Alcatel-Lucent sets record of 10 Gbps over traditional copper telephone lines - <AUTHOR> http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/press/2014/alcatel-lucent-sets-new-world-record-broadband-speed-10-gbps-transmission-data-over-traditional <comment><USER2> The idea here is to provide very high speed from the street (which has fiber) to the home or office using existing copper - the last 30 meters. Laying fiber in the street is far easier than running it through buildings where every building has it's own challenges.

Nice intro to the theory around data transmission limits: [http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2010/explained- shannon-0115](http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2010/explained-shannon-0115)

<comment><USER3> That's what BT Infinity is in the UK. I currently get 80Mbps down and 19Mbps up - which is perfect for offsite backups of family photos etc.

It's also totally unlimited, with no FUP - I've pulled down many hundreds of gigabytes per month (I work with very large data files and often work from home) and not heard so much as a peep from them about it.

<comment> vertex-four Also, they dropped the traffic management on the unlimited packages last year, so it doesn't throttle you ever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "In contrast, XG-FAST uses an increased frequency range up to 500 MHz to achieve higher speeds but over shorter distances. Bell Labs achieved 1 Gbps symmetrical over 70 meters on a single copper pair. 10 Gbps was achieved over a distance of 30 meters by using two pairs of lines (a technique known as "bonding"). Both tests used standard copper cable provided by a European operator."

30 meters with bonded pair for 10 Gbps. While this is pretty cool, due to distance limitation we are not getting telephone line modems that can outstrip fiber optics.

<comment><USER5> > While this is pretty cool, due to distance limitation we are not getting > telephone line modems that can outstrip fiber optics.

From the article:

"XG-FAST can help operators accelerate FTTH deployments, taking fiber very close to customers without the major expense and delays associated with entering every home."

So you actually _are_ getting a modem, hooked up to your telephone line, that goes up to 70m over telephone cable to the street, and then fiber the rest of the way. Makes a lot more sense than literally doing fiber to every home.

<comment><USER6> > So you actually are getting a modem, hooked up to your telephone line, that > goes up to 70m over telephone cable to the street, and then fiber the rest > of the way. Makes a lot more sense than literally doing fiber to every home.

This is exactly how AT&T Uverse works in brownfield retrofits.

<comment><USER7> Much more than 70 metres typically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anyone know if this would be feasible in Australia? Our National Broadband Network was originally planned to be fiber-to-the-home, but changed to a fiber-to-the-node system with the change of government. Not sure how close the average home is to its nearest node, so I don't know if it'd be less than 30 metres in most cases...

<comment><USER9> No.

This is for fiber to the premise, not fiber to the node. It would have solved some of the problems with the old NBN model, especially in highrise buildings in the city.

I'm simply for this by the fact the government has been progressively removing all technical references about the NBN from every government website. During their election they promised a climate controlled box every 500 meters or so. This was ridiculed as completely out of the question due to cost and maintenance and has been quietly dropped since then. So even at the best case scenario the distance will be x20 as long as in these trials. And as the researchers noted: "giving broadband speeds up to 500 Mbps over a distance of 100 meters. In contrast, XG-FAST uses an increased frequency range up to 500 MHz to achieve higher speeds but over shorter distances."

<comment><USER10> > No. This is for fiber to the premise, ...

It's about squeezing more out of the existing copper to the premise, while we wait for fibre to arrive.

<comment><USER9> No. It's about nit needing to rip out whole buildings to put in fiber to the plug. They say it in the article.

<comment><USER10> You don't rip out the building because you're using the existing copper that runs inside the building. Maybe you'd run fibre from the junction box to the building then, or maybe you'd just use the existing copper on that route too.

<comment><USER9> Please read the article. This technology is only viable for copper wires shorter than 30m. The previous spec at 1/10 speed was for wire shorter than 100m.

<comment><USER10> Quoth the article:

"a major business benefit in locations where it is not physically, economically or aesthetically viable to lay new fiber cables all the way into residences. Instead, fiber can be brought to the curbside, wall or basement of a building and the existing copper network used for the final few meters."

I interpreted "the premise" as the building, but perhaps the conventional interpretation is the entire grounds. Either way, this is certainly about squeezing more out of the existing copper.

<comment><USER9> Existing copper inside the building.

It is absolutely useless for the 1km+ distance to exchanges common in cities and 10km+ common in rural settings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Although this is spun to sound like a breakthough, it's basically a cost reduction measure. G.fast and this new XG.fast are there to avoid the hassle of negotiating with each householder as to how new fibre gets deployed on their property, when it's a lot easier to negotiate with the municipality all in one go.

<comment><USER12> Cost reduction being a key factor!

The greatest breakthroughs provide something for the masses at a lower cost than previously possible. An important part of engineering is leveraging existing infrastructure to improve service quality. As an example of this it has been technically possible to put fibre into every home for years but apparently not feasible, price-wise. Speed is speed whether it's copper or fibre.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "speed of 10 Gbps for transmission of data over traditional copper telephone lines" Good news for some places where they still use copper telephone lines connect to the Internet. But in my view, Chinese operators don't like this technology, they more like optical fiber. The first, it's faster than copper telephone and the future copper telephone lines will completely replaced. The second, in countrysides some bad guys steal the copper to sell for money, it's a big problem for operators.

<comment><USER14> Take for example remote/rural communities however. It is enormous investment to run fiber out to these communities. Eventually, the copper will need to be upgraded... In the mean time, this is an excellent stopgap measure.

<comment><USER13> In some ways, you are right. In China, some facts prove countryside's copper is often stolen.Chinese operators has a same measure, they call it "Fiber In, Copper Out"(translate for English it's so hard for me), first is improve network speed, second is reduce copper costs due to stolen. They prefer build fiber in countryside, rather than upgraded copper.

<comment><USER15> I worked for a consulting enginer in the 80's and our telecom guy said the same about African states use microwave for long links as the copper gets nicked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What is much more interesting here is G.Fast, the technology it is based on.

G.Fast, is suppose to be a FTTdp, where fibre goes all the way to your building and replacing the central copper wiring box with its DSLAM. In countries where you have many flats within a building, it is likely the copper wiring to home socket are all within 100M range.

I am not sure this applies to every scenario in every countries. But the concern of Copper quality is mainly a problem with copper outside of the building. Copper within the building are in much better shape and form.

G.Fast also allow operator to config the upload and download speed. Hopefully that means at least 100Mbps of upload speed in the age of cloud computing.

I cant wait to see this deploy. No longer would teleco needs permission and planning to work around every home and every building to get high speed internet.

Huawei and Alcatel-Lucent are the fore front in G.Fast technology.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is interesting, but as has been pointed out, the distances are very limited. Just something to think about, 802.11ac comes pretty close to the same speed with no wires at all, so, it kind of makes you think, why even bother with the wires at all.

<comment><USER18> Spectrum crunch and interference.

<comment><USER7> Probably more likely to be more fundamental - attenuation, I think. But those two certainly don't help either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The problem will be getting regulatory approval. A high speed digital signal at VHF is going to radiate like blazes and wipe out FM Broadcast and hundreds of emergency services.

This system will face the same problems as BPL, only much, much worse.

The truth is that you can't reuse the (all ready full) radio spectrum, especially over copper.

The only way you can do it is with well shielded Coaxial Cable (eg Cable TV) or via light (eg Optical Fiber).

It's a triumph of Sales people over Engineering. Or to put it another way, the laws of physics will always win.

</comment><comment><USER20> If Comcast said, "I can get you a 10Gbit connection, it's fiber all the way, but it's going to end as an SFP port at the pole/wiring closet, and you have to take it from there."

I would have thought homeowners and businessowners alike would spend the money to upgrade their own "infra" to make that work, rather than something like this. Obviously AL thinks there's a market here, it just seems like such a waste.

<comment><USER21> Wiring isn't under control of the home/business owner until it hits their NID, which is already on-prem. Getting the connection to the NID is where the expense is, and it's why AL is putting money into the process. Without this, someone has to spend the thousands of dollars pulling permits/digging trenches to run fiber to your house.

<comment><USER20> I guess I don't understand why you need this much tech just to get the fiber off the pole and into my house [1].

The coax drop from Comcast drapes off the pole, hits little more than a barrel connector on the side of the house, and then comes straight in the house and plugs into the modem.

Why can't you do the same with fiber?

[1] - [http://www.aflglobal.com/Products/Fiber-Outside- Plant/OptiNI...](http://www.aflglobal.com/Products/Fiber-Outside- Plant/OptiNID-Fiber-Demarcation/OptiNID-ONT-760XL-Optical-Demarcation- Closure.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The embedded short on Claude Shannon is very good and highly reccommended [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq1-Iq9Vm28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq1-Iq9Vm28)

A good book on the subject is Gleick's The Information [http://www.amazon.com/The-Information-History-Theory- Flood/d...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Information-History-Theory- Flood/dp/1400096235)

</comment><comment><USER23> This'll make some people switch from cable, back to dialup modems (sort of). Which is funny/cool.

</comment><comment><USER24> [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25840502](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25840502)

Alcatel-Lucent and BT said speeds of 1.4 terabits per second were achieved during their joint test - enough to send 44 uncompressed HD films a second.

Awesome!

</comment><comment><USER25> "It will enable operators to provide Internet connection speeds that are indistinguishable from fiber-to-the-home services"

Doubt it. But it is a nice achievement.

</comment><comment><USER26> 30 meters seems pretty useless, even for a FTTN setup, it would surely be simpler just to run fibre all the way then build nodes every 60 meters or so.

<comment><USER27> Like others said in this thread, copper up to 70m to a switch box, then fiber from there on out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> So why am I still stuck with Comcrap? sonic.net is a great co. with excellent service, and they can only get me 1.4 mbit/sec speed using copper.

<comment><USER7> If you're on 1.4 Mbps then the odds are very good you're too far from your exchange for this to make even the slightest bit of a difference.

Not just by a small factor, but at that speed you're likely to be around two orders of magnitude too far away for this be in any way useful due to the attenuation inherent in your copper line.

The only way this latest increment is useful is to bring fibre in your case about 99% of the way to your household. This will bridge the last 1% because it's cheaper than running fibre into your household.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wonder what the latency is like.

<comment><USER30> We already have similar latency with FTTH and ADSL, this one being "in- between" I don't see how the latency would be any different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> 7/10/2114 Alcatel-Lucent-Comcast-Timewarner megacorp sets record of 10 Tbps over 200 year old copper telephone lines. CEO states "We'd really like to bring you broadband but we've been fighting this last mile issue for quit some time. This new breakthrough will finally solve that."

<comment><USER32> Nitpicking but telephone lines are 1880s and afterwards, and copper doesn't really degrade with age until normal conditions like iron.

<comment><USER31> It's a joke.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Click-bait headline. Add "30 meters" to the headline and it would drop.

<comment><USER34> As some others have mentioned, this isn't about getting internet from the exchange to the home/business, just from the street. In this context 30 metres should be ok for the vast majority. From the article

> It will enable operators to provide Internet connection speeds that are > indistinguishable from fiber-to-the-home services, a major business benefit > in locations where it is not physically, economically or aesthetically > viable to lay new fiber cables all the way into residences. Instead, fiber > can be brought to the curbside, wall or basement of a building and the > existing copper network used for the final few meters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> How in the world can this be cheaper than running the fiber 100 more feet?

<comment><USER36> Because every household has copper phone cables run to it already. You can run fiber to the trunk and have high speed communication using existing copper lines.

> XG-FAST can help operators accelerate FTTH deployments, taking fiber very > close to customers without the major expense and delays associated with > entering every home

<comment><USER37> How many of those existing copper cables are of high enough quality that they can support anywhere near that speed though? The copper lines in my parents' house are so bad they can't even support a second phone line, much less decent networking speeds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Nice technology, but I have had it with telecom company excuses. Electricity has been deployed to most homes in rural areas, as well as copper telephone. It should be no different with fiber. Why could it be done then, but not now?

<comment><USER38> I didn't look up any sources, but if I remember right, the difference was massive government assistance.

edit: Yep - rural electrification was pretty much completely government driven[1]

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_electricity#United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_electricity#United_States)

<comment><USER31> Didn't telecom get billions of tax $ last decade for broadband deployment, with nothing to show for it?

Anyway, looks like they were interest free loans vs. outright subsidies. At least something came out of the New Deal, whereas fedgov spending during this recession is pissed away.

<comment><USER38> Looks like it's been/is being talked about, but no money's gone anywhere yet [1]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_universal_service#Uni...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadband_universal_service#United_States)

<comment><USER39> There was another program in the 1990s under Clinton that benefited the telcos, but no development happened. I don't remember what it was called.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> What is the theoretical limit (for comparison)?

<comment><USER7> Whatever the theoretical limit is, they're pretty much right at it at this point. Similar to how ADSL2+ was near enough at the theoretical limit of what the frequency spectrum it used could do given the attenuation it was asked to do it at.

For the same frequency ranges as ADSL2+, VDSL2 delivered pretty much no improvement. What VDSL2 did do is expand the frequency range up to 17 MHz/30 MHz, depending on the profile.

So the question you might want to ask is "How high a frequency can we use?" and in that case the real question you're looking for is "How short a piece of copper do you have?".

And the answer to that is very quickly becoming "a very short piece of copper indeed".

Either that or a lot of copper that's ideally also very thick... which, considering most copper was rolled out with the aim of providing a low attenuation at 3000 Hz over at most a low number of kilometres isn't often the case.

tl;dr: How long is a piece of string?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Great, one more excuse why Big Telecom won't give us FTTH in the United States.

<comment><USER42> I just want some competition in high speed connectivity. I don't care if it's fiber, copper, wireless, coax, power line, or sewer. If this makes it cheaper for me to get 100 Mbps or higher, sounds good to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> So what, that changes absolutely nothing about the monopolistic system of our infrastructure. All this will lead to is hidden collusion on the part of the providers just like is done in the mobile phone and data sector.

We have a failed government with incompetent and neutered regulators and legislators that are operating in a system that is so deeply corrupt that the best of intentions cannot generate any kind of real momentum. There really needs to be a focus on bifurcating the infrastructure from services. What is wrong with us that we pay taxes to pay for functions of government when all that happens is that those taxes go to subsidizing the privatization of government services and then being overcharged by that very private sector we stood up.

Infrastructure is a core function and purpose of government, without it being under socialized responsibility and control there is no purpose for government.

Another example that is so blatantly obvious but no one seems to see for all the trees is electronic payment processing; why is there no almost zero cost electronic payment infrastructure that essentially serves the same purpose as paper money. I am not at all for the abolition of paper money, especially in light of the reminder that government is not our friend or anyone's friend but its own, but there should be a government / public infrastructure for payment processing. It's actually rather shocking that there is no such system and it is purely corruption of the worst kind that is preventing it.

Ever wonder why it is rather difficult to use a Visa/MC/AE in Germany, it's because the electronic payment / money system is a pseudo public infrastructure and highly regulated. There is no money to be creamed and siphoned off of the economy by the big payment processors.

Something the startup community does not take into account is that it is only as successful and has as much wiggle room as the big cartel controlled sectors permit. So you built a service or a product, you're just mucking around while you still have to pay protection money to the mob.

Sometimes I wish that efforts like Dwolla would gain a lot more traction. Their payment processing fee is fractions of the extortion of the mob, yet they can't seem to catch on. What is wrong with us, why would we be ok with having your profits siphoned off? Those huge payment processing fees are profits that you pay for not good reason.

The same problem affects this technology, there is absolutely no reason for any ISP to implement this technology any time soon. They get away with extortion for shitty services, why would they provide exponentially faster service for anything but a lot more as they seesaw up expectation that "of course, it's faster so I should pay more"

<comment><USER44> Your rant might be warranted but it's completely off topic here. This is a technical achievement, I don't think "so what" is the appropriate reaction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> How many of you guys actually hook up any of your equipment to a hard line? I've used nothing but wifi for years. I'd be more interested in ultra-high speed wireless that could stretch to 30m and get me to that fiber node.

<comment><USER46> It's possible, but then the Wi-Fi router will be outside of your home, probably mounted on the poles, and owned/operated by your ISP. Who will be happy to charge you by the number of devices you can connect.

No thanks, I would much rather have direct control over my own home network. (Sure, you could achieve that with a repeater in your home, but then what was the point of moving the Wi-Fi router to the street?)

My home PC is hooked up to my router with a CAT6 cable. The router is hooked up to the FTTH modem with another CAT6 cable. So it's hard lines all the way. Both the speed and latency of this setup are much better than anything I ever got with any wireless alternative, especially when I'm trying to talk with other devices on the other side of a wall or two.

<comment><USER47>
      Who will be happy to charge you by the number of devices you can connect.

ISPs (used to) do that. The solution has always been to use your own router in front of the modem. Sounds like a similar solution would work here.

<comment><USER46> Quote from GP:

> (Sure, you could achieve that with a repeater in your home, but then what > was the point of moving the Wi-Fi router to the street?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> AT&T / Verizon (and the cable companies) will never give up their golden goose unless threatened by competition. They can do FTTC all day long - unless they actually uncap or otherwise significantly change the subscriber bandwidth it means nothing to the end-user.</comment>


Kevin Rose and Tim Ferriss discuss startups, VCs, apps and more (16 episodes) - <AUTHOR> http://rndshw.com/1

<comment><AUTHOR> The Random Show has been appearing on the various blogs of Tim Ferriss, Kevin Rose, and Glenn McElhose for a while now but there didn't seem to be a uniform list of all episodes (even Glenn's Vimeo account is missing at least one of the episodes) and the numbering system they use can cause confusion.

Wanting a simple place to watch all episodes, and not finding one, I created this site one weekend last month.

This site features an RSS feed which is more accurate than the Vimeo one and which will be maintained. I hope you find the site helpful!</comment>


Ask HN:  How to get hired as an inexperienced developer?  - <AUTHOR>

Is it possible?  I have course-level knowledge of programming(Java, VB.NET) but no actual industry experience.  My only industry experience is that of software testing.<p>What should i do to prove to employers to hire me as a developer? <comment><USER2> I'll second the advice of building something that displays your skills. Another option would be to use your testing experience and look for a position building an automated test suite. Once you've proven yourself and gained some experience you'll probably get an opportunity to take on other projects. Are you looking to get hired in a startup or anywhere? There are employers that hire less experienced programmers regularly - usually larger companies. With a year or two of experience there you should then be in a position to get a job wherever else you like.

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems that a lot of companies want at least a year or two experience...i have seen some junior developer positions require 5 years.

<comment><USER3> Seek an internship.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of internships seem to be for current students, which means this advice is of limited utility for those who have already graduated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Work on Open Source projects.

Usually employers will take a chance on some one who is inexperienced if they can prove they are a passionates programmer, show that that you have some initiative. Work on your own projects, or at least join discussion groups in your desired field such as meetups.

</comment><comment><USER6> I would say a combination of luck and your own projects. You have to make up for your lack of industry experience with your own personal projects and show that you have the skills or the initiative to pick up new things quickly.

My short story:

I graduated college w/ a degree in EE and after working for a defense company for about a year, realized I hated it. Web dev/design was my hobby and I had hacked together a lot of random projects, but never had any "official industry experience". On my resume I had listed a lot of side projects I had. I applied to a few places and a few called me in for an interview and also a short test of what I knew. This is where you will get a chance to try and prove yourself. I was nervous as heck, but thankfully, they gave me a chance and the rest was history.

I don't think I would have been given the chance had I not been doing those things on the side. The other nice side effect was that because I actively worked on projects, I actually knew what I was doing and for some reason that surprised a lot of employers(?).

I think the one thing I took away from that was that if you're passionate about learning and improving, you'll be better off than the majority of people just there looking for a job. "3+ years" exp. or whatever had a different meaning for me after that.

</comment><comment><USER7> As everyone else here has said, actually do something. Start or contribute to an open source project. Write a web app and get people do use it, just _make something_ that shows off your skills.

</comment><comment><USER8> Build something that they can see, or contribute to an open source project, or both! If I were looking to hire you I'd want to see some of your work, maybe even just your personal website, and I'd love to see some of your projects on Github (or at least a github account that has forked some other projects, show me what you're interested in).

</comment><comment><USER9> There is no barrier to entry to start your own consulting business. If you have to learn to sell yourself, you may want to start with small jobs. Sites like Elance are probably good, too. Take on any work you can find, and then work on becoming more discriminating as you move up the foodchain.

</comment><comment><USER10> Generally companies hire on the basis of current experience and less so on potential. So why not get hired as a tester and then seek out avenues to increase the amount of development work? You could discuss your goal of such a career progression at interviews.

</comment><comment><USER11> How to get hired as an experienced developer?</comment>


Yishan Wong hypothesizing(?) on the Reddit saga - <AUTHOR> https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the_best_long_con_you_ever_pulled/cszjqg2

<comment><USER2> Archive in case these guys recant: [https://web.archive.org/web/20150711233921/https://www.reddi...](https://web.archive.org/web/20150711233921/https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the_best_long_con_you_ever_pulled/cszjqg2)

How is this not a bigger deal?

Edit: Just to be clear, there is a real chance they are all just trolling - especially considering if that were true, then that would have been the dumbest thing possible by all parties, especially if there was documentation that was discoverable.

However even if they are trolling all of those comments are SUPER UNPROFESSIONAL considering all that has happened in the last week. "We all had our part to play", "Other than that, child's play for me." "Thanks for the help. I mean, thanks for your service as CEO."

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I think they could be trolling. And, yes, if so the whole thing does seem flippant, given that real people have lost jobs and had their names splashed all across media. But I guess that's part of what it means to be a redditor.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sam Altman's response [https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the_...](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3cs78i/whats_the_best_long_con_you_ever_pulled/cszwpgq)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is fascinating, would this be considered a crime if it were a public company?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not a crime per se but he could have been sued for maligning the company/board I think.

<comment><USER3> Interesting. It's an odd thing, to me the immediate story is heroic founders and VC conspire to save company. I wondered if there was a negative or victim in this case, at worst it would be Conde Nast, but even they win in this scenario if Reddit becomes profitable which I think they might be able to make happen. It does paint the entire Ellen Pao saga in a really interesting light.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This thread has to be a joke. Conde Nast's strategy from 2005+ was to acquire internet brands and communities. They acquired Wired and ArsTechnica. They almost acquired certain other internet communities. It looks as if their strategy didn't quite work out.

Edit: Here's an article from 2014 that might shed light on their strategy: [http://digiday.com/publishers/conde-nast-social- ads/](http://digiday.com/publishers/conde-nast-social-ads/)

(I have no inside knowledge of this. I'm just an outsider looking in)</comment>


Odd Odd Even Proof in Agda - <AUTHOR> http://brianmckenna.org/blog/plus_equals_even_take_2

<comment><USER2> Ok, so this is very interesting, I see others think so too, as they upvote it, but could someone offer an explanation of what exactly is going on here? I would love to have a little glossary of Agda syntax and concepts to go with this post; as it is now it's completely undecipherable for me, unfortunately :(

<comment><USER3> (these are just cribbed from the agda wikipedia page but..) check these out:

[http://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=B7F836675DCE009C](http://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=B7F836675DCE009C)

[http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~ulfn/papers/tphols09/tutorial.pd...](http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~ulfn/papers/tphols09/tutorial.pdf)</comment></comment>


Beyond TCP: The evolution of Internet transport protocols - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/obonaventure/beyond-tcp-the-evolution-of-internet-transport-protocols <comment><USER2> One of the major problems with TCP often not mentioned is bufferbloat. TCP's common congestion avoidance algorithms usually have no precautions against bufferbloat and frequently induce it, i.e. when probing the congestion window. And those TCP congestion avoidance algorithms which do manage bufferbloat are often not deployed in public for fear of losing out to greedy congestion algorithms.

QUIC uses fundamentally the same basic congestion avoidance algorithm as TCP (QUIC's algorithm is a work in progress AFAIK) so even QUIC is still in the same bloat.

The problem eventually bubbles up the stack and affects most web applications, so that a single user, just using a web application on one machine, can break the Internet for all other users on the same LAN.

Try this demo for yourself:

1\. Run "ping google.com" from another computer on your LAN.

2\. Upload a 10-20MB file via Gmail or Dropbox from your computer.

3\. Watch the ping times on the other computer skyrocket from around 100ms to upwards of 5-10 seconds.

4\. Try a Google search from any other computer on your LAN while this is happening.

Web applications which use protocols such as WebSockets have no way to reduce the bufferbloat footprint of their application, other than re-implement their own delay sensitive congestion avoidance algorithm on top. And actually, if you want to build a robust application which does any uploading (or plenty of downloading), this is what you need to do.

For example, to prevent inducing bufferbloat, Apple's software update actually uses a variant of LEDBAT (the delay sensitive congestion avoidance algorithm from BitTorrent's protocol) when downloading software updates.

<comment><USER3> Shouldn't RED type algorithms in routers prevent buffer bloat?

<comment><USER2> It may help for other users on the LAN but it's going to be years before it's fully deployed. It's not the solution for today.

In any event, I don't think it's going to make any inroads towards fixing bufferbloat for a single user on the same machine, i.e. where multiple applications are creating several seconds of bufferbloat each, the latency sensitive applications (Skype, Google searches, typical web browsing) are still all going to suffer.

I think it's actually not a router issue but an application issue, in the same sense that CPU overusage by one application is an application issue. Applications just need to be better designed to not bloat a user's network.

Hopefully, the next major Apple OS update will include bufferbloat measurements in Activity Monitor, so offending apps can be named and shamed. But even this won't prevent web apps from having massive bufferbloat footprints (for that the browsers will need to share data with Activity Monitor, or highlight this to the user).

After this, I think pressure from users on application developers to reduce bufferbloat footprint and build network efficient apps is the way forward.

Then we will be able to switch to some of the better higher-bandwidth TCP congestion avoidance algorithms without having to settle for algorithms which ignore latency as a congestion signal (packet loss is a poor signal and causes throughput to saw-tooth).

<comment><USER3> Maybe I misunderstood your first message about 'buffer bloat'. I was thinking about buffer bloat in routers/switches when many TCP connection start to send packet, router starts to buffer them, once packets are dropped, congestion avoidance in TCP connections is activated and synchronises - bandwidth goes down and once again increases in all TCP connections, and this cycle (more packets are sent/packet drops/congestion avoidance triggered) repeats again.

<comment><USER4> Note that bufferbloat is a problem regardless of there being many or few TCP connections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there a recording? Slides only supply maybe 50% of the information needed to form the picture. If the accompanying spoken words are left out then it is difficult to receive the message as intended.

<comment><USER6> There are no recordings, I asked.

There's this presentation at the IETF: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp0Kr3B64tA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp0Kr3B64tA)

These are not the same slides, but it should tell you all you want to know about Multipath TCP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It really annoys me that some routing systems drop packets that use any protocol other than TCP/UDP. It makes innovation of new protocols basically impossible.

<comment><USER8> Do you have any more info on this? What protocols are being dropped? And which routing systems are dropping them Just curious

<comment><USER9> Many firewalls filter out non-TCP/non-UDP traffic as a matter of policy. Heck, network professionals are having to be reminded NOT to block all ICMPv6 on their border (like they do for v4).

<comment><USER10> This generally occurs far enough down the stream that it's only a matter of bopping a clueless senior netop on the head. Nothing upstream is going to block arbitrary packet types. Could you imagine if backbone peers were dropping packets like that? The internet "routes around the damage" and this would be an application of that. At the social level, it would involve people within an org saying "fix this".

<comment><USER4> Pretty much every router/modem people have at home does NAT, and does so for UDP, TCP, ICMP and some do GRE and that's it. And they're not getting updated to NAT any new protocol directly over IP that people come up with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder why SCTP over UDP was not mentioned. This solves the problem of routers dropping unrecognized protocols.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wish for a HN URL replacement algorithm that replaces decks with talk videos.</comment>


For Venom security flaw, the fix is in: Patch your VM today - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/venom-the-anti-toxin-is-here/

<comment><USER2> The discussion is over here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9538437](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9538437)

Other sources:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9541450](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9541450) (securityaffairs.co)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9541500](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9541500) (thehacktimes.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9539206](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9539206) (tripwire.com)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9538583](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9538583) (tripwire.com)</comment>


What's killing the video-game business? - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2210732/ <comment><USER2> Riiiight.

"Last weekend, Valve decided to do an experiment with Left 4 Dead. Last weekend's sale resulted in a 3000% increase over relatively flat numbers. It sold more last weekend than when it launched the game. WOW. That is unheard of in this industry. Valve beat its launch sales. Also, it snagged a 1600% increase in new customers to Steam over the baseline."

and

"6:56 PM - Looking at a third-party game, it saw increases of 36,000% with a weekend sale. Oh. Em. Gee. Okay, Gabe is starting to convince me that PC at retail is going to die very soon."

[http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/693342/Live-Blog- DICE-2009...](http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/693342/Live-Blog- DICE-2009-Keynote---Gabe-Newell-Valve-Software.html)

So, Activision, Electronic Arts: What's killing you? YOUR REFUSAL NOT TO SUCK</comment>


Ask HN: Is UML the best option design documentation? - <AUTHOR>

For design documentation, is there something better than UML? <comment><USER2> I would worry a lot more about a process that keeps the design documentation in sync with the code and systems than the form it takes.

Design documentation violates the Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) rule and how often have you seen it, especially at the fine grained level of UML, keep up with the code instead of being abandoned early in the process?

So maybe you should look at round-trip tools, or methods to automatically generate documentation from easy (enough) to maintain in your code stuff (Javadoc is one well known low level example of this).

Or keep it so simple it won't be a burden to keep up to date, but then you're probably not talking an all-in UML approach.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point, and I've definitely been there before (sort of the problem I'm trying to solve at the moment, actually).

...that said I fear that most code-sync'd documentation is too low-level to use for communication between programmers and non-programmers so the documentation I'm creating may be necessarily decoupled; unless you've seen something I've overlooked (please? :).

<comment><USER2> No, sorry, if I knew of such I most certainly would have told you! ADDED: Rational was trying this, don't know how far they got ($$$, note they're now part of IBM).

Aside from Literate Programming, which is just another form of (verbose) commenting and even further violates DRY.</comment></comment></comment>


The Case Against Apple - <AUTHOR> http://calacanis.com/2009/08/08/the-case-against-apple-in-five-parts/ <comment><USER2> In my opinion this is another in the recent series of overblown invectives along the lines of, 'I'm a consumer, therefore a company that produces consumer products must suck my dick.' I'm so sick of hearing this.

I don't buy Apple products because it's the cool thing to do, or because Microsoft is a monopoly, or because I think Steve Jobs is a nice guy. If nobody else liked Apple products, or Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, or I thought Steve Jobs wasn't a nice guy, I'd still buy Apple products. I base my purchase decisions on the products, not based on moral judgments of the people who create them.

If Apple wants to censor apps in the App Store, that's their prerogative. If they want to be non-transparent and inconsistent in how they approve apps, more power to them. I would want, expect, and demand the exact same power over the products I create. The products do not belong to the community, and Apple doesn't have any responsibility to the people who buy them. They don't have to be more open or less controlling or promote more consumer choice, or give away their products affordably. If you want the products, buy them and use them; if you don't, then don't.

Apple is a smart company run by smart people. Apple's mission is to make products and make money off them. Just because Jason Calacanis thinks they're making bad business decisions doesn't mean they are. My bet is that they know what they're doing. Last time I checked, Apple was a billion-dollar company and Jason Calacanis wrote Mahalo — you do the math.

And let me make one more specific point. Jason brings up the Japanese MP3 players that you can find in Akihabara. I've been to Akihabara too, and, frankly, it's filled with tons of incredibly cheap, tacky, and poorly made electronic crap. iPod's probably don't have dual headphone jacks, TV and radio tuners, and audio recorders because they aren't crappy products marketed solely on the number of poorly-implemented features that can be crammed in to them.

I could go on and on here about everything that's wrong with what Jason says, but taking the time to write even this much is making me feel less productive today than I should be.

EDIT: Wow, what's with the downvoting? This is my thoughtful and honest comment on the topic of the original post. Haha, I guess people don't like my colorful similes?

<comment><USER3> _If Apple wants to censor apps in the App Store, that's their prerogative._

Then why is it not OK for Microsoft to try to force you to use a particular web-browser by pre-installing it with Windows and making it difficult to install others?

<comment><USER4> Because Windows is a monopoly in the operating system space and they abused that monopoly, you couldn't just switch operating systems on a PC because there was no good alternative.

Apple is far from being a monopoly in the phone space (even in the much smaller smartphone space where RIMM rules) _yet_ and you can easily switch phones and do whatever you want.

<comment><USER3> You make a good point, and I won't argue over the definition of a monopoly. I will only suggest that it's a little weird to say that censorship and suppression of competitors is a prerogative of a company when it's not a monopoly, but then once that monopoly line is crossed it's not ok anymore. How do you know when that line has been crossed? And if you cross back the other way, are you allowed to restart with anti-competitive practices again?

<comment><USER5> _I will only suggest that it's a little weird to say that censorship and suppression of competitors is a prerogative of a company when it's not a monopoly, but then once that monopoly line is crossed it's not ok anymore._

IANAL, but this was how post-Bork antitrust law was described to me.

When a small company engages in lock-in/anti-competitive practices, you can't really make the argument that consumers are being hurt, because if that were true, they would just buy the competitor's product. The iPhone, for instance, exists in a smartphone market with multiple players (Blackberry, HTC, Palm, etc), and if consumers decide that Apple has gone too far, they'll simply buy a different phone next time. But if a company had a monopoly (which MSFT had in operating systems during the late 90s), there are no real options for consumers. The company could partake in anti-consumer activities without fear of market retribution. In those cases, the courts usually intervene to ensure consumer protection.

<comment><USER6> Well, if you reject the iPhone (I haven't) and buy a Palm Pre, you are _still_ affected by Apple's anti-competitive iTunes dance.

I'm a huge Apple fan, and I'm extremely sorry to see them turning out to act more like douchebags each day.

<comment><USER7> _you are still affected by Apple's anti-competitive iTunes dance._

Nonsense. Apple does nothing to prevent the Palm Pre from syncing with an iTunes library. They only prevent the Palm Pre from _using iTunes_ to do so.

<comment><USER6> I still think that's anti-competitive douchebaggery. iTunes has become the standard platform for organizing music, thanks to the success of the iPod. I think it has elevated to a position where Apple should have to tread carefully in anti-competitive waters.

<comment><USER8> All the information in your iTunes library, including playlists and such, is stored in an open XML file in your home directory. While I think it's a mistake for Apple to play cat-and-mouse with Palm over this, it's not as if Palm couldn't write their own syncing background app that does the exact same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I apologize for not being entirely on-topic, but I don't understand why people have the perception that "Steve's a great guy," as the article says.

He always seemed like a jerk compared to Bill Gates.*

More or less I agree with Wired commentary's assessment: [http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/0...](http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/01/70072)

* And who else could we compare him to? (Thats not rhetorical, I'd enjoy some replies on the subject. Perhaps Woz?)

<comment><USER10> The difference between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs is Steve Jobs isn't actively trying to HURT others through illegal and unethical business practices. Gates' company has been found guilty of this a number of times.

Steve just makes his products and if someone wants to play in his sandbox they play by his rules. He may be a dick to work with, but he isn't actively hurting others.

And no, I wouldn't say making some donations - no matter the amount, makes up for past actions.

<comment><USER3> This is kind of absurd in its lack of even-handedness. I'm no expert on the history of these two men and the histories of their companies, but to say that Gates and MS have actively tried to hurt others whereas Jobs and Apple haven't would appear to reveal a serious pro-Apple bias.

First, lack of a conviction for anti-competitive behavior doesn't imply that Apple's not actively trying to hurt competitors or consumers. It just means they haven't done anything bad enough to warrant the government getting involved yet. But more than that, I'm not sure we should even care about convictions. I think every major company tries to create an environment in which they have the best chance of success. A lot of times they do things that are anti-competitive and harm consumers in order to create that environment. And a lot of times those things slip under the radar. I think this article does a great job of describing some of what Apple has been doing in that regard with iTunes and the App Store. And to pretend that Apple's recent actions haven't actively hurt other companies and even its own customers is ridiculous.

Finally, the statement that "Steve just makes his products and if someone wants to play in his sandbox they play by his rules" could just as well be applied to Gates. But if I were to make such a statement most people Apple fans would flip out. So Steve "just makes" this personal music management software that everyone loves which is great, and then says oh wait, if you want to use it to sync with a portable music device you can only do it with our product. Way back Gates "just made" this operating system that everyone loved which was great, and then said oh wait, if you want to surf the web you'll have to do it with our product (that wasn't even the restriction, which is yet another absurdity of this comparison). Somehow otherwise intelligent people magically dismiss the former as Jobs just exerting his right to dictate the terms on which you can use his products, while considering the latter massively anti-competitive behavior. Someone please explain what's going on.

<comment><USER11> _So Steve "just makes" this personal music management software that everyone loves which is great, and then says oh wait, if you want to use it to sync with a portable music device you can only do it with our product._

They're different parts of the same integrated system. How many people download iTunes just to use it with their iPod or iPhone? If you'd rather have an open system that allows interoperability between tons of different devices made by tons of different companies, Apple's not for you.

* Somehow otherwise intelligent people magically dismiss the former as Jobs just exerting his right to dictate the terms on which you can use his products, while considering the latter massively anti-competitive behavior.*

The rules change when you have 95+% market share. But even then, the government really did nothing about IE integration, and the world didn't end. It turns out integrating IE in Windows 98 wasn't the death knell to competition in the browser market we thought it was.

Hmm, isn't WebKit integrated into Mac OS X so it can be used as a system-wide HTML rendering engine?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So what are we, us early-adopting power users, saying here? That Apple has suddenly morphed into an entity that ignores our demands?

Please! I switched over to the Mac platform about 4 years ago but I knew what I was getting. I was buying a product from a company that for years shipped a one-button mouse, that killed off its clone line to control the hardware, and that deprecates its platforms so it could advance in the directions it wanted without the baggage of legacy support.

I knew iTunes would only synch with iPods, for me that was part of the cost of switching. Yes I think Apple should get on with it but I don't expect they will and I can see their point. Apple is fanatical about controlling the user experience, it knows how iTunes will work its hardware but cannot know about hundreds of Taiwanese models. Can the white box mp3 player phone play video? Yes? Great. Can it decode h.264? Pictures? Great. Does it understand "Synch most recent (iPhoto) Events?" What does it expect for Calendars? Contacts? Notes?

Jason is forgetting that the reason he moved to OS X is that he was sick of the "incompatibilities and other assorted quirks of Microsoft's wildly open ecosystem." You joined the wrong church my friend.

</comment><comment><USER13> So in summary: iTunes doesn't allow open devices, AT&T and Apple's single- provider agreement is bad, App Store approval sucks, App Store approval sucks, App Store approval sucks.

As much as I want the above fixed, I'm really, really tired of seeing the same tired, old problems listed on HN without a proper solution that doesn't involve the words "boycott" or "jailbreak". (And if there isn't such a solution, I could do with a lot less whining.)

<comment><USER14> >without a proper solution that doesn't involve the words "boycott" or "jailbreak"

Why not buy a different phone, perhaps one that does what you want?

<comment><USER13> Actually, I like the iPhone as is. While I think openness and freedom is nice and will further advance all platforms, Apple's stance on the App Store (and other misgivings) doesn't personally offend me so much that I would give it up; it still is the better phone, _for my personal needs_.

You, the reader, could have other needs. That's awesome. That's why, I guess, I'm tired of the outrage. It's a tool, not a definition of my life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What exactly is Apple doing to stop anyone from creating an MP3 player, store and desktop software? Why are other companies entitled to access iTunes? Is it Apple's fault that the Zune isn't more successful?

I find the attitude displayed in this article to be disgusting. There are many things that I'd like to see changed. I have no right to demand that private companies do what I want. I do have the option of not buying their products.

In addition, the average person that uses Apple's products simply doesn't give a shit about any of this. The numerous non-geeks I know that own Apple products never mention any of these issues.

<comment><USER16> I don't necessarily disagree with you, but here is why other companies are entitled to access iTunes:

Think back to the Windows and IE antitrust legal battles. iTunes is similar to the Windows monopoly. It's the biggest platform for buying music online. According to antitrust laws, it is illegal for Apple to leverage that monopoly against competitors.

That said, Apple made a big investment into the whole iTunes infrastructure and has put a ton of work into negotiating with record labels to get all that music in the store. They did all that for basically no direct reward; they make almost no money off iTunes. They did it to support their iPod business. It seems a little unfair for other MP3 player manufacturers to expect all the benefits of using that infrastructure without the investment. The $1-$5 per device that the article suggests is not nearly enough. Apple makes hundreds of dollars off each device they sell which use the iTunes music store.

<comment><USER17> There's a lot of confusion about how US anti-trust law works. Leveraging a monopoly, or being a monopoly, is not illegal. The legality part is how you choose to leverage it.

It would be illegal if Apple bought Creative and ceased production of Creative's MP3 players

It would be illegal if Apple refused to reach an agreement with a record label to sell music via iTunes because the record label also sold music on a competing service.

It would be illegal for Apple to code iTunes to look for its competitors software and uninstall them.

It would be illegal if Apple reached a deal with Microsoft and Creative to not price any MP3 player under $100.

From a legal standpoint the illegal behavior has to be provable. What really got Microsoft in trouble was the assortment of documents & memos outlining their anti-competitive strategies more so than the acts themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> First he lists that he has "collected" Seven iPods, four Mac laptops, two iMacs and three iPhones.... and then he complains about how much he has spent on it, but it never seemed to have occurred to him that:

A) If he still has four laptops they must still be good and usable and if that is the case why did he buy the new one?

B) Apple hardware has some of the best resale value out there, why has he not bothered to even _try_ to sell off any of the hardware? He could easily recoup half of his money or more. (Unless he is one of those idiots who list their two year old macbook for the same price they paid thinking they will get full retail price from 2007 for a used two year old used laptop)

</comment><comment><USER19> Despite the laughability of some parts of the article I think Calacanis nearly hits on something interesting with regard to Apple, Microsoft, antitrust, and the difference between a computer and a mobile phone.

As the iPhone becomes closer and closer to a full-blown 'computer', at what point do the EU authorities, who sanctioned Microsoft for simply _including_ a browser with its OS, go after Apple for not allowing _any_ browser other than Apple's own? When does the degree of separation become too small to be considered relevant? I'd be surprised if there wasn't an antitrust inquiry into Apple's practices with Mobile Safari in the next couple years if things don't change.

Furthermore, what will users come to expect when the hardware of their phone is functionally indistinguishable from their laptop besides the fact that they can put it in their pocket? Will the software restrictions so readily accepted for mobile devices be accepted on PCs? Of course, the PC and mobile phone industries have evolved from completely different places, but I think there will be a point where users will come to expect the same from their home and mobile computers. Where will the expectation line be drawn?

<comment><USER20> I don't think the 'simple inclusion' of a browser was what got microsoft to be shot down in the EU. The main reason was their efforts to suppress competing browsers, by software measures in their OS and by backroom dealmaking.

Those were aggravating factors and fairly big ones.

And really, all things considered, giving the users a choice is not such a big penalty. Then there is the fine of course, but I think the height of it was to some extent due to microsofts game playing with the EU courts.

<comment><USER3> Wouldn't completely preventing an alternative browser from being installed qualify as an effort to suppress competing browsers by software measures?

And if giving the users a choice is not such a big penalty, why does Apple care so much about explicitly NOT giving users a choice?

<comment><USER20> 1) yes

2) because they're jerks too.

They're just smaller jerks. When you're a de-facto monopoly the rules change, drastically in some cases.

<comment><USER3> Very true. My only real point is that we should be allowed to demand that both companies not be jerks, and I think we let ourselves down by not expecting it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I couldn't get past the first paragraph (If you wish to reprint this...). Still laughing.

<comment><USER22> Laugh if you want, but his stuff has been reprinted in Business Week/Techcrunch/Valleywag before.

<comment><USER21> And? Those aren't really quality publications with high standards, as far as I'm concerned. Though if I had to pick one, I'd choose valleywag.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Think for a moment about what your reaction would be if Microsoft made the Zune the only MP3 player compatible with Windows"

iTunes isn't, and has never been, a platform open to third parties. It's a software accessory to the iPod hardware. This may have been a valid argument when DRM was still prevalent on iTunes but these days that is not a factor locking people into iTunes. The iTunes database format is basically just XML. Easily accessible by other applications that want to make the migration to an iTunes alternative easier or an application that simply wants to build off the iTunes database. This is exactly how the BlackBerry media syncing software works.

On a broader note I would say anyone who does have a major problem with the 5 issues cited in this article should definitely look for another platform instead of constantly whining about it. It's not like it's all that hard to do. With a few small exceptions it probably takes a couple hours to fully migrate to non-Apple products & services. I guess that's why these Apple whines annoy me. It's very easy to switch if it really bothers you. I feel like the authors of these articles are making a big deal out of something that almost no one really cares about. The media loves the build-em-up, cut-em-down cycle and this seems like another example of it. It's good for page views, no doubt. When I see a real number of people switching to alternative platforms I'll believe it's really an important issue.

FYI Microsoft does not offer Zune software for OSX or Linux.

<comment><USER23> "I would say anyone who does have a major problem with the 5 issues cited in this article should definitely look for another platform instead of constantly whining about it"

And hopefully the people who _don't_ have a problem with the 5 issues cited in the article would stop whining about the people who whine about them ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> _I'm starting to look past [Apple] and back to Microsoft_

It seems to me like he's missing a third option.

</comment><comment><USER25> > Apple is now the anti-competitive monster that Jobs rallied us against in > the infamous 1984 commercial. Steve Jobs is the oppressive man on the > jumbotron and the Olympian carrying the hammer is the open-source movement

The OS X kernel (Darwin) is open source as are 200+ other apps that ship with OS X: <http://www.apple.com/opensource/>

</comment><comment><USER26> Thanks for the feedback everyone. I've got to run out to dinner but I'll look forward to joining the discussion later tonight/tomorrow. You guys always have some of the most interesting feedback.

</comment><comment><USER27> I enjoyed reading how Apple is "Destroying MP3 player innovation" in paragraph one, only to discover that "Apple's iPhone is a revolutionary product" in paragraph two.

Tuned out around there.

</comment><comment><USER28> Brilliant article. Microsoft would be crucified if it engaged in the same stuff that Apple does.

</comment><comment><USER29> His first point about iTunes is not very strong. Unlike the iPhone, the Mac is an open platform and you have choices. There might not be a _lot_ of alternatives to iTunes, but is that really Apple's fault?

If you, as an end-user, don't like iTunes then just use something else. Like for example Songbird, which also actually does sync with non-Apple MP3 players.

If you are a hardware vendor then why not invest some time and money in either supporting Songbird or create your own player and sync app.

iTunes really is not _that_ brilliant. Maybe some guys in a garage should see this as an opportunity to build some great software that works with 'the other players'.

<comment><USER20> The biggest stumbling block around a 'garage' implementation of iTunes + store is that the labels are not going to make a deal with anybody that is not sufficiently large.

<comment><USER29> Why do you need deals to sync music to a device? Feel free to shop at Amazon for music, or rip your CDs, or use music that you've bought on the iTMS.

It is not about a music store, it is about the freedom to sync your music with any device. Which is a much simpler problem.

<comment><USER20> The music store is a very large part of iTunes for lots of users. Without it you are giving only a partial experience, with it you are effectively advertising the rest of iTunes as well and so undercutting your own offering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm not sure I understand his argument. Competition in the MP3 player and smart phone industries has only increased since the entry of Apple into these markets.

The MP3 player is now the must-have accessory of every kid. I'm certain the sales of Sony, Samsung, and the other makers of MP3 players have risen enormously since the iPod soared to fame. Sure, the iPod is the market leader, but the market _wasn't there before the iPod_. By creating a market for the players and -- more importantly -- for legal downloads of music from the internet, Apple started a new era in music distribution. The fact that no other company has managed to carve a substantial market share in this industry is much more due to their incompetence than any anti-competitive behaviour by Apple.

Similarly, the launch of the iPhone has spurred on innovation and competition across the entire spectrum of smart phones. RIM, Palm and Nokia are innovating and lowering their prices to compete. Apple's exclusive deal with AT&T in the US has proved a boon to the other hardware companies because they can negotiate amongst the other carriers to create a good package for consumers with a good margin for them too.

While Apple's actions on the App Store review process are deplorable, their actions in the music and mobile phone industry are just innovative and fiercely competitive -- not anti-competitive.

</comment><comment><USER31> Stopped reading at "Sure, everything on the Mac platform costs twice as much…"

</comment><comment><USER32> The Apple/Microsoft comparison ignores the fact that MS has a huge market share which, until the recent switch in user focus from desktop to web apps, had few viable alternatives.

This is far from the case with Apple. Avoiding Windows ca. 1999 required serious commitment and basically giving up on Office type applications. Avoiding Apple today requires saving yourself $x by not buying its products. Notice the difference?

And if you miss certain Apple-only software/features - I would - since this is _Hacker_ News we could discuss alternative implementations. Leave the "I'm a web celeb and I'm gonna quit my iPhone!" to the hypeosphere.

</comment><comment> brown9-2 It must feel weird to work at Apple and see Jobs given credit for every single product and decision made. A company with thousands of employees can't have one guy making _all_ the important decisions or ideas.

<comment><USER33> Do you work at Apple? Do you know how decisions are made instead Apple HQ?

<comment> brown9-2 No, but common sense dictates that it takes more time to make all of the decisions required to run a multibillion company with thousands of employees than a single person has.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Executive Summary: Steve Jobs is on the cusp of devolving from the visionary radical we all love to a sad, old hypocrite and control freak–a sellout of epic proportions.

</comment><comment><USER35> Microsoft is becoming IBM. Google/Apple are trying to take Microsoft's spot. Twitter/Facebook/Whatever is trying to become Google.... Nah..this is never going to end.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is a load of waffle, didn't get past the first two points becuase they are rubbish.

Firstly, he compares itunes to Microsoft windows, and is upset that Microsoft makes windows compatible will mp3 players, why doesn't apple make itunes like that? Windows is a fucking OS, Mac os has no problem with all mp3 players. itunes is what APple uses to sync with the ipod, it is not up to them to write software for other players. And there are plenty of players that use the itunes library.

Second point, iPhone is free to use on all 5 carriers in Australia, this is not just Apples decision, but up to the carriers in US, the same carriers who didn't want to work with Apple, except for AT&T.

There are a lot of reasons to dislike Apple, there aren't 2 of them.</comment>


Bach at the Burger King - <AUTHOR> https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/bach-at-the-burger-king/#! <comment><USER3> >Today, most young people encounter classical music not as a popular art form but as a class signifier, a set of tropes in a larger system of encoded communication that commercial enterprises have exploited to remap our societal associations with orchestral sound.

Most young people? I'd venture that most children who attend US public school encounter classical music in K-5 at some point.

>The average American does not recognize the opening chords of The Four Seasons as the sound of spring but the sound of snobbery.

Rolled my eyes here. We're talking about Burger King, not a country club.

Edit: I disagree with the conclusion but the article is pretty interesting with the history of 'weaponized' classical music.

<comment><USER4> The point they are making is that most of America is turned off by classical and baroque music. Whether or not most children encountered it in school is less relevant than the fact that most children don't like it. I think the same could be said about the average American. I don't think the people who browse hacker news are the average American.

<comment><USER5> My theory is that classical music is so much complex so you literally have to level up your musical listening skills to make any sense of it.

Also they dynamics is different, typically a piece is building up some sort of context that adds to the experience - even more so than modern music - if you get home and someone blasts the final parts of a symphony on the stereo, it's easily perceived as just a cacophony of irritating tunes. It might have been enjoyable if you had been listening from the beginning.

It seems to me that a lot of recent songs reduce complexity even further - <USER2> seems common now with songs that are basically just a repeating theme with minor variations. I'm not saying it's bad, but it doesn't really require much effort to understand the structure, and it probably makes classical music seem even more alien.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very interesting article and it really is sad that classical music which has a lot to offer for anybody is being used as a deterrent for 'delinquents' or class signifier.

I have made a similar experience as a semi-competitive chess player. As a child, I never perceived chess as an outlandish hobby. Chess clubs are full of people from all walks of life. But nowadays especially (maybe after enough movies used chess players as a trite metaphor for 'genius mastermind') people seem more often associate chess with that kind of stuff.

It strips something from the activity itself if it becomes associated with certain exclusive groups or classes. It's also happening to healthy nutrition or sports which are increasingly seen simply as signifiers of elite status and optimised lifestyles, rather than communal, shared activities.

<comment><USER7> I personally got a vibe that chess is an "upper-class elite thing" just because of the chess books section at my local bookstore. 30-40€ for a book on just one particular aspect of strategy, and there are dozens of books out there to read.

Yes, I know that players are not advised to read such books until they are relatively high in the rankings, but the prices of those books do tell you that even if a local chess club is open to everyone regardless of class, if you want to continue to progress in the game you'll have to shell out money.

(Of course, things are easier these days because virtually every chess book every published has now been scanned and uploaded to filesharing communities. I get the impression that the Russian chess community, most of whom either cannot obtain or cannot afford the books, have come together in a joint effort to get this done.)

<comment><USER8> I'm pretty bad at chess but I think you could probably spend less than $100 and have all the technical materials you need to get quite good at chess (one book on middle games, tactic puzzles collection (software or book), endgame book, maybe opening book) and probably only really need to study the tactical one for quite a while. My friend went to paid chess tutoring programs as a kid and said they just solved tactics puzzles and then played each other

<comment><USER7> The vast majority of books I noticed at my local bookshop were dedicated to different openings or certain subcategories of those openings. Batsford, I think, is the most famous publisher of these.

<comment><USER8> Again I'm bad at chess but that sounds like mostly a waste of time until you're already very good from what i understand. That stuff might be entertaining to learn but if you're rated like 1500 I doubt you're losing cause your oponents are getting out of the opening with a 1/4 pawn advantage. And it takes a lot of study to get to the point where you worry about that (imo)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >Handel's Water Music willows over the platforms of Atlanta's MARTA subway system.

I ride Marta to work 3 days a week and to the airport when I travel. There has never been any classical music playing at the stations I've stopped at or passed through.

I was in NYC a couple weeks ago and never heard it either. I went to the Penn Station stop mentioned in the article too.

<comment><USER10> Maybe its an off-hours tactic?

<comment><USER9> I'll have to ask an employee next time I see one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When I visited Seattle a few times back in the '90s, there was a McDonald's, I believe somewhere vaguely near near Lenora and 4th, that used to blast country music outside overnight, ostensibly to repel drug activity from their storefront area.

<comment><USER12> It still exists, and it's referred to as McStabby's. A Singaporean friend of mine didn't believe the name until he encountered a traveller in the restroom showing off his rainbow colored switchblade.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/73wlqo/mcstabbys...](https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/73wlqo/mcstabbys_or_crackdonalds/)

<comment><USER11> Yikes!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A counter-example from fiction comes to mind: Alex, the protagonist and uber- hoodlum in _A Clockwork Orange_ , can't get enough of classical music, especially old "Ludwig Van".

[https://youtu.be/cQCQRLA05AA](https://youtu.be/cQCQRLA05AA)

If your business has a Droog problem this is probably the wrong approach.

<comment><USER14> Agreed. That was immediately the example of which I thought. The article makes no effort to distinguish whether it is the genre of music or simply its insistent and pervasive high volume that is unpleasant. I do hope it that it all backfires and a wave of revolutions are inspired by this aural vandalism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I would be interested to see the differences for different genres of music. How much crime/loitering would happen blasting house music vs classical vs classic rock, for instance

<comment><USER16> Why didn't you include rap?

<comment><USER17> Why didn't he include gothic-industrial post-punk jam bands?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This kind of ideologically framed over-simplification is really corrosive to culture:

>>Take your delinquency elsewhere could be the subtext under every tune in the classical crime-fighting movement. It is crucial to remember that the tactic does not aim to stop or even necessarily reduce crime — but to relocate it. Moreover, such mercenary measures most often target minor infractions like vandalism and loitering — crimes that damage property, not people, and usually the property of the powerful. "[B]usiness and government leaders," Lily Hirsch observes in Music in American Crime Prevention and Punishment, "are seizing on classical music not as a positive moralizing force, but as a marker of space." In a strange mutation, classical music devolves from a "universal language of mankind" reminding all people of their common humanity into a sonic border fence protecting privileged areas from common crowds, telling the plebes in auditory code that "you're not welcome here."

It conflates deliquency with being a commoner, and implies that those who succeed in improving their station in life are somehow deserving of being predated on, at least in terms of their property, by the deliquent.

Essentially this romanticizes and rationalizes deliquency, and discourages any measure to punish it.

In truth, deliquency harms, first and foremost, the common people, whose common spaces are degraded by it. It is perpetrated by a tiny proportion of the poor. It is by no means a common characteristic of the poor.

Making the deliquent out to be victims, and synomous with common crowds, and their behaviour out to be a socially just act of balancing the class scales, is factually wrong, and has an absolutely toxic effect on society.

</comment><comment><USER19> I've noticed they played Vivaldi at the office of the local government in Linz, Upper Austria outside of office hours. To be precise they only play "Spring" from the "Four Seasons". I actually find it quite pleasant when just walking by, but I guess the repetition alone can be an effective deterrent to loiterers.

</comment><comment><USER20> I saw this first at that exact burger king and honestly doesn't notice it have much of an impact on the area (there were never huge numbers of homeless directly outside it asides from around 9 waiting for the library to open) but I've seen it in a lot of places since. Wasn't even remotely close to the grossest BK in SF (the one at mission and 16th is so shabby that I'm almost in awe).

Most recently in the old shopping centre in Stratford; a place where, due to some weird zoning laws, isn't allowed to kick out homeless people. The focus is always on moving homeless.

Oddly it seems like the natural endpoint for where classical music has been positioned in society. A kind easy listening that is treated so formally it now carries a strong stuffy and oppressive aura.

</comment><comment><USER21> A similar tactic has been deployed here in the UK in branches of McDonalds, with classical music played to discourage groups of youths from causing trouble

</comment><comment><USER22> So that explains the classical music played at the T-Mobile by 12 St. Station in Oakland after hours. It's across the street from a Burger King.

</comment><comment><USER23> It would be interesting to see more research into weaponized music. This article offers law-enforcement anecdotes that baroque period music is "the best", but there's a lot of other variables (like speaker quality and volume) that affect how grating music (of any kind) is.

</comment><comment><USER24> If we continue to weaponize classical music in this way, making it ubiquitous, will it ever be the case that people simply become conditioned and subconciously tune it out? Then it wouldn't have the effect of repelling undesirable behavior any more.

<comment><USER25> I have a massive problem with drunken 'laborers' hanging out outside my window from 6:30am (corner store opening) until noon. shouting, dancing, singing, fighting, laughing. as loud as you can imagine, shouts echoing back and forth between the buildings. nothing is really that amusing, I think the act of shouting itself is whats so damn funny. if you talk to them, or berate them, they will avoid your gaze, stop for 15 seconds, and then start up again as though nothing had happened.

after years of struggling with this, enter the classical music. apparently pure poison. they proudly try to stand their ground, but you can see the suffering in their eyes. some of them used to last a couple hours, but when they leave its always at a run.

anyways, to address your point, over time sensitivity seems to increase rather than decrease. as exposure increases, lower volumes and shorter durations are required to elicit the flight response.

you would think that the more aggressive, modern composers would be more stressful. apparently, just basic baroque chamber is the least palatable. after that romantic symphonies.

there are a thousand sad things about this situation, one being that I'm losing my appreciation for the music itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I can totally relate. I am listening to classical music at home, not too often, but maybe more than average? and I still hate it when they play it in one or two of Munich's subway stations.

</comment><comment><USER27> Theodore Gioia's alliteration in the sixth paragraph delights me.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm not really sure about the rest of the article but I would be more likely to hang out places with classical music cause I like it. So maybe even I would like Burger King more

</comment><comment><USER28> This can't happen quite as easily with music that's still under copyright. Interestingly I find myself wondering whether stronger copyright protection -- something for which I usually don't have a whole lot of sympathy -- would at least introduce a little friction into the music appropriation machine.

Also I'm wondering what cultural associations today's music will have, far in the future after its copyrights have expired.

</comment><comment><USER29> Wouldn't think Burger Kings and subway stations would be considered the property of the rich and powerful.

In fact, this is the most snobbish and pretentious article decrying snobbery and pretense I've seen.

<comment><USER30> Indeed. Is it really Orwellian to not want a homeless encampment in front of your business?

The author should stick to reviewing music itself, and stop whining about the "abuse" of same.

<comment><USER31> It's the mission statement, not the intention, that's described as Orwellian. "Delivering services beyond those the City of San Francisco can provide" is a really weird way to say "chasing off homeless people and delinquents."

<comment><USER30> I don't find it so. Opaque, but that is what they are doing: addressing a key problem their constituents have.

It's a tough situation and a rather benign solution to the problem immediately at hand (ignoring solving the homeless problem itself).

Disclaimer: my mother was one of those homeless people in the area, so I have some bias here.</comment></comment></comment></comment>