One million dollar grant awarded for anti-mosquito light barrier - <AUTHOR> http://techventures.columbia.edu/blog/profile/mosquito-repelling-light-barriers-show-great-promise-containment-malaria

<comment><USER2> This makes me feel a lot safer than the ones that actually shoot the mosquitoes down with lasers. It would only take one computer blip that misidentified your pupil as a mosquito to make you really regret purchasing one of those. Merely confusing the mosquitoes with some much weaker infrared degrades far more gracefully.

<comment><USER3> One computer blip, you standing or walking through the laser-fence, and you not turning the fence off before you do so.

<comment><USER2> Lasers are simultaneously more and less dangerous than people think, which is a cute trick. So you walk through some low-intensity infrared beams... so what? It's not going to magically fry you. Energy levels sufficient to scare off mosquitoes are probably barely perceptible to humans in any way. Lasers aren't magically dangerous.

On the other hand, the badly underestimated danger of lasers is their ability to focus retina-damaging amounts of energy into your eye in less time than it takes you to blink, which in this case I mean fully literally and not at all figuratively. Blinking is basically your only defense against lasers that might blind you and if you can't deploy it in time, that means you're defenseless. Anything that can burn a mosquito down in flight is probably enough to burn at least some of your retina, too. I can't believe some of the lasers we sell without permits; if you've got a laser that can pop a balloon from across the yard you are playing with something that can burn out your vision with only a moment's inattention. For the love of all that's holy keep these things away from children. More dangerous than you think.

<comment><USER4> It's sad, really. I wish people wouldn't freak out to much about the weak laser pointers, but most people have no idea what the wattage is or why it matters, so the weak ones get lumped together in their minds with the dangerous ones.

And I fully agree with you: the general public has no business owning some of those lasers. I wish they would require that you have to prove that you have appropriate safety gear and know how to use it properly or something, because I feel like we're one stupid kid away from overburdensome restrictions that prevent even responsible folks from being able to use lasers without tons of red tape.

<comment><USER5> I moved from the UK to Canada and have realised that companies really have no clue what potential damage they can expose themselves to. I noticed Bell (phone company) is especially bad for leaving the boxes for their fibre terminals open. No one thinks its a big deal, because nothing happens to them.

One of my friends works for a cable company and occasionally has to patch a fibre connection, and whenever he does he has to run back to head office to pick up the mechanical splice and asked the guy one day "Why don't they let me keep some of these in my truck?" and got told "Because it costs over 500 bucks".

When he told me this all my mind went to was: It costs $500 plus time to repair a fibre bundle and Bell leaves boxes containing 20 or more bundles open.

If you'd have told that to a kid where I grew up, he'd be out there with bolt cutters as soon as it went dark because costing a company $10000 for their own stupidity would be awesome.

So I really don't get why companies leave these bundles unlocked and in plain view. Or why they run peoples cable overhead to a wall anchor on the house. Again, where I grew up you'd only have to piss one of your neighbours off and they'd tell their kid to go out with a branch trimmer and snip your TV.

It really doesn't make sense to me when I've worked on new construction and I see the cable and power companies come in when the house is almost done and use a machine to bury the cables and come up in the garage.

<comment><USER6> Wouldn't those kids where you grew up think it was just as much fun to throw a brick through someone's window if they couldn't get to the TV cable?

<comment><USER5> You'd be surprised but bricks don't do an awful lot to a good double-glazed window unit, plus that gets someone trying to find you and the police involved. Spring loaded pellet gun works exceptionally well against tempered glass though, found that one out accidentally.

Also TV cable in the UK isn't strung to your house, its buried. Although most people have either free-to-air in the UK or satellite.

Where I grew up on mischief night we didn't egg peoples houses. We filled water balloons with an egg-flour mix and hurled that, because 10 hours later when people went to clean it off it was impossible. It's literally drying pasta into brick and then trying to wash it off with a garden hose and you don't have any water pressure because the council hasn't had the funding to upgrade the mains, but they're still selling off land for new housing and drop the systems pressure even more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What's the advantage over insecticide treated nets? I see a few drawbacks: it requires energy to run, surely costs a lot more, and doesn't kill the mosquitos.

<comment><USER8> On the other end of the wealth spectrum: this lets folks have large windows open without risking annoying bugs flying in (although birds might be more problematic). No window screen or net. Imagine the possibilities: you could install them on your porch to make later summer hours less annoying, and rather than have a bay window, you could just take out a wall.

Or you could use them to help keep poor children from dying of malaria. I'm betting on the porch, though :P

<comment><USER5> My mind instantly went to the same place. This isn't going to save a life in Africa, it's going to be used to treat the annoyance of the American middle class.

Although the ability to have large windows open with these might see the potential reduction in use of AC units. I know my AC got used a lot later in the year because screens or no screens I found I still got a dozen flies in my house over night if I kept my windows wide open.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I hope they find a large variety of intensities, wavelengths, patterns, etc. and then set all units to slowly vary their parameters in sync with each other over the years, so as bugs get used to old settings, the new ones get them.

Also... sudden gust of wind = mosquito trapped _inside_ my bedroom?

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm thinking that while this is a noble effort, people in Africa living in huts probably won't be buying one of these and running them on solar power anytime soon.

I'd like one though.

<comment><USER11> The poor in Africa won't buy these for full retail price, no. However, they do care about the safety of their children, if for no other reason than that sick kids can't work on the farm.

And it might not be just because of malaria -- mosquitoes ruin a good night's sleep, and a good night's sleep is required for farm work, especially when you're malnourished.

So when offered the opportunity to purchase these for 50 cents, they will do so. And they will have that opportunity because aid agencies will be giving them away like candy if they are effective. Aid agencies have trouble getting things like that into the hands of where they're needed, but grey/black market entrepreneurs help ensure that they do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't understand this. What is the point of it?

I've been in parts of northern Brazil where malaria is endemic. People there are so poor that they can't even dream of having electricity or clean water. Most are illiterate. Besides, it is useless to protect people from malaria only when they're sleeping; mosquitoes can byte you also when you're awake, right?

Is there anyone seriously dreaming of fighting mosquitoes there with this kind of high-tech equipment?

</comment><comment><USER13> Seems like combined with this news from a couple weeks ago we might be able to wipe malaria out completely in the next decade or so?

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44947187/ns/health- infectious_di...](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44947187/ns/health- infectious_diseases/t/first-malaria-vaccine-works-major-trial/#.TrLO9VZSmds)

</comment><comment><USER14> mosquitoes will quickly learn to overcome their fear. They already have mutations for various chemicals.

<comment><USER15> I can't tell if you are being funny or serious.

It doesn't sound like they actually understand why it works. I hear what you are saying, but evolution and mutations have their limit. What if this is just as lethal as ionizing radiation for them?

<comment><USER16> The system is non-lethal so natural selection wouldn't even come into play (unless these machines became so ubiquitous that mosquitoes start starving to death).

<comment><USER17> If it was a widespread system, the mosquitos which were immune to it (if any) would have a better food supply, and tend to reproduce more easily, and come to dominate the population.

Natural selection doesn't need a lethal system to come into play.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> 1\. I've had this idea for years.

2\. I love it when other people make "I've had this idea for years" into reality with zero effort on my part. The future is _so cool._

<comment><USER19> Do you still love it when it´s other people who profit from that idea?

<comment><USER20> I have more ideas than I could implement in 10 lifetimes. My first reaction when I see something I thought of come to be is "oh hells yeah, they made my X for me!"

The second is a nice feeling of vindication. "It _was_ a good idea. Look!"

That's what bothers me most about "intellectual property". This "if I can't be the one to build it and profit from it then _no one should_ " notion is just a recipe for nothing ever getting done.

<comment><USER21> In my case, the only thing that really bothers me about someone else implementing one of my ideas is that I won't have the joy of being involved in its creation. Otherwise, you're completely right -- ideas are cheap, and when one gets "stolen," it's a sign the idea was obvious, and a net benefit to society. The one exception is if an obvious idea gets stolen by a troll.

<comment><USER20> I'd say that trollish behavior is the only way an idea can really be "stolen".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> While this is an awesome development in a preventive approach, the best reactive approach to those purveyors of pestilence remains the mosquito bat[1] - for disease prevention and fun!

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosquito_bat></comment>


Top Reasons I like Postgres Over SQL Server - <AUTHOR> http://datachomp.com/archives/top-10-reasons-i-like-postgres-over-sql-server/ <comment><USER2> "Top Reasons I like Postgres over SQL Server _as a Database for Web Applications_."

SQL Server has some neat features, and yes, it's more expensive than a free tool (and yet, wildly less expensive than Oracle, its main competitor). What Postgres doesn't have is the entire BI suite of tools that comes with SQL Server: Analysis Services, Integration Services, and Reporting Services. It also comes with MDM, Data Quality Services, a complex event processor (StreamInsight), etc, etc. It's not just a database.

I like SQL Server, and I use it all the time--but again, I do BI. That being said, if I were creating a web application, I'd use Postgres in a heartbeat. SQL Server's defaults are aimed at different applications than Postgres is.

<comment><USER3> Keep in mind I've been a SQL Server DBA for the past 10 years, and while it does come with builtin tools like SSIS/SSRS and stuff, it isn't all sunshine and lollipops. For example, how well does SSRS works for people that don't use Internet Explorer? Or any type of reasonable debugging in SSIS. Yes, there are tools that come with it, but many of them feel like crap thrown together by an MS intern. and yes, some are really nice and refined as well.

That being said, this post was intended for the web app crowd.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, we have issues with SSRS _and_ Crystal Reports in cross-browser environments. i.e. the "preview" never looks like what you intend. Instead, we work around it by exporting directly to disk, which seems to keep the WYSIWYG aspect.

I'm more interested to know how MS people have integrated PostGres into their environments. Which ORMs work? What are the gotchas, etc?

<comment><USER5> Nhibernate. No issues.

To be honest we're shifting to java. Our license fees are well into 7 figures for MS stuff for no gain. This is the first step. Some subsystems are moving from asp.net web forms+mvc to spring, tomcat, hibernate, postgres. Cost savings are huge, staff available are orders of magnitude better and reliability is higher as to be honest, windows has been a piece of shit to manage over the last 10 years.

Fortunately we've got a pretty well designed system so we can move it over piecemeal as and when we update major subsystem features.

<comment><USER6> Wow, my experience has been a bit different. Every Java project I've worked on has been an exercise in frustration... Though a lot of the .Net projects I've worked on I can say the same.

I think that NodeJS + MongoDB has been the least resistance I've seen so far... though some of its' limitations are really frustrating (non-indexed result limitations). I like Postgres at least as much as MS-SQL Server. And the Entity Framework generators have been close to a blessing. That said, I'm much more of a fan of the DB as dumb storage, and not a big fan of SSIS. So changing from one DB to another is mostly transparent when things are how I prefer them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Just to play devil's advocate:

5\. SQL Server supports indexes on computable columns [1]

6\. CLR Integration allows you to write a lot of things in C# (or VB.NET) [2]

10\. Unicode is there by default if you use nchar/nvarchar/ntext columns, there's no problems unless you choose to use char/varchar/text instead

[1] [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms189292(v=sql.90).a...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms189292\(v=sql.90\).aspx)

[2] [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms254498(v=vs.80).as...](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms254498\(v=vs.80\).aspx)

<comment><USER8> You did lose the point here:

> 6\. CLR Integration allows you to write a lot of things in C# (or VB.NET) > [2]

You can also use a Mono plugin at Postgres, just like Perl, Python, C, C++, Lisp, Haskel, R-Cran... But it's not that, #6 was about the core functionality of the DBMS changing. For example, you can add new index types at Postgres with plugins, and people do add them. Once somebody wrote a plugin for manipulating SQL queries at what was at the time an object oritented database called Postgres. That's how deep you can go.

> 10\. Unicode is there by default if you use nchar/nvarchar/ntext columns, > there's no problems unless you choose to use char/varchar/text instead

Yeah, Unicode is used by default if you tell the DBMS to use Unicode... Thus, it's not the default. I'd agree that this is not a big problem.

<comment><USER9> > Yeah, Unicode is used by default if you tell the DBMS to use Unicode... > Thus, it's not the default.

False. Positively false. Because there is _no_ default. Whenever you create a new column, which incidentally should contain text, you need to choose a type for that column. There is no default column-type. You need to be specific about how your data gets stored. That's why it's called a schema.

And when making that choice, for your column which will contain text, you must ask yourself two questions:

1\. What sort of capacity is needed?

2\. Are you living in the 1980s or in the year 2013? If your answer is the latter, you _always choose Unicode_ unless you can argue for why it wont ever be needed. That's all.

In 2013 you don't have to argue for the need for Unicode. You have to argue for the right to use antiquated, primitive 8-bit text-types. And then you choose (because you and noone else will have to choose that column-type) Unicode text-types by default.

Anything else is madness. If any tool you rely on to do this for you chooses non-Unicode by default it is broken and needs to be fixed.

There might be a million other things SQL Server should address, but this is not one of them. Nothing is wrong with text-support.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What I haven't seen recently is an explanation of "Reasons I like Postgres Over Mysql." It seems like after a long period of stagnation, postgres suddenly became hugely popular among startups again in spite of some of the things that I consider its core failings not being fixed (mainly: an even more expensive per-connection model than mysql and extremely painful replication, largely offloaded to third party tools).

Is it because of HStore? Heroku using it? The Oracle buyout of Inno and then Mysql?

Mysql 3.x was quite awful (other than replication), but by 5.x it had started getting good, and now the forks are doing some fantastic work. So it surprises me.

<comment><USER11> By "a long period of stagnation" I assume you are referring to public exposure -- because it's not true that Postgres itself has stagnated.

Postgres has been developed steadily the last decade, and has been a serious competitor to major RDBMSes since version 8.1 (which added two-phase commit, table partitioning, index bitmap scan and shared row locking, among other things.)

I say _public exposure_ because Postgres has clearly been popular among many developers for a long time It's ben beneath the radar for a lot of people, partly due to pervasive myths ("Postgres is slow"), partly due to the fact that, well, a product doesn't sell itself.

I think the reason Postgres has shown up on HN a lot is simply that people are finally discovering it and recognizing its technical brilliance, careful engineering and high performance, and it's snowballing. I myself have used Postgres for web apps since 2003 myself, and I have evangelized among colleagues and acquaintances to the best of my abilities, so I am very happy about this progress.

I don't see why it should surprise you. While I'm sure MySQL 5.0 and its various forks have gotten better over the years, it's hard to argue that Postgres is not technically superior in pretty much every way. Even if you care solely about performance, which used to be MySQL's main selling point, Postgres has overtaken MySQL a long time ago.

> _an even more expensive per-connection model than mysql_

This is not a practical issue for most people, in my experience. At least nobody is really complaining about it. Rails apps happily pool connections, for example.

If you can't pool connections in the app, there are several excellent, mature connection-pooling proxies around (including a very cool one, pgPool-II, which can also load-balance and replicate at the same time).

> _and extremely painful replication_

Is it possible that you have not been following the developments? If you don't need per-table/per-database replication, then streaming replication is actually incredibly _painless_. It is by all accounts awesome. And it scales very well.

If you do need fine-grained replication, there are several mature third-party projects that are fairly painless to operate, including Bucardo and Londiste. (I would not count Slony as "painless", although it's probably the most comprehensive solution right now. Avoid it unless you are a bank.)

There is also a multimaster-replicating fork (PostgreSQL-XC) that is apparently working very well, and implements true distributed ACID replication, as opposed to the kind of "de facto multimaster replication" you set up in MySQL, where you have to make sure primary keys don't overlap between hosts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> On compression: > Once you have paid for that ability, you still have to figure out how to implement it.

Postgres has lots of advantage, but "figuring out how to implement it" is rarely an issue on SQL Server. SQL Server must be the easiest-to-use complete database system on the market.

</comment><comment><USER13> All that is missing in Postgres is materialized views feature. I would happily contribute to a kickstarter project or similar for implementing them in Postgres.

<comment><USER14> Good news! It's slated for the next release. :) [http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-9-3-feature-...](http://michael.otacoo.com/postgresql-2/postgres-9-3-feature- highlight-materialized-views/)

<comment><USER15> I think most people used to a materialized view features in proprietary databases will find the incarnation of Materialized Views as committed quite limiting...nevertheless, it seems important to me that this foundational work has been integrated.

In particular, incremental updates of the materialized view are not yet a feature. That said, a lot of hang wringing has been going on in the lists on how to build on this work, so it looks like this whole subsystem will receive some attention.

<comment><USER16> That's how the Postgres team works. They tend to start with the primitives and build a bit more of the niceties in each release. And they do so very carefully, which is important.

People forget that this is true of every software system ever. No successful system ever starts with every feature it's going to have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The main reason why my company uses SQL Server is that HR can find DBAs to hire here in São Paulo. Finding good DBAs to take care of our few MySQL servers was hard enough.

But I still sigh every time I have to convert perfectly valid UTF-8 before a bulk insert...

</comment><comment><USER18> Well he missed the main point:

Posgresql is free software.

And therefore for example no company can force you into their lock in for their profit and your loss.

<comment><USER8> That's my main argument for using Postgres:

1 - At the start of your project's life, you'll want it because it's free as in beer. Except for ease of developping (where Postgres is also great), nothing else matter.

2 - Later, when you need some performance, even if you have a usage patter where Postgres is slower, you'll discover that the price of any of the other DBMS is highter than just adding hardware. Thus, free as in beer wins again.

3 - If you get huge, you'll discover that free software is a big deal, and the limitations of the proprietary DBMS add a huge amount of drag. Free as in speech wins now.

<comment><USER19> I like your reasoning and its a large driver for my I'm moving away from SQL Server.

If I get to a point where I actually need the features, that SQL Server or another commercial RDBMS has, then I have a _good_ problem. It means my business is doing well and I _may_ be in a position to consider a changeover.

I used to fret about features that frankly don't really matter when you are starting out. Coming from an Oracle and SQL Server background, I wouldn't touch MySQL but Postgres hits the 80% mark quite easily.

<comment><USER18> freedom is more valuable than features

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> SqlServer issues I've encountered or found on the interwebs:

* Microsoft SQL Server 2005 (the release version and service packs) and earlier versions of SQL Server are not supported on Windows Server 2012 or Windows 8. * SQL Server 2008 only runs on W2012 /Win8 from If you install R2. * Importing .bak files from SQL2005 to 2012 Express (Not sure about the full version) will not import. * Copying a database from SQL2005 to 2012Express in management studio will not work either. * SqlServer 2012 Will not run on Server 2003 * SQL Server 2012 requires a minimum of 6 GB of available hard-disk space. * SQL Server 2012 will not run on Server 2008, Vista, Win7 without a Service Pack

<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143506.aspx>

</comment><comment><USER21> 90% of the points are irrelevant. The real value of a database is _how well does it scale up and out_. All the rest is minutiae.

Why do most companies that scale out (and thus massively benefit from free-as- in-beer software) actually choose MySql over PostgreSQL? Because of the features? Nope...

Why do most companies that scale up (and thus massively benefit from expensive, but highly performant software) actually choose MSSQL or Oracle over PostgreSQL? Because of the tag price of the Enterprise features? Nope...

<comment><USER16> > _Why do most companies that scale out (and thus massively benefit from free- > as-in-beer software) actually choose MySql over PostgreSQL?_

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> While I could probably write a long list of my bad experiences with MSSQL (or just any database really), I think a lot of the authors grievances come from it really solely being an enterprise application while ignoring some of the good points that comes with enterprise applications; such as support (MS support is a mixed bag, some amazing support reps and some terrible ones) and business integration.

<comment><USER23> You can buy excellent support for PostgreSQL at quite cheap prices actually. Especially since you just have to pay for the support and not any license.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Just learned sargable/function index for Postgres. Looks really cool feature.

[http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/indexes- expression...](http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/indexes- expressional.html)

One question: Does this work for bitwise operators?

</comment><comment><USER25> One of my top reasons: You get the latest and greatest with all the scalability features without having to pay for the production version.

</comment><comment><USER26> How does Postgres performance rank on Windows?

<comment><USER27> It varies wildly based on platform, filesystem, hardware, and usage cases.

Is your workload write-heavy? Is it more read-heavy than write-heavy? How much query throughput are you talking?

At the smaller scale, it doesn't really matter. At the larger scale, your app's characteristics determine how much (if any) you are disadvantaged over running a more performant Postgres+Linux combo.

<comment><USER26> Ok I'll try to be more specific. How much slower is it than SQL Server for a web app that does a 70%-30% split between reading and writing. 10,000 users a day each spending about an hour on it. I've no idea how to measure query output, will have to look that up. Maybe this is more of a Stack Exchange question.

<comment><USER8> That still depends. It'll depend on the size of query X number of queries, type of data, coverage of your indexes (what depend on your actual data), and a ton of other factors.

I'm not even sure there is somebody out there capable of correctly measuring this. You may need to go with a fast biased study anyway.

Also, why are you assuming Postgres is slower?

<comment><USER28> I'm not the parent but I sort of operate on the assumption that Windows isn't Postgres primary target when they make optimizations. While SQL Server is not only purely focused on Windows they have have access to knowledge about (and in server editions, probably influence on) the low level internals that Postgres people never will. As pointed out in on of the top comments SQL Server has a bunch of extra junk built in(ish) but still I too would, having not tested anything, assume SS would be faster than Pg on Windows.

<comment><USER27> I think you're correct here. Postgres has had lots of optimization work specifically for Linux and Unix/BSD. The Linux kernel has also had some optimization done to improve hot paths that Postgres hits.

I'm sure the Postgres team has kept an eye on Windows, but I doubt it gets nearly as much attention as the *nix environments.

<comment><USER23> Indeed, most of the benchmarking of the core PostgreSQL team is done on Linux. Some of those optimizations also benefit Windows but there is little dedicated performance work for platforms outside Linux as far as I can see from reading the mailing lists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra I would like that everyone call it "Microsoft SQL Server" over "SQL Server".

Or else Microsoft has successfully squatted a common, generic term as a name of their product. Not a good thing if you ask me.

<comment><USER29> Databases have always been known as relational, RDMS, etc.

In the "old days" I never heard of people referring to Oracle as a "SQL Server", nor DB2, etc.

Even now, people talk of Postgres as a "RDBMS", not, "Postgres, a SQL server".

So I'd say that I don't particularly agree with your postulation.

<comment><USER30> "RDBMS" does not necessarily imply that it speaks SQL, correct? My company produces document clustering software that can interact with virtually any database (via ODBC) that speaks SQL to examine any stored documents and cluster them. It is extremely annoying to try to convey to a prospective customer that it works with "virtually any SQL server" without them thinking that means _just_ Microsoft SQL Server. I agree with guard-of-terra -- we should not be ceding common/descriptive terms to Microsoft.

<comment><USER31> The name comes from Sybase, not Microsoft.

Microsoft SQL Server is an offspring from Sybase SQL Server.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Life Lessons From Albert Einstein - <AUTHOR> http://www.dumblittleman.com/2010/03/10-amazing-lessons-albert-einstein.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+DumbLittleMan+%2528Dumb+Little+Man+-+tips+for+life%2529&utm_content=Twitter

<comment><USER2> > "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different > results."

This is the one I personally struggle with the most. It is highly coupled with your perception of your personal comfort zone. For example, if I think I'd be happier if I went out and met more people - but I'd rather sit on the couch tonight - that's partial insanity - you will always be afraid of doing those things you are too lazy or afraid (note: lazy and afraid is worse combination) to do.

And if you were say to actually drag yourself to the event but completely went into wallflower mode when getting there, you are proving partial insanity again (e.g. being non-social again) with the added weight of 'why did I bother'.

How to break this vicious cycle? Basically you have to suck it up and be social, not be seeking any particular form of reaction - e.g. goal is literally to introduce yourself/meet people not to have a deep conversation with them. Letting go of attachment to outcomes but initiating so there can be a potentially positive outcome. Really, it goes back to #3 Being Present with whoever you are with.

<comment><USER3> A quote from that I keep close to my heart: "Courage is not the absence of failure, courage is acting in spite of fear." (Carly Fiorina)

In your case, if I were you, after I get off my ass to a networking event, I'd be thinking, "hell, I didn't get off my ass just to come here and be in wallflower mode. For better or worse, I don't care if I look stupid, I don't care if I'm afraid, I'm going to go talk to somebody."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Meh.

1 "I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious."

Curiosity is an important trait, and I'm sure Einstein had it. He did, however, also have a very significant talent.

2 "It's not that I'm so smart; it's just that I stay with problems longer."

Perseverance is important, but if you honestly believe you can achieve anything by trying harder, there's no limit to what you can't do. (HT Despair)

The rest of the advise is sound, however, I can help but think that boiling these pieces of wisdom down to fortune cookies is orthogonal to the very point Einstein was making when he said those things.

</comment><comment><USER5> 0\. Put your child up for adoption and get on with what you really love in life!

<comment><USER6> Interesting factoid ( <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieserl_Einstein> )

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature.

The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."_

                -- Albert Einstein "Why Socialism?"

</comment><comment><USER8> "You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else."

This one is essential. Goes right along with recent HN discussions on "effort shock" - not understanding how hard things really are, or what it takes to be successful. The "game" that we are shown as kids isn't an accurate representation of real life, and oftentimes we must learn the real rules for ourselves.

</comment><comment><USER9> "A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new."

That is gold!

</comment><comment><USER10> It's all relative.

</comment><comment><USER11> Create Value "Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value."

Classic. How many entrepreneurs create value and in the process made themselves rich instead of focusing on money first

</comment><comment><USER12> > "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different > results."

Is this a reference to quantum mechanics?

</comment><comment><USER13> don't listen to experts outside the area of their expertise.

<comment><USER14> Back in the 60's, some amateur astronomers observing Venus with a homebuilt telescope and ultraviolet filters discovered that the clouds on Venus had a four-day rotation period.

They submitted their work to a journal of planetary studies, but it was rejected with this comment: "the four-day rotation is theoretically impossible, and shows how foolish the work of the inexperienced amateur can be."

In 1974 Mariner 10 few past Venus and confirmed the atmosphere does indeed rotate every four days, much faster than the solid planet beneath.

Who was the expert who rejected the very good work of the amateurs? Carl Sagan.</comment></comment>


WebGL based web application for rendering 2D and 3D fractals in real-time - <AUTHOR> http://www.subblue.com/blog/2011/3/5/fractal_lab

<comment><AUTHOR> See beautiful examples here: <http://plginrt-project.com/adb/?p=13917></comment>


Japanese researchers use AI to identify early-stage stomach cancer high accuracy - <AUTHOR> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/?post_type=news&p=1452901 <comment><AUTHOR> sorry, I don't have a more scientific link to point you to, but thought the topic would be interesting to this group</comment>


Own-Mailbox, the first 100% confidential mailbox - <AUTHOR> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1547898916/own-mailbox-the-first-100-confidential-mailbox <comment><USER2> As the only other HNer with more than single-digit karma, I will try to give an objective overview of the project as I see it (this is taken from their FAQ):

-the device is €49 during the KS campaign, even though their FAQ says €59. It will be €79 afterwards.

-the HW has USB, HDMI (or is it eSATA?), and ethernet ports (one each), and 16GB of storage. It is based on the Allwinner A13 which as 256MB of memory.

\- it appears they are using kernel version 4.03, though refer to it as Linux Libre (a phrase which I'm not familiar with, but full source code is available)

\- DNS will be handled giving everyone a subdomain on omb.one or one can use their own domain; SSL will be handled using self-generated certs and Letsencrypt

\- security is handled using GPG with keys being stored on device or transferred via USB. There is also something they call Private Link Message (PLM) which is used to communicate with people not using GPG, and appears to send a one-time-access [SSL] link (either on omb.one or your domain) that expires after it is accessed or at a specified date; the recipient has the ability to respond via a web interface. One can also activate a private HTTPS interface for one-way comms to your specified own-mail account

\- there is some mechanism for P2P backup that requires 70% uptime on the user's part (remember, msgs are encrypted), but the mechanism for this functionality is not clear

Overall, I agree with their motivation, and think they have thought out much of their approaches, but it seems they are slightly confused in their target market (it is a mix of non-technical and quite technical). I also am not smart enough to adequately determine the soundness, but it seems quite sound. I would be interested to read what more technical folks on HN think.

Edit: I would also like to see how this hardware could be used for communication other than email, like a web-based IRC alternative (or IM). Gitlab has integrated an interesting project that maybe suitable for this piece of hardware: [https://github.com/mattermost/platform](https://github.com/mattermost/platform).

Edit2: I would also like to see this project look at using mailpile rather than roundcube: [https://github.com/mailpile/Mailpile](https://github.com/mailpile/Mailpile).

<comment><USER3> Their security system is good... That's why some are getting angry now...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is exactly the kind of project we need these times. I hope this works out OK for these guys (I am backer #7). I hope it works out for us backers. Also I hope someone will later make a RaspberryPi image with almost the same functionality, ready to download and use (but, alas, you have to provide your own mail domain). Still, this is the right thinking. Email is the one protocol we easily can have at home, reasonably secure, with all the benefits and almost no negatives. My peers do not even need to know where the mails go!

</comment><comment><USER5> Not sure why these people are spending so much money to develop their own hardware (40% of total cost) when this software (mail server, PGP) can be run on many cheap, off-the-shelf systems, like Raspberry Pi.

<comment><USER6> Mainly because it cannot be trusted enough for this kind of application. It is not Open Hardware. The processor used is very closed, even the data-sheet is not accessible to the public. (It's very problematic for a device like Own- Mailbox very sensitive regarding politic.) The Raspberry Pi is provided with non-free software and the hardware needs non-free driver to work. (Also problematic.)

Raspberry Pi is bigger and less energy efficient.

On top of that, we don't use it for prices reasons, people have already tried to sell all-in-the-box devices based on Raspberry Pi and the end up being expensive.

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1547898916/own- mailbox-...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1547898916/own-mailbox-the- first-100-confidential-mailbox#project_faq_146547)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked. What's more, you deserve to be hacked.

— Richard Clarke

<comment><USER7> Ha ha... Good one...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love this project. I already bought mine.

</comment><comment><USER9> I just Backed it! Hope it will be good!

<comment><USER10> me too...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> AY YO kickstarter wont let me login.

<comment><USER6> Working now

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's good!

</comment><comment><USER12> Good project

</comment><comment><USER13> go go go

</comment><comment><USER14> I am impatient to see the result of this campaign!

</comment><comment><USER15> Love this project!</comment>


Ask HN: How do you track and share your data reports within your team? - <AUTHOR> I'd like to understand what tools and practises data analysts and data scientists (if any) normally use to track and share reports (either ad-hoc reports or regular reports) with the team (or managers).<p>Any advice? <comment><USER2> jupyter hub</comment>


A Patent Is Worth Having, Right? Well, Maybe Not - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/15/business/yourmoney/15proto.html/partner/rssnyt?_r=1&oref=slogin

<comment><USER2> excellent article on patents and the need for change in the process</comment>


MS should dump Windows in favor of a Unix-based windowing shell - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.infoworld.com/venezia/archives/018104.html

<comment><USER2> Why Unix? It's not like it's the ultimate OS. If M$ is smart, they'll forge ahead with Singularity. Unix's security model is great for mainframes with a knowledgeable super user custodian. It's outdated for today's Internet.

<comment><USER3> _Unix's security model is great for mainframes with a knowledgeable super user custodian. It's outdated for today's Internet._

You're right that the traditional user-group-other read-write-execute security model is outdated, but modern freenixes have support for ACLs -- so in this respect Microsoft could replicate the existing Windows model on top of Unix.

I don't think that Microsoft should give up on Singularity -- it sounds like a very exciting research project -- but it might be a good idea to have a back- up plan in case Singularity doesn't work out.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Links and comments side-by-side in the same window? - <AUTHOR>

Has anyone else ever thought it'd be a good idea for you to be able to look at an HN link, and have the HN comments on it side by side in a separate frame or something? Instead of having to open two tabs, one for each?
Thought it would be nice contextually, since the HN commenters are really smart and often add a ton of value to whatever the article is actually talking about.
Knowing HN this may have already been created and I just don't know about it. <comment><USER2> Here are two chrome extensions that might alleviate some of that for you. I think there are equivs for other browsers:

Hacker News Sidebar: [https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/hhedbplnihmkekhg...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/hhedbplnihmkekhgmaoikgfbkjjaocnl)

Hacker News One Page:

[https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/plldnnbdlbgbiknj...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/plldnnbdlbgbiknjebohmlggcbicghlj)

</comment><comment><USER3> I want to say I have seen this before, but can't dig up where. I agree with you that it would be a nice to have. There have been many times when I click an article (forgetting to open in a new tab), read it and think of something great to say, but then get distracted and never post. Even just having a target = "_blank" would be a decent step forward so I don't navigate away from HN.

<comment><USER4> I do recall seeing somebody's project over the past few weeks. It did this, pretty much. I can't recall the URL, but it had three or so iframes - one with HN article listing, one with the page destination and another with comments.

Personally, it ended up being a worse experience than just using HN as it is. I do agree, though, that target="_blank" would be a very nice addition.

<comment><USER5> Then I'd rather that target=_blank was a config option. I personally prefer if I can decide if I want the link to open in the same or a new window, which I can do now.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What precise problem does machine learning solve? - <AUTHOR> Can someone give me a precise specification of the problem that machine learning actually solves. This would be useful so anytime someone suggests it, I can start my line of reasoning with "the problem machine learning solves is..."<p>Analogous example: "the problem the blockchain solves is decentralized trust." <comment><USER2> Machine learning doesn't solve one problem, but thousands. It's like asking what problem does a knife solve - it can be used to cutting, stabbing, throwing, scaring, etc.

ML is used in the areas where there no known algorithms, or the algorithms are too slow or simply not good enough.

In more general terms, ML tries to provide hgh quality outputs for given inputs.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think this can't be right. Machine learning is a bunch of small variations to a central algorithm. There must be one specific problem that it solves, otherwise it would be thousands of radically different algorithms. The second half of your answer is closer to what I'm looking for, but it's too vague.

<comment><USER2> ML is a bunch of different algorithms, and each of them has their own variations. Like deep learning is a general one, but then there are all kinds of topologies that result in various applications and performance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> outputing the extcaction of the right content from the input. learning is extcacting. so "the problem machine learning solves is machine content extcaction"

</comment><comment><USER4> "The problem the machine learning solves is interrupted pattern analysis."</comment>


Ask HN: How do you get notifications about a comment? - <AUTHOR>

Sometimes I post a comment and I would like to know when someone posts a reply, how to do? <comment><USER2> I use the "threads" link when I want to check if there are any responses to my comments. It shows my comments in paged reverse chronological order, and any responses to it.</comment>


The official Basecamp iPhone app - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3430-launch-the-official-basecamp-iphone-app

<comment><USER2> "Eventually we came to the conclusion that we should stick with what we're good at: web apps. We know the technologies well, we have a great development environment and workflow, we can control the release cycle, and everyone at 37signals can do the work. It's what we already do, just on a smaller screen. We all loved our smaller screens so we were eager to dive in. Plus, since WebKit-based browsers were making their way to the webOS and Blackberry platforms too, our single web-app would eventually run on just about every popular smartphone platform.", Jason Fried, <http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2761-launch-basecamp-mobile>

So, should we expect 37signals to ditch "bootstrapping" over VC-funded startups soon?

Let me be clear, I'm not out to troll 37signals. But here's the thing, if you claim a superior ideology, sell that ideology on paperback and then go against your own methodology, you're going to get some feedback. You can't claim that everyone is a troll, or a "cesspool" whenever people confront these ideas - especially when you're selling them for $.

<comment><USER3> You couldn't possibly have read the article. They took a hybrid approach, which means that the vast majority of the app is still written in html/css/javascript. "The page stacking behavior and navigation menus are native while the rest of the screens are web views." - straight from the article.

So a more apt analogy than yours might be "we should expect 37signals to continue bootstrapping but also take a small loan from a bank to cover short term expenses".

<comment><USER2> I did read the article. Both of them, actually. It was clear that most of the app is HTML5, CSS, JS. As originally stated in their previous post, they aren't keen on developing for multiple platforms natively. What they have released goes against the "write once, run anywhere" message that they've been selling for years. I'm quiet familiar with the tech stack they are developing on and so I know that while most is HTML5, there is definitely a development cost if they choose to go cross-platform. It's not as simple as you're alluding.

<comment><USER3> Even with straight web browsers it's never 100% "write once, run anywhere" as any good web developer will know. You will always need to account for the idiosyncrasies of every browser, screen size, and system, and in the case of 37 Signals' new basecamp app, I see it as being no different. They most likely needed to gain access to some native apis and take advantage of a more reliable method of animating the page swipes.

And re-read your first post. You are suggesting that 37 Signals has done a 180 degree about-face, which is really unfair especially since you do actually understand the tech.

<comment><USER2> I'm not suggesting a 180 degree about-face. And if we were talking about a company that didn't sell philosophy in the form of books and blogs, my point would have much less relevance.

> _as any good web developer will know._

Am I missing something here? Pretty sure I haven't written 2 books, decrying overhead and the ills of appeasement. 37signals have 2 books (which I've read) that clearly illustrate why you should avoid scope/feature-creep – especially for the cost of satisfying a few people. The avoidance of a native app followed this lineage.

I've watched the slow, articulated steps from "bootstrapping", Jeff Bezos, "this is different because X", etc. It's all very well and good, but you've charged people $. Like any customer, expectations are there.

So I am to ignore hundreds of pages of text because we all don't have the books in front of us right now for reference?

My overarching point is, if you're going to sell me an ideology - stay with it.

<comment><USER3> "So, should we expect 37signals to ditch "bootstrapping" over VC-funded startups soon?"

I don't know how anybody could interpret this as anything but a complete about-face. _Ditch_ being the key word. For your analogy to make sense, 37 Signals would have had to _ditch_ html/css/javascript as their main stack for the mobile app, which they clearly did not.

<comment><USER2> Sorry, this bit about _ditching_ is tongue-in-cheek. I don't actually expect them to do so, although I do feel that eventually this will happen and we'll all be back here discussing why _it's different because of X_. I'm also confused why the overwhelming majority of HN readers manage to claim that a HTML5/PhoneGap app is inferior to a native one, but then somehow bob and weave when 37signals does the same thing. Confusing!

I have a problem with people speaking from authority, claiming their philosophy works well (which I agree with) and then slowly proposing the opposite. Again, as a frequent reader of their posts and philosophy, I'm confused as to why providing reference to this philosophy is considered blasphemy.

I'm also confused by the very vocal and opinionated damning of security in other platforms by DHH while Rails suffers security issue after security issue. Suddenly, DHH isn't all that opinionated on security. And I'm the jerk for pointing this out, right?

I know every person who disagrees with DHH or JF is automatically a troll without examination, but I'm a little tired of being considered a 37signals hater while I pay monthly for Basecamp, purchase their books and follow their line of work.

<comment><USER3> > I'm also confused why the overwhelming majority of HN readers manage to > claim that a HTML5/PhoneGap app is inferior to a native one, but then > somehow bob and weave when 37signals does the same thing. Confusing!

I agree with you there; it _is_ confusing.

<comment><USER2> This makes me think you may have interpreted my criticism as either PhoneGap or Objective-C bias. For the record, I believe in _the right tool for the job_ , so it does not at all bother me that 37signals went HTML5/PhoneGap/etc.

What bothers me is the slight of hand with the principals they are selling. In some broad respects, 37signals is the _Oprah_ of the web biz - I know that sounds nuts, but I do believe that they sell a philosophy of _betterment of the small business_. There is a social responsibility, in my opinion, to uphold the tenets or at least explain why they are now different.

<comment><USER3> I'll agree that they should have at least acknowledged their previous stance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks good. Shame there is no mention of Android at all.

The biggest thing I took away from this blog post was this.

"NOTE: Basecamp for iPhone requires an account on the new Basecamp (released March 2012). Basecamp Classic is not supported."

I wonder what % of users haven't switched over even after a year. I think this is a good lesson for anyone thinking about effectively launching a new product to replace one they already have.

The company I work for did a similar thing about 15 months ago. We still have about 10% of clients on the old system. We offered free upgrades to get everyone over but some didn't want it. New platform has now diverged sufficiently away from the old one that there is no direct upgrade path any more. This has effectively left 10% of clients stranded.

Looking back I think any replacement product needs to be 100% compatible and after x months clients are forced over. It causes some short term hassle and support costs but in the medium term really simplifies development work if old products are completely retired.

<comment><USER5> _Looking back I think any replacement product needs to be 100% compatible and after x months clients are forced over._

I actually think this is a ploy to get their users to convert. 37signals has a strong "we let our users outgrow us" stance, so what I read between the lines is that 37signals sees no hassle continuing to support the old system (it's massively profitable). Dually it gives a better justification for an up-sell to get people on to the new system.

I think this strategy is brilliant.

<comment><USER6> I'd love to take credit for a brilliant strategy, but this isn't one of them. The story is very simple. We released an iPhone app for the all new version of Basecamp. Nothing more, nothing less.

<comment><USER5> But do you see it an issue (i.e. costs) supporting two different systems? Why doesn't it support the old system? Surely that _had_ to come up in conversation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Worth noting: this was built using RubyMotion (<http://www.rubymotion.com/>).

<comment><USER8> I think this is the most exciting tech news this year. I really hope that this pushes RubyMotion further out into the mainstream. I've had phenomenal success with that toolchain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Seems a bit funny since just last September they blogged their mobile version and "no app required."

<https://basecamp.com/1679267/announcements/10>

One of the reasons I recall this is that I saved this particular e-mail newsletter at the time. I thought it of particular interest they dedicated resources on making a mobile browser performant version and had eschewed a mobile application approach. So what has changed or did they feel a deficiency in that version?

<comment><USER6> There's still no app required. The app is completely optional.

<comment><USER9> So as a confused customer, what option do you recommend and why are there two options if both are similar in function?

<comment><USER10> Try both for a few minutes and make a decision?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting that it's launched within seven days of <http://getcampapp.com/..>. There was even an item about it this 'morning' on HN.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wish they just put more effort into making their web interfaces more responsive. Trying to use Campfire from the browser on my Galaxy Nexus is nearly impossible.

<comment><USER13> Not sure if serious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I downloaded the iPhone app and tried it out. I'm actually quite impressed. The interactions are quite speedy and the app has a "native" feel to it. It also helps that the design of the app is quite nicely done.

I've been a big proponent of full native apps on mobile when possible. But this has got me thinking that the hybrid approach can be a smart move when done right.

</comment><comment><USER15> I remember when they said the way to go was HTML5 and all that talk. Glad their changed their vision.

<comment><USER16> It's a hybrid app, views written in HTML5 & CSS3, and wrapped on the device. Navigation is native.

(Source: the post)

<comment><USER17> Chances are that in a year or so, they'll release a completely native app. That seems to be the trend now - go HTML5 initially to get an app out fast, then create a native app later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> From a friend I saw logging in, it seemed like the oauth webview screen (that 3rd party apps use to interact with the API) has been ditched for something native as well. Something 3rd party apps can never re-create.

<comment><USER19> The login screen for the official app is a webview as well. Most of the app is!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So if they're using Rubymotion for their iOS hybrid app, I wonder if they'll use <http://ruboto.org> for their Android hybrid app?

</comment><comment><USER20> Simple, dumb questions: So what is the point of it being hybrid, actually? Speed of development? Multiple platforms?

<comment><USER21> Native views and web views are good at different things.

Native is good for high fidelity interaction, animations, responding to gestures. However the native APIs are bad for designing "documents" -- that is, layouts where elements flow within a container and push each other around. That means that things that are extremely easy on the web can be painstaking in native UI without much upside.

Web views have limited interactivity, but they have other advantages:

* Faster iterations. You don't need to push a build when a webview changes.

* Document-style layout, as mentioned above.

* Higher density. We found it easier to show more information on the screen with HTML/CSS than the native controls. Looking at other apps out there makes me think it's an attribute of the medium, not just us.

* No need to sync data or duplicate logic. Sending HTML down the pipe is simple.

Finally yes, we get the multi-platform advantages because the web views are also served to people who hit the regular mobile web version of the app without any wrapper.

<comment><USER3> I'm on a project where we're taking the hybrid approach and I can second all the points Ryan has made here. We are launching our app soon on iOS _and_ Android so we're getting the full benefit of cross-platform compatibility. We've run into literally zero cross-platform browser issues during the process, too. Hybrid is definitely the way to go if your app is text heavy like Basecamp and our app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What about a native iPad version?

<comment><USER21> One step at a time.</comment></comment>


Why Young Americans Should Work Overseas - <AUTHOR> http://markmanson.net/work-overseas

<comment><USER2> very interesting...Although, with the dollar having so much value compared to some other currencies, people from some of these other countries still prefer coming to the states (easier to build up wealth, at least for their own countries if not in the states). But i do agree that there is a great world out there and nothing opens a person's mind more than traveling.</comment>


Build a No-Slot MIDI Interface on the Apple ][ Game I/O Socket - <AUTHOR> https://paleotronic.com/2020/07/05/build-a-no-slot-midi-interface-on-the-apple-game-i-o-socket/ <comment><USER2> Did similar stuff on Atari & Amiga. We actually had an app that could create SMPTE timecode on a pin of a printer port. Then we could read the timecode back (on an interrupt) and synchronize a MIDI score to a multi-track tape recorder. Oh and we used another pin to output MIDI...

fun times

</comment><comment><USER3> I used to run my printer off my Apple II using the same kind of trick. Instead of having a separate card, I used the game IO socket and some machine code.

</comment><comment><USER4> Had no idea that MIDI recommended/required (?) an opto-isolator as part of the spec. Makes a ton of sense given the range (& expense!) of supporting devices and the intended use.

</comment><comment><USER5> I just had a flashback to the challenge of finding 150ohm dual axis variable pots to have a joystick for an apple ][ because the ones that they sold at Radio Shack were 100ohm.

</comment><comment><USER6> > The signals sent on your MIDI OUT port need to drive a phototransistor > inside an opto-isolator in the MIDI IN circuit.

I would assume that MIDI OUT needs to drive LED in an opto-isolator.</comment>


Complexify - a jQuery Plugin to ACCURATELY Gauge Password Complexity - <AUTHOR> http://danpalmer.me/jquery-complexify

<comment><USER2> Someone humour me, why does password complexity _really_ matter?

Password complexity doesn't prevent phishing, password complexity doesn't prevent social engineering which are in my experience the 2 biggest issues. Password complexity only _really_ prevents brute forcing, but any system that allows you to hammer it with 100, 1000 or 10000 requests isn't going to be secure anyway. It also goes some way to preventing a password being cracked if the hash is stolen, but that shouldn't be an issue if proper security practices are followed. The only other possibility is that complex passwords can't be read over the shoulder or memorised, if someone sees "p4ssw0rd" it's easy to remember, "P$()\£\\(\FDDFA" isn't.

The only real value in complex passwords that I can see is that it makes users think "my password is only 10% secure? I must try harder at security!" but do many even think that? I pay no attention to the complexity meters sites have...

So what am I missing? The way I see it the only _real_ security is a password manager with unique passwords for every account. Surely encouraging that is better than wasting time telling a user if you think their password is secure or not?

<comment><USER3> Your logic is flawed; just because password complexity doesn't mitigate some of your carefully constructed scenarios, doesn't mean that it's useless. You even mention up some of its merit yourself.

Password complexity (when done right) DOES makes it more difficult to:

-brute force passwords -crack hashes -perform rainbow table attacks -do password sweeps, e.g. do one password guess on every known user name (effectively avoiding account lockout) -do 'one off' guesses

It is not perfect alone, but it is one very important component of every secure and reliable application.

<comment><USER2> I understand that complex passwords have merit because they prevent some scenarios, my problem with the focus that is put on it. Having a complex password does help protect you from brute forcing, but it doesn't protect you from the problems that most people suffer: phishing and social engineering and in a scenario like a system you use is breached you can safely suggest your password _is_ stolen, in which case no matter how complex it is you're not safe. How many stolen accounts are from brute forcing? In my own experience with user support all stolen passwords have been a case of phishing or social engineering (eg: "I am important you need to give me your password").

My "issue" (if you can call it that) is if you say to a user signing up to your website "Your password is 50% secure!" they'll mistakenly assume that means they're safe and can throw out all other security practices. It doesn't matter how complex their password is a password is never secure when humans are involved, a password can be considered secure _enough_ if it's unique to a website but once a password is being used on multiple websites it doesn't matter how complex it is, all it takes is for one site to be breached and it's a worthless password.

Instead of telling users that if their password meets some arbitrary requirements that it's suddenly more secure than another password that has 1 less character we should tell them that they need to assume their password can be stolen and if it is using unique passwords per website will protect them.

Passwords aren't either "secure" or "insecure" based on the password itself, they're secure until someone else knows it. If your password becomes insecure (either through phishing or brute forcing) you need to be ready to limit the damage, if every website you use has the same password (no matter how complex it is) and your password becomes insecure you have a huge problem, if you use a unique password per-website you're safe from most damage.

If you have an account on 100 websites it's better to have an "easy" password (eg: "2809911234" (my birth date followed by 1234)) different on each website than it is to have 1 password on every website that is super complex (eg: "£ _(U_ &(FDJHDIFHJDJHF& _DF &^_SDF&^S^&*").

Password security should work under the assumption that someone DOES know your password or WILL know your password and you should be limiting the problem. People sign up to websites all the time that they have no idea how secure they are, I administrate a website with 1.3 million users, I could be a scary russian hacker that is just stealing their details to hack their Paypal accounts and empty their banks, but if they had unique passwords everywhere that would not be an issue. It doesn't matter how complex a password is, the moment you input it into a form on a website it becomes insecure.

To tl:dr; my waffle and address your main point:

> just because password complexity doesn't mitigate some of your carefully > constructed scenarios, doesn't mean that it's useless.

You're correct, password complexity isn't useless but it isn't important enough to warrant being the only thing users are told. Password complexity is a small part of having good online security; making it the focus of security by using it in forms is misleading to users. Anecdotally I know someone (supposedly smart) who berated me for having a password that was only 10 characters long because a website said a 10 character password can be hacked in 3 days, he didn't understand that the 3 days is how long it would take a computer to compute my password, not that someone could "target" me and have my password on their computer in 3 days. Even smart people don't have a clue about security and password complexity on forms just misleads them further.

Passwords are secure until someone else knows it, they're not secure based on how complex they are. A password that is 16 characters is only more "secure" than a 10 character password if you live in a vacuum where the only issue is brute forcing (or similar computational attacks).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not a perfect metric as he admits, but a great deal better than nothing. One thing that has bothered me from the beginning is the problem of the user's retention of the information. How do we do a min/max of sufficient complexity to deter cracking but allow the user to remember the password in question? This last is one reason that I've kept up interest in bio-metric efforts for security.

<comment><AUTHOR> I always find alternatives to password security interesting, but I don't think any are actually feasible at the moment. We need to realise that passwords are here to stay for a long time, and we need to promote the use of strong passwords that will last a long time.

"8 characters with a number" - the criteria many normal users consider a good password, is just not good enough any more in this ago of $2.50 an hour for an EC2 instance with a few graphics cards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is better than pretty much all similar projects I've seen. Might implement it somewhere. My usual password for sites gets 46%, which I guess I'm fine with.. The password I use for my TrueCrypt password easily gets to 100%, so I'm cool with that.

<comment><AUTHOR> I was annoyed that my password (which would take ~1x10^30 years to brute force) gets a low score on every site with one of these because it doesn't contain a number.

This is my answer. Passwords are judged on their complexity properly rather than a naïve interpretation of complexity.

If you do implement it somewhere, let me know where. Also fork and contribute if you want.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> A fifteen letter password that is a mixture of letters, numbers and symbols is only 56% complex? That's bonkers. What's the point of measuring complexity if you aren't going to be able to remember the password?

<comment><USER7> It depends on what the password is for. I think the more complex passwords are appropriate for root passwords or databases, but for user passwords, you would have to educate users that anything above a certain threshold (say 30%) is good enough. My attempt fJ6 _& $h12@ was 40% and $Y8th&t_%k^! was 48% and these are way more complex than most people need to secure email or log in to a web app. Above a certain level, and they'll write it on a sticky note.

<comment><AUTHOR> Those two passwords aren't too bad, but they aren't amazing. They are only 9 characters and length matters far more than the character sets you include. This is the big misconception many users have, and it's promoted by all the password strength meters that get this wrong. Complexify is my attempt at providing a better metric.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Only real issue I can see is that a length 10 string of random lower case letters is given the same rating as a 10 letter long dictionary word (whereas ofc the dictionary word would be cracked first).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, and I did actually put at the bottom that this does not have any indication of how crackable it would be with a dictionary attack. Unfortunately I don't think that's feasible.

<comment><USER9> You could potentially 'compress' the dictionary into a bloom filter. You'd have a chance of false positives (ie: a word looks like a dictionary word), but that's probably acceptable in this case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Try 52 "1"s. You get a password with 100% complexity.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is also a 52 character password. I'm betting no one wants to try brute forcing 20+ character passwords at the moment. While it is a very contrived example, it's also not as bad as it seems for security.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I started typing in a password, and then thought that this is an easy way to harvest passwords that people think is hard to crack.

<comment><AUTHOR> Feel free to have a look at the javascript, see what's going on in the page, or watch network traffic.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Software developers with good media presence? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I'm writing a software development book and I'd like to send some free copies to software developers who are well connected in the hopes that they feel inclined to recommend it.<p>The book is a Java software development book, any ideas? <comment><USER2> ask open source developers you admire? or just find blogs that you like with related topics.</comment>


Office for iOS May Make Billions for Microsoft But Dooms Surface - <AUTHOR> http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/office-for-ios-may-make-billions-for-microsoft-but-dooms-surface

<comment><AUTHOR> Essentially ...

"While Mr. Holt argues that disappointing sales of the company's Surface tablet and large estimated demand by iOS users for Office may be too financially compelling for Microsoft to continue avoiding Apple's mobile platform, the implications of moving Office to iOS may doom the company's mobile strategy."</comment>


Ask HN: What does brexit mean for EU developers looking to find work in the UK? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Until the end of this year nothing will change. You can still move to and settle in the UK, if you're crazy enough to want to for some reason.

It's not yet known what the situation will look like post-2020.

You'll need to apply for pre-settled status before mid next year

<comment><USER3> This. The demand is there, but the environment is not welcoming. Engage remotely if you can and save yourself a lot of problems.

<comment><USER4> > The demand is there, but the environment is not welcoming.

Can you expand on this?

<comment><USER5> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Office_hostile_environmen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Office_hostile_environment_policy)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For now, nothing.

But EU citizens working in the UK must apply for pre-settled status by the 30 June 2021. But who know what will happen by the end of 2020. A FTA by the UK- EU or US or an out right no deal scenario are possible outcomes from the process which could change this situation for EU citizens in the UK.

<comment><USER7> > But EU citizens working in the UK must apply for pre-settled status by the > 30 June 2021.

I just want to point out that this also applies to EU citizens who _already have a certificate for permanent residence_. That's right - if you went through the painstaking and expensive process of applying for a document on which the UK government states that you have the right to live and work in the UK indefinitely... that document is now worth nothing and you have to apply for "settled status" just like anyone who doesn't have that certificate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Trust me, if you're an EU citizen, you don't want to work in the UK. Horribly dysfunctional, overtaxed country run by evil kleptocratic psychopaths. Take a look at the Nordics instead.

<comment><USER9> I take it you're living in the UK then?

<comment><USER8> Six bloody years. No more!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For the moment it's not clear what's ahead, but for those EU developers who are allowed to work in the UK in the future, as I see it the biggest risk is that the current reciprocal agreements concerning healthcare, retirement plans, and unemployment insurance will no longer exist, and so the cost of that will have to be factored in when considering a job offer.

</comment><comment><USER11> EU workers would need a visa like the rest of us non-EUs if they don't get pre-settled status.

</comment><comment><USER12> Singapore vs 51st State vs Iceland? Rien ne va plus, le jeux sont fait. ... ball rolling ....... number 0 ... . The dealer always wins.

<comment><USER13> Is this result of one of those famous "fridge magnet poetry" things that I keep reading about? Because I have no clue what message you are trying to deliver.

<comment><USER12> It is not difficult to understand, though? Out of the EU, every party is going to lose in the short term. As a EU citizen, stay away for a while and let the UK drift until their role coalesces into something smooth and clear enough.

<comment><USER13> I'm sorry, I do not understand at all what you are trying to say - I think it's because you are not giving any context to what you are saying, instead just making a statement - but maybe that is just me :/

<comment><USER12> Ok, third time lucky, I hope. Should a EU citizen relocate to the UK for IT or engineering work right now? Nope, in my humble opinion, until the Brexit dust settles at both governmental and practical level.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


An Analysis of fear-based enriched extortion attacks - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-my-victim-analysis-fear-based-enriched-extortion-zach-cissp <comment><USER2> I've been pushing the one a day I receive of these onto the reporting database at [https://www.bitcoinabuse.com/](https://www.bitcoinabuse.com/) . Unlike the author I've seen very few of the bitcoin accounts have any activity (1 out of 5 at most). The few that do have the wallet in a copy/paste-able format,the others are stuffed into .pngs which seems like a lot for a scammer to ask for . When they hit my mail swerver they're sent from from dialup netblks (Brazil, Panama) or hosts at addresses RIPE indicates are in Ukraine. I probably miss a bunch because of heavy rbl filtering in front of the MTA.</comment>


GitHib Collections: Open-Source Organizations - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/collections/open-source-organizations <comment><AUTHOR> I only found this page after the Microsoft announcement and it instantly triggered my attention. :)

Spoiler: it's only the few organizations listed on the one page.</comment>


How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150602-dinosaurs-to-birds/

<comment><USER2> Paedomorphosis (juvenile characteristics remaining in adults) is a really neat mechanism for producing radically different-looking animals in a short time.

In the short span of ~30,000 years, we've managed to turn wolves into corgis that look like puppies their entire lives. We ourselves are often said to be a result of paedomorphosis from other primates -- now with less hair, bigger heads, and weaker muscles.

<comment><USER3> Yes, indeed. For humans, it's somewhat just a change in developmental timing. As we age, we start looking more like adult chimpanzees/bonobos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Simple version: The amount of Oxygen in the air decreased, giving the Dino- birds less energy. so they became smaller.

Also air with less Oygen is lighter, another good reason for Dino-birds to loose weight.

<comment><USER5> On the contrary: The amount of CO₂ decreased. I see more of a correlation between CO₂, big plants (food supplies) and animals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why is 10 million years a blip in evolutionary time when you see the massive chamges that can happen on Islands in 100s of years?

<comment><USER7> You can see some chang s over 100's of years. Nothing as dramatic as this. I wouldn't call 10 million years quite a blip though. But dinosaurs were around for almost 200 million years! Some animals have not evolved much in hundreds of millions of years, like sharks and crocodiles.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, it's a remarkable thing that Homo Sapiens is closer in time to Tyrannosaurus Rex than T. Rex is in time to Stegosaurus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just so.</comment>


Handling Network Failures in the Cloud - <AUTHOR> https://www.shayon.dev/post/2020/130/handling-network-failures-in-the-cloud/ <comment><USER2> Good article. Expected a bit more content.</comment>


Ask HN: Did you get accepted into the Google Glass explorers program?  - <AUTHOR>

http://www.twitter.com/projectglass <comment><USER2> I got a tweet back, not sure what that means</comment>


If someone can do it for free, then it will be inevitably free - <AUTHOR> http://montrealtechwatch.com/2008/07/27/building-a-profitable-business/

<comment><USER5> This is a simple failure to understand economics. Most things cannot be done for free. It might be possible to code them for free, but hosting on an ongoing basis, not so much. There are plenty of businesses where ad revenue just won't cut it.

"For instance, that's why content-based businesses (say newspapers) are doomed because there's always people like Mark, me or even the average guy willing to spend one hour in their day writing articles and take pictures of what's up."

It's sad that newspapers let it get to this. It used to be that their journalism was a cut above. They spent the (relatively) big bucks on the good reporters, gave them the leeway to chase stories, many of which never amounted to anything, in order to provide hard hitting analysis. Now they just farm it out to AP or Reuters, until some clown bloggers think their hour a day is a solid substitute.

Newspapers that actually do quality reporting (NYT, WSJ) are struggling with the new economy but will come out ahead in the end.

<comment><USER6> I think what they mean by "free" is "no charge to the user"; it still costs money to run Web 2.0. Maybe a better tagline would be anything that can be subsidized will inevitably be subsidized.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Only if it's fun or prestigious.

Corollary: The less talented the founders of a company are, the more they should focus on things that are not fun or prestigious.

People who are very talented can do a better job even at things other people are willing to do free, and charge for the difference. But if you're no better than the people working for free, you can only charge for things they're unwilling to do.

E.g. if you're really good (for some definition of good) you can make money playing your own songs. If not, you can only make money playing covers at weddings. The distinction in software between product companies and consulting companies is the same.

<comment> daniel-cussen >Corollary: The less talented the founders of a company are, the more they should focus on things that are not fun or prestigious.

Would it be a good idea for a founder to focus on boring/lame things anyway, if only as a way to improve his/her odds? Which viable ideas strike you as the most boring?

<comment><USER7> Of the ones I included in that recent list

<http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html>

the most boring is probably 5 (enterprise 2.0), preferably in the form of 7 (something your company needs that doesn't exist).

21 (finance software) and 29 (site builders) are also promisingly boring.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _if someone can do it for free, then it will be inevitably free._

I agree. It's similar to reversion to normal profits through commoditization, but where the costs (labour and capital) can be donated or supported by advertising.

But "inevitable" means _one day_ it will be free. It doesn't mean "today", just that your window of opportunity is time-limited.

 _People serious about business should then move to areas where people can't replicated it easily, for instance by having_ unique technology _[...]_

Unique technology can be protection by patent law (especially if it really is original and non-trivial). But how effective are they against well-heeled corporations - in practice? How effective are they against open source - <USER2> practice? (they are not 100% effective, but I'm not saying they are 0% effective - just asking _how_ effective)

Unique technology can also be protected by confidentiality, but usually it's not hard to reverse engineer, if competitors want to. Saas hides your tech better than software products (that competitors can access), but both can be reverse engineered. Secret tech does buy you time (how long?). You can keep ahead indefinitely if you can keep coming up with additional unique technology Assumptions: there are additional techniques to be found... and it is you who finds them.

I think _unique technology_ protects against free only to an extent. It can give you a head-start, during which you can establish other protection - <USER3> will also eventually crumble.

Maybe the best thing is to make something that can't be made for free - <USER4> chewing gum, chocolates, soda, bricks, CPUs - and then use all these protections to fractionally improve your profits?

</comment><comment><USER9> _if someone can do it for free, then it will be inevitably free._

While this is a trend, it might not always be true.

In France, Mediapart (mediapart.fr) is a website with a focus on investigation-journalism, built on principles such as independence from political/media groups.

Subscription fee: 9 euros (14 usd)/month. The project founders are hopeful to reach a sustainable number of subscribers (which is 65 000, 3 years from launch; they currently have 8000 subscribers after 4 months).

Conclusion: a high-quality customized product for a niche, although online, could justify the price - directly paid by the users - for that product.

</comment><comment><USER10> Some services (in context of web), these days, are not only free: they offer their users (and eventual contributors) a piece of their cake, too. Random examples are google (search + adsense), and scour (search + annotation).

I wonder where this is going to get: how strong will the "make money too" factor prove over "it gives me what I want" motivation?

</comment><comment><USER11> Free content drives out unfree content.

<comment><USER12> _Good_ free content that is

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Website is timing out for me...

<comment><USER5> Apparently nobody could fix it for free.</comment></comment>


How to Run WordPress on a Kubernetes Cluster - <AUTHOR> https://dotlayer.com/how-to-run-wordpress-in-a-kubernetes-cluster/?u=0 <comment><USER2> For those interested, Kubernetes has an official tutorial about this: [https://kubernetes.io/docs/tutorials/stateful- application/my...](https://kubernetes.io/docs/tutorials/stateful- application/mysql-wordpress-persistent-volume/)

So does Google Container Engine: [https://cloud.google.com/container- engine/docs/tutorials/per...](https://cloud.google.com/container- engine/docs/tutorials/persistent-disk)</comment>