is everywhere. Cheap labor and stability is rare.

<comment><USER3> "Ever wonder how China was able to emerge from decades of regressive economic and industrial policies in a short span of time? International investors were willing to pour capital into post-Mao China because there was a strong central government presiding over an orderly society in which cheap labor was plentiful. "

Whaaaaaa?

No, no.

'Foreign Investment' was _not_ the reason China did well in the 1980's forward.

In fact, China is still kind of a sketchy 'investment' as there is no transparency in accounting, you do _not_ have effectively the 'rule of commercial law' because senior gov. officials are corrupt etc..

You have the opposite: companies invest heavily, and suddenly find themselves trapped in a bureaucratic dead end, while a government-backed competitor leapfrogs them.

China was able to redevelop in the 1980's because they chose to end the decades of Maoist Communist / Centrally Planned insanity.

The colonial interventions, and post revolution years are seen as a 'blip' in Chinese history wherein they were held back.

What see now in China is simply a 'return to the norm'. Not really a new development.

"Rule of law and enforced property rights are everything. Absolutely everything."

They are critical, I agree but they are not quite everything.

As for the article, I might tend to agree with their points - we can do much better than dump money into dysfunctional systems where the money only amplifies the dysfunction.

<comment><USER2> That was not always the case. The government used to be much friendlier and accommodating towards foreign business. In order to kickstart their Renaissance, the Chinese almost entirely relied on foreign capital.

You make the claim that because China was strong in the past it magically should be expected to return to strength in the future, and that foreign capital or not, such a rejuvenation would be inevitable. That's magical thinking. As I said, yes a strong cultural heritage has greatly helped the Chinese, but the initial spark and driving force during much of the 80s and 90s was foreign capital investment.

<comment><USER3> It's not magical to assume that the Chinese are as capable of managing their economies roughly just as everyone else.

The basic rules for managing an economy are well known - all you have to do is follow them.

If you do this - you'll get a minimum level of GDP/wealth etc. just like Poland, Mexico, Serbia or wherever.

<comment><USER2> Of course they're capable. That's apparent. But a strong capital base does not fall into a nation's lap simply because its people are capable.

The Chinese had very little capital, then over the course of the 80's built it up. How? Through direct investment. They were given the investment because investors recognized that Chinese commitment to property rights and stability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Research supported by my organization, Atlas Network, shows that there is a > measurable connection between economic progress and measures like property > rights and legal protections for businesses.

You don't say...

</comment><comment><USER5> Although it is extremely unpopular I hold the opinion that it is possible that there may be genetic differences in intelligence (defined as the ability to succeed in a modern technological society) among human populations. Is it possible that by aiding poor nations (increasing birth rate, decreasing mortality) we are actually subsidizing stupidity in less fit subpopulations and decreasing the evolutionary fitness of the human species as whole? I don't know the answer, but scientific research into this question, unfettered by politically correct presuppositions would be interesting.

<comment><USER6> >I don't know the answer, but scientific research into this question, unfettered by politically correct presuppositions would be interesting.

This seems to imply an awareness that current science doesn't support your opinion, and that you dismiss that science as being the result of political bias. If so, I have to question whether you're looking for unbiased science, or science which validates your biases.

<comment><USER5> [https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Jews-constitute-20-of-all- Nobel...](https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Jews-constitute-20-of-all-Nobel- laureates-despite-being-0-19-of-the-worlds-population-What-specific- sociocultural-elements-are-the-root-cause-of-this-phenomenon)</comment></comment></comment>


Scientists plan to ignite tiny man-made star - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3981697/Scientists-plan-to-ignite-tiny-man-made-star.html <comment><USER2> I counsel hopeful skepticism. Engineers (and these guys are doing engineering, better if they realize it, worse if they don't) always underestimate the time to completion on projects which are breaking new ground. I have no real doubt that one day we will achieve controlled nuclear fusion as a power-generating mechanism. I have nothing but doubt about when it will be achieved.

</comment><comment><USER3> "If successful, the experiment will mark the first step towards building a practical nuclear fusion power station and a source of almost limitless energy."

<comment><USER4> There have been plenty of 'first steps toward building practical nuclear fusion power stations.'

Excuse my skepticism, but I doubt anyone will come out with a breakthrough anytime soon. Even if they do, it will still take years to figure out how to commercialize the technology safely.

No fusion reactor is going to be the answer to our energy needs in the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER5> We are slowly building a fusion reactor that will produce a steady state net energy gain Q > 5 for several hundred seconds (ITER.org). The idea that fusion is some mythical problem that we have no idea how to solve is false. The problem is it's extremely expensive to build large scale fusion reactors and nobody has fronted the money to build anything significant in the last 25 years so we don't know how well the "state of the art" has advanced.

For about 35 billion we could have a working 1GW fusion power plant within 15 years. With extremely good odds for spending less money and building something sooner. After that it's just a question of reducing costs.

PS: All of the numbers giving are vary conservative estimates.

<comment><USER6> It reminds me of a story (how to apply for a job to teach a mule to speak):

 _Before ten years pass, I die, the mule dies or the sultan dies..._ </quote> <http://nasredin.blogspot.com/2007/11/ibn-khaldouns-mule.html>

<comment><USER7> Come on! don't be so full of cynicism.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Bizarre Proof to Torment Mathematicians for Years to Come - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bizarre-proof-to-torment-mathematicians-for-years-to-come/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_MATH_NEWS <comment><USER2> Well that was poor description of what It's a proof of. Could someone provides details of what it actually is?

</comment><comment><USER3> Clickbait title. How do we modify that?</comment>


Lthread - A coroutine lib with multicore support - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/halayli/lthread

<comment><USER2> Just the other day I started sketching out plans for something similar to run on top of Intel's Threading Building Blocks' task scheduler for a personal project I'm working on.

What I'm basically looking for is low overhead lightweight threads that can be run in parallel in a pool of real heavy-weight threads. Coroutines with multicore, as this library does, should do exactly what I want and I can avoid the "lthreads cannot block or other lthreads in that pthread will not run" rule since in my codebase I can replace blockiing calls with ones which would yield so useful work can continue.

The only feature that I would also like but don't know if lthread has is being able to move lthreads between schedulers (something like TBB's work stealing would be ideal).

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately, as of now you cannot move an lthread from one scheduler to another but it can be implemented. May I ask why you want to do that?

I am working on lthread_compute for compute intensive tasks which will offload the work to a worker pool and resume the function once it's done.

<comment><USER2> Well, what I basically want is a TBB-like task scheduler, but with the ability to pause and resume tasks without running them to completion (to allow tasks to "block" - the condition variables in lthread are perfect for this). To do this in plain TBB, I would have to split the task into multiple smaller tasks, since there is no way to suspend a task but have the scheduler still process other tasks and then later resume the task mid-function.

I want to be able to move tasks to other threads so that if a thread runs out of work early it can _steal_ work from a busy thread.

Unfortunately I just realised that for the project I have in mind I won't be able to use lthread as I won't be able to release it under the GPL, but I really like what I see so far and I also really like the sound of lthread_compute, so I am definitely keeping an eye on the project and will likely make use of it in the future.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, that's unfortunate.

I'll be implementing lthread_compute during the holidays. Keep an eye on that. :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A VC: The Banner Is Back - <AUTHOR> http://avc.blogs.com/a_vc/2007/04/the_banner_is_b.html <comment><USER2> Any company that bets on banner ads seems at-risk to me. If somebody can go get a browser plugin (AdBlock) and kill all banners with very little effort, what's to stop most users from doing that? At this point it's mostly techies who've figured out they can block ads, but it seems only a matter of time before the techies do it for their parents, friends, and coworkers. Banner ads are invasive and annoying so there's strong motivation to kill them.

<comment><USER3> "If somebody can go get a browser plugin (AdBlock) and kill all banners with very little effort, what's to stop most users from doing that?"

Inertia. First of all, most people aren't that annoyed by banner ads. Of those who are, most of them are using Internet Explorer, so they're extremely unlikely to try to install Firefox/AdBlock or find a similar solution for IE. Of the people who already use Firefox, there is a large segment that doesn't use any extensions at all.

I know of very few people who go around installing AdBlock on people's computers. These people would be a chunk of the same people who install Firefox, but even Firefox's market share isn't very large. Five percent or so of Firefox's ~20% market share isn't very much.

People who use AdBlock or are likely to in the future are a tiny segment of users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You have to admit that banners on popular sites are much less obtrusive than they were years ago. Plus, there's always the freemium plan where users can pay for extra features and ad free browsing.

Can plugins like AdBlock stop domain hosted ads or do they just work on third party ones?</comment>


Visual COBOL 2.0 for Visual STudio 2012 RC - <AUTHOR> http://www.microfocus.com/plus/visual-cobol-beta/_visual-cobol-beta.aspx

<comment><AUTHOR> While plenty of people here are using Ruby, Python etc, I found interesting to report that completely different tools exist, too!</comment>


All tutorials in one place - <AUTHOR> http://free-tutorial-for.me/

<comment><USER2> The domain may be difficult for your users to access or remember. The dashes and the .me could easily be forgotten or mistyped, as well as "tutorial" vs "tutorials".

When trying to generate a domain I like the "say it out loud" test so I can see how potential users may try to explain it to someone if they're recommending the service in person. Lots of "dashes" is a red flag .

Just a suggestion, I see that myfreetutorials.com and even freetutorialsfor.me is available. May want to check those out.

</comment><comment><USER3> Disappointing, excitement got the better of me and I upvoted out of sheer anticipation that someone finally implemented a Facade interface pattern for tutorials on the web.

Instead I gotta get more printer paper and another hard-drive to archive all these pdfs I'll probably never read.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is a very cool service, but the search isn't so good as the idea. I tried to search some composed names and the queries returned a lot of results but none of them were significant at least in the first page :D

</comment><comment><USER5> This seems to work well only with highly general or extremely popular searches. I tried web.py, django, and jquery and got far fewer results than there should be.

<comment><USER6> And little use without some kind of category browsing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If only there were a service online that allowed me to search for tutorials and documents by keyword... it'd save me so much time!

</comment><comment><USER8> Typed 'computer science' -- hmmm, results don't look right.

</comment><comment><USER9> I like the name of the service :) And it have good search results.</comment>


Ask HN: Best library for adding charts / graphs to your website? - <AUTHOR>

A different library seems to appear on HN every few weeks.  Does anyone have good insight to the pros / cons or their favorite particular library? <comment><USER2> d3 is amazing. There is no doubt about it. If you have a decent amount of time then perhaps you can start with this <http://christopheviau.com/d3_tutorial/>

A more simpler & easily configurable option is definitely RaphaelJS (<http://raphaeljs.com/>). Be sure to check out g.Raphael as well (<http://g.raphaeljs.com/>).

Other than this, i have previously worked with Rickshaw(<http://code.shutterstock.com/rickshaw/>) as well. Although, i found it incredibly easy to implement, i personally find it a little poorly documented and found less resources and difficult to modify and play around. With HTML5 canvas, be sure to check out the new ChartJS (<http://www.chartjs.org/>).

If in case, you are ready to shell out then HighCharts(<http://www.highcharts.com/>) and perhaps FusionCharts(<http://www.fusioncharts.com/>) are the way to go. Personally, i think i would go with Raphael.

</comment><comment><USER3> Take a look at <http://www.highcharts.com/> too. I used highcharts a few weeks ago for an project in my company and I found it pretty simple to use. D3 does look interesting but I didn't have the time to learn it, with highcharts it seemed quicker for me to implement some graphs and get my project over with.

<comment><USER4> Very much +1 for Highcharts. Best charting library I came across when looking for charting libraries. It's a bit on the expensive site though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Having asked this same exact question before my answers, as some have mentioned below, are RaphaelJs and JqPlot. That said I am also looking into D3 which is also mentioned below. RaphaelJs has a number of controls based on it such as JustGage animated gauges(not by me but I have used it), and JqPlot which is highly configurable and seems to "just work".

</comment><comment> bink-lynch I am using <http://raphaeljs.com/> for my current project, but <http://d3js.org/> looks great, particularly <http://nvd3.org/>.

</comment><comment><USER6> Take a look the the Google chart api, it's quite comprehensive and free.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> In my searches, Stack Overflow seems to lean towards d3.js</comment>


US 'would lose any war' fought in the Pacific with China - <AUTHOR> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-would-lose-any-war-fought-in-the-pacific-with-china-7j90bjs5b <comment><USER2> Why is the US publishing the outcomes of its war simulations? The enemy knowing in which ways you think you might loose is pretty handy strategic info...

Could this info either be deliberately false, or perhaps used to scare someone into handing over more funding?

</comment><comment><USER3> It all comes down to simple economies. The country that can out-produce the other country in terms of war material will win the conflict. The US proved that during WW2. China has a huge industrial complex that can do this if it needs to do.

<comment><USER4> Thate doesn't explain the Vietnam War. The economy and military production is big part of it, but not the complete picture. Logistics, technology, population, geography, national cohesion, political unity, etc all play a role.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Don't promote articles about war

</comment><comment><USER6> We've lost every war fought in my parents' lifetimes, in the Pacific and everywhere else on the planet. So, this seems like an accurately predictive wargame!

<comment><USER7> > We've lost every war fought in my parents' lifetimes, in the Pacific and > everywhere else on the planet.

If your parents are even 30 years old, they were alive for the 1990 invasion of Panama, the 1991 US-led war against Iraq, and the 1999 NATO intervention in the Kosovo War, among others.

I don't think any of those three can reasonably be spun as a war lost by the US side.

<comment><USER8> Arguably there are no winners in war

<comment><USER9> No, there are winners. And it's important to understand that otherwise a huge % of people would be speaking German these days as an example.

<comment><USER6> My parents were born after WWII.

There are vast differences between the military at that time and the mess we've built since then.

<comment><USER10> We disagree then. I consider the US government's performance during the Cold War to be more impressive than its performance during WWII. In particular, the US managed to avoid using nuclear weapons in anger, managed to prevent its adversary from using nuclear weapons in anger, managed to prevent its adversary from invading Western Europe and managed to break its adversary's hold on Eastern Europe.

Diplomacy and soft power were more important in the Cold War than they were in WWII, which is why I feel the need to use "US government" in that last sentence rather than "US military". In particular, the US used free trade as an incentive to induce the governments of Western Europe, Japan, South Korea and even mainland China to go along with US plans to stop the expansion Soviet influence.

But putting aside the performance of the State Department and the other non- military parts of the US government during the Cold War, I consider the performance of its military specifically to have been good. The most important consideration during Vietnam War for example was to show Europe that the US would uphold its security guarantees even at large cost to itself in money and American lives, and the US military succeeded in that. It would have been nice for it to have saved South Vietnam from being conquered, but that was not strictly necessary to winning the Cold War. Another important consideration was for the US military to conduct the war humanely enough that the other side would not end up hating the US for generations, and the US military seems to have succeeded in that goal: these years, public opinion in Vietnam toward the US is generally positive and the Vietnamese government (even though it is still communist) is generally friendly to the US.

<comment><USER6> I agree it's good that nuclear weapons haven't been used since 1945. I disagree that the actions of USA are to be credited for that. We created them in the first place, although the exigencies of WWII were probably an excuse. All of the nuclear weapons built between 1945 and 1949 were built by USA. No American then had any illusions about how terrible nuclear weapons are.

If during that time we could have credibly committed to stop building nuclear weapons, we could have forged an agreement with USSR that would have made the entire planet much safer for many decades. Stalin wasn't a great humanitarian, but so much of the effort and resources he put into the USSR military was a reaction to well-earned distrust of USA's intentions. Also, _he didn 't have them yet!_ (The first ones he did get to work were obvious copies of American weapons, because why would the agencies in charge of foiling Soviet spies care more about their mission than about keeping the gravy train going?) Follow-on effects of a nuclear ban would have meant humanity as a whole would have considered such weapons beyond the pale, probably for centuries. Instead, we developed vastly more destructive fusion weapons!

Of course, weapons manufacturers wanted to make money, and neither Truman nor any of his generals (including Eisenhower) were brave enough to contradict that. No politician or military officer or popular journalist has been brave enough ever since then, either. Occasionally someone like Trump comes along and halfway pretends during a campaign to oppose our endless stupid wars, but that's quickly forgotten after the election. It is worth remembering, that all of the carnage and waste of the Cold War and our later Stupid Wars, and all of the menace of nuclear fusion weapons, and all of the effects of these things that we have yet to suffer, have been imposed on humanity in order that American armaments manufacturers might thereby profit.

To address Vietnam specifically, we didn't cover ourselves in glory there either. To begin, it was a colonial war started on behalf of _a different colonial power_. What the hell has France ever done for us, that we should help them menace other hemispheres? Lafayette wasn't all that. Also there is the fact that like most of our wars it was started based on a shameful lie, in this case the fake, never-happened Tonkin Gulf "incident". Also there were all the many atrocities. Also we intentionally spread the war to other nations who were even more innocent than the Vietnamese. Also we got our asses handed to us by rustic peasants. Not for the last time.

To speak more directly of the military, Vietnam showed them to be a paper tiger, and no war since has contradicted that judgment. (I can already hear the atrocityfans' cries of "What about the invasion of Panama! That wasn't terrible!") Their fathers had been rousted out of civilian life to build a military that had never existed and beat two invincible empires. They did beat those empires, to bloody pulps. Two decades later, under a Pentagon bloated from bingeing on the cream of the most blessed economy in history and an even more bloated officer corps, their sons couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.

Somehow we didn't take a long look in the mirror in 1975 and reconsider this whole idea of outspending the rest of the world, combined, on our military. We also didn't execute multiple CIA and NSA personnel for treason for tricking us into the stupid war in the first place. The joke was on us, because over the next decade and change we were tricked into spending even more on our inept military and clueless intelligence services. While USSR was failing so obviously that the Politburo selected Gorbachev to lead the old mare out behind the shed, we just had to build more nuclear and conventional weapons.

I'm sure I haven't convinced you of anything, even though I've stated only facts. You have come to the bizarre reflections of reality you describe above through constant gaslighting from every corner, here in USA. It's sort of a small injury, when compared to the atrocities we've inflicted on others, but the injury to our public thought imposed by the military-industrial complex is one that I feel keenly. No one in public life can utter obvious truths about geopolitics in the way that anyone could have done in the 1930s, lest they lose their careers permanently. You've argued here that the USA is to be credited for preventing the use of weapons that it invented, that it has tested more than all other nations combined, and that only it has ever used! Please, reconsider this folly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Mirror: [http://archive.is/OvIZB](http://archive.is/OvIZB)

</comment><comment><USER12> Paywall bypass?</comment>


Q&A with Jack Dorsey - <AUTHOR> http://themacro.com/articles/2016/07/jack-dorsey-q-and-a/ <comment><USER2> I would have liked to see his opinion on the role of corporate entities in censorship and civility. Past actions by twitter seems to give conflicting answers as to what's acceptable, what's not, and what they actually care about.

</comment><comment><USER3> Better title: 6 generic questions answered by someone who should be answering much more pressing questions

</comment><comment><USER4> Awful interview questions.

How about asking questions like: What sorts of speech will get me banned on Twitter? Do you think you've done enough to turn Twitter around? Why is Facebook so successful while Twitter looks to be in trouble?

I'm sure the interviewer knew of these topics but choose not to. For reasons I can't speculate on.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> "What sorts of speech will get me banned on Twitter? Do you think you've done enough to turn Twitter around? Why is Facebook so successful while Twitter looks to be in trouble?"

Those seem like pretty awful questions imo. He's not going to waste time listing off things that will get you banned from Twitter. He'll tell you not to violate TOS (in other words don't harass people). This should be common sense. With your second question he's obviously not going to say no. He'll give a standard PR reply. Same goes for the third. He's not going to talk up a competitor.

<comment><USER4> Surely these question are more relevant then "What would you tell your younger self" \- "Don't eat ramen noodles and exercise". I think you're right he'll just come back with standard PR replies but at least you're asking question people want asked.

<comment> k-mcgrady Don't get me wrong these definitely weren't great questions either. I'd rather see something a little different though than the standard PR response we can read on dozens of sites so at least it's different. It's also possible he would only agree to the interview based on certain questions so we can't be too tough on the interviewer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> His answer to the last question is something I believe a lot of people in the tech industry need to understand. Health is above all else. You can be the most successful person in the world but put off taking care of yourself and all that success can come to an abrupt end.

</comment><comment><USER6> has JD done any writing (books or posts) that would put him in a tech visionary realm? If so I'd like to see it. Otherwise not sure why he's answering these questions

<comment><USER7> _has JD done any writing (books or posts) that would put him in a tech visionary realm?_

Building society-changing products and startups doesn't count anymore? Twitter seems like a pretty big deal.

<comment><USER6> right but the questions have nothing to do with those society-changing products. it would be delightful if the question was "how are you going to save Twitter", but nope, it's more of useless "how are you so great" and "what will future be like"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > The minimization of atoms is something that I think we'll see continue to > see over the next ten years...

What does this even mean? You can't make atoms smaller than they are. Unless he's talking about some abstract 'atom' which doesn't work since he just throws out the word without clarifying. I don't think this is a common metaphor.

<comment><USER9> Given the context of talking about AR, it's a bizarre way of saying that he wants to have less physical products in the world. I am not a Jack Dorsey fan and quotes like that just harden my assessment...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Will Jack Dorsey and whoever interviewed him even remember this interview in 6 months? 2 years? 10 years?

What's the point of a Q&A that asks generic questions?

How about aiming for content that is insightful and valuable for 1+ years? Surely themacro publishing tonnes of shallow content just dilutes the brand? Then why bother?

Makes me miss the pg days.

</comment><comment><USER11> Soft ball with Jack Dorsey.</comment>


MySQL Connector/Python - <AUTHOR> https://launchpad.net/myconnpy

<comment><USER2> Wow, MySQL roll out for our Python software is a complete pain - I cant believe I have never come across this before!

Thanks so much!

(it's apparently been about for a year - yet i9n all my Googling I never came across it... :()

<comment><USER3> There's likely to be a bit of a performance penalty though.

<comment><USER2> Im guessing next to network latency it wont be a huge factor.

There is some C in there too - I haven't dug too deeply but I am guessing that certain core aspects will be in C for performance reasons.

EDIT: I apologise - I believed the Launchpad description which says Python/C. Checking the src it appears to be _pure pure_ python. :)

<comment><USER3> > pure pure python

Yep.

The benchmarks will be interesting. If they managed to get good performance out of this then I'll be most impressed.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Behind the scenes at Airbnb HQ (W09) - <AUTHOR> http://vator.tv/news/show/2009-07-29-backpack-the-world-with-airbnb

<comment><USER2> I've actually been thinking about moving out recently and have been looking at 2 bedroom places, or 1 bedroom + den because I can rent out the other room on AirBNB.

Rent in Yaletown (downtown Vancouver) is outrageous, but renting out the other room a few times/month could be worth it. At least to cover part of the rent and a maid :P

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm amazed by their living/working space and it makes me feel a lot less bad about where I work from.

</comment><comment><USER4> This looks like such a fun startup to work at. I think attitude goes a long way towards success.

</comment><comment><USER5> These guys are really awesome.</comment>


Rightsholders tire of takedown Whac-A-Mole, seek government help  - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/05/rightsholders-tire-of-takedown-whac-a-mole-seek-govt-help.ars

<comment><USER2> I repeatedly don't post links to PDFs here on Hacker News because I know that despite clear copyright notices they will be uploaded to scribd, resulting in a lengthy and time-consuming clog-dance to get it taken down.

Some of them might be interesting, but I'm not going to get involved in that. It would be interesting to put several links here, get them sucked up to scribd, issue the takedown notices, and then see if scribd really does honor its "Three Strokes" policy and ban HN from uploading.

But life's too short.

I won't be posting PDF links here.

<comment><USER3> Scribd does honour takedown notices (I recall cperciva's comment: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=960179>, even if it did apparently take some time to get it done).

A bigger problem is that they will take resubmissions of content that they've already taken down in the past.

That's pretty cheap of them, they could easily avoid that extra work for the authors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> They don't like the only sensible bit of the DMCA.</comment>


A command-line power tool for Twitter - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/sferik/t

<comment><USER2> I think the king of command line clients is TTYtter - I love it.

[http://www.floodgap.com/software/ttytter/](http://www.floodgap.com/software/ttytter/)

<comment><USER3> To my great sadness, TTYtter is currently unmaintained (I sent in a bug report and that's what the dude told me). So I expect it to stop working at some point. Until then, best desktop Twitter client for me by a mile.

I wish Twitter, Inc weren't the _absolutely stinking worst_ maker of Twitter clients. :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This has many cool features and is easy to use in scripts but if you just want Twitter in your terminal, check out Twirssi[1]. It plugs into irssi which many have running already anyway.

[1] [http://twirssi.com/](http://twirssi.com/)

<comment><USER5> Using bitlbee for this is awesome aswell. Then you don't need to run several scripts for more functionality (g+, Facebook, jabber etc)

<comment><USER6> The problem with Bitlbee is that it does not support twitter lists. I had a project to add that support, but my C is very rusty :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> yes, please! have needed a tool to help deal with unfollowing some folks for a while, i am always at follow limit, and when you're in the ui follow list it starts with the people who tweet the most and who you interact with the most afaict, so i end up scrolling for ages trying to find anyone uninteresting. people seem to show up multiple times in infinite scroll, too, so it's like digging a fucking hole in sand.

</comment><comment><USER8> "Multi-threaded: Whenever possible, Twitter API requests are made in parallel, resulting in faster performance for bulk operations."

That's not what threads are about.

<comment><USER9> Why not? Thread pools are great for doing bulk operations... long API requests is a great thing to do in parallel when possible.

<comment><USER10> There's a runtime overhead of spinning up a bunch of threads that are just going to sit idle waiting for an API response. There are better asynchronous models for that sort of thing.

<comment><USER11> Even if starting a new thread takes 1ms, that pales in comparison to the 300ms network connection.

On my laptop, thread creation (pthread_create() followed by pthread_detach() takes ~17 microseconds.

When one end of a socket is on the Internet somewhere, connection time is ~80ms. If I start a thread and then have it create a network connection, eliminating the therad spawn overhead couldn't save more than 0.02% (that's two percent _of a percent_ ) of the running time, by Amdahl's law.

The effect of thread creation just isn't significant here. If this utility is going to spawn 1,000 simultaneous API connections to twitter, the threads could all be started by the time the first connection succeeds.

(My numbers come from a class assignment where I benchmarked some unrelated stuff, but if you're interested, I can send you the report)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


SARS-CoV-2 (Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) Sequences - <AUTHOR> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/sars-cov-2-seqs/ <comment><AUTHOR> there are recent sequences posted here as of feb 21 2020 actually</comment>


The real Ajay Bhatt, co-inventor of the USB port - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/10/conan-obrien-talks-to-the-co-creator-of-usb-on-the-tonight-show/

<comment><USER2> My take: They didn't use the real guy because this let them create a little buzz and hold him back to give their ad campaign a second wind.

<http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html>

Interesting that a Tonight Show advertiser initiated this interview, the show said yes, and even admits this interview was prompted by a sponsor. (Also interesting that the ad-block HN crowd isn't complaining about watching sponsored content)

Intel's PR and marketing people played this one really well.

<comment><USER3> Almost all interview spots on late-night talk shows are pure marketing. Without fail, the interviewee always has a book or a movie coming out. Or, at most, is a former or current politician, seeking publicity for their latest cause (a foundation they set up or the upcoming election, respectively).

I think it's quite respectable for Tonight Show to both acknowledge that this is a sponsored interview and to make light of the fact.

<comment><USER4> _This monkey will dance for anyone_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That Conan (a) felt like Ajay would be relevant for a general audience, and (b) didn't bring him on for the sole purpose of humiliating him speaks well for the acceptance of engineering in US society. A decade ago, he would have been reduced to caricature -- "nerd" glasses and the like.

<comment><USER6> What I don't understand is why Intel didn't use the real Ajay in their ads. Here's someone who they are supposedly honoring as a rock star, and yet when it comes to the ads, instead of using him, they hire an actor. How big of an Intel star can you be, if you aren't good enough to appear on TV?

<comment><USER7> From a NYT article on Intel:

 _The real inventors are not in the ads; they are played by actors. Mr. Bell said he wanted to ensure the commercials were humorous, and avoid arguments with Intel employees over which should be featured._

 _"When you are required politically to cast certain people and get everyone involved, you tend to get this watered-down, feel-good campaign that works really well internally and makes the company itself feel good," but does not appeal to consumers, he said._

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/media/06adco.html>

<comment><USER8> That argument does not really hold much water. The fact remains that you are portraying the same person, so these arguments which Intel wanted to avoid would still come up. Considering that, they should just have gone with the real guy.

<comment><USER9> Its an advertisement, a lower grade of information than even a puff piece or glossy brochure.

For TV advertisements, you need people who can act. Engineers aren't actors. Save the real engineers for informational pieces like this interview.

<comment><USER10> Most people are able to act _as themselves_ quite competently! For a TV ad featuring a person as themself the requirements are that you are that person ...

<comment><USER11> Unless you're under the impression that Ajay really does strut around Intel to the sound of screaming girls, "acting as themselves" wouldn't really be what they'd need to do in the commercial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I found it odd that he didn't share the credit with more people at Intel and its partners, and spoke negatively about Firewire[1].

[1]- Firewire lost mainly because the cheaper+slower USB1.1 became ubiquitous first, and then came the backward-compatible (in connectors/cables) and comparably-fast USB2.0.

<comment><USER13> I'm surprised someone voted you down and that you are still at 1 point.

USB 1.0 seems like one of the many interfaces that will eventually end up obsolete just like ISA PCI AGP PCMIA etc...

I really don't see anything technically superior about USB (feel free to correct me). The main reason it won out over Firewire was of course Intel and Microsoft backing, and that it was in the sweet spot for the price/feature trade off.

<comment><USER14> Won't every interface end up obsolete? Seems like the only interfaces with real staying power are serial and mini phonoplug.

<comment><USER15> If you want an _old_ interface think power supply > wall sockets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have not idea why they embedded the commercial, but did not even link to hulu: [http://www.hulu.com/watch/101471/the-tonight-show-with- conan...](http://www.hulu.com/watch/101471/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien- intel-rockstar)

<comment><USER17> Thanks for the hulu link. The embedded control did not work for me despite repeated refreshes. The hulu link did.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Does this really matter? IMHO, this is more of an ego issue to 'nerds' than selling the product in itself. The latter being the purpose of ads.

</comment><comment><USER18> Dont give a fuck. Just sell things.</comment>


POWHcoin: The World's First Autonomous and Self-Sustaining Pyramid Scheme - <AUTHOR> https://powhcoin.com <comment><AUTHOR> Finally I'm beginning to see what smart contracts can do. This looks like a shameless ripoff of PonziCoins that was on here a few days ago, only they've used a modified version of Jochen Hoenicke's "self-trading token" code with a modified Bancor formula, so the price adjusts up and down with every buy and sell and somehow (they claim) it's a pyramid scheme that can't ever collapse.

Why people are actually throwing real money into this is anyone's guess, but the concept is fascinating.</comment>


Apple will Fail in corporate land 'because IT managers hate iPads' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/04/hp_ipad_corporate_enterprise/ <comment><USER2> Apple is succeeding in some corporate lands. Surprisingly one of these is healthcare. Think getting a PC user to switch to Mac is hard? Try prying an iPad out of a doctor's hands.

For IT managers, it is similar to consumers and Apple products: once people actually own one, contempt and fear disappear.</comment>


Sysenv: virtualenv for system packages - <AUTHOR> http://pepijndevos.nl/2018/06/24/sysenv-virtualenv-for-system-packages.html <comment><USER2> I develop on Mac but run a Linux VM for this very reason.</comment>