Ogg Theora, H.264 and the HTML 5 Browser Squabble - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/07/06/ogg_theora_h_264_and_the_html_5_browser_squabble.html

<comment><USER2> Fun fact: in the interests of forward compatibility, Firefox appears to have used liboggplay for its video pipeline.

This means that if they ever want to use _anything_ other than Theora, they will have to completely rewrite the entire video system. Apparently the problem with doing something sane like using Gstreamer is that... it's LGPL. Which apparently isn't free enough for them.

They also force YV12 -> RGB conversion in software on playback and do two sizeof(videoframe) callocs per frame, leading to the tremendous irony of having video playback vastly slower than Flash.

<comment><USER3> _Apparently the problem with doing something sane like using Gstreamer is that... it's LGPL. Which apparently isn't free enough for them._

This is not correct. The reason GStreamer is not used in Firefox is because the GStreamer backend wasn't finished in time for FF 3.5. Rather than push back the release date, they released an implementation that works for many videos. The GStreamer backend is still under active development, and will eventually be merged to trunk.

 _leading to the tremendous irony of having video playback vastly slower than Flash._

Using the most recent version of Flash and Firefox, I can play high-definition Theora easily on my laptop, but even medium-resolution H.264 in Flash struggles to achieve real-time decoding. A quick, unscientific sampling of other FF 3.5 users online has indicated to me that many others experience similar performance in both cases.

<comment><USER4> I don't think you're correct about the gstreamer backend.

Some Mozilla-based projects use Gstreamer (Songbird for one), and I believe they're having discussions about a future collaboration for accessing user's video cameras in the browser but Mozilla don't want to support any old codecs.

Their mission as a non-profit is to support the open web, and promoting royalty-free codecs fits with that mission. They can make a difference by actively choosing not to do stuff, just like at one point in the past they refused to support ActiveX despite having code available. It would have made Firefox a more useful browser at the cost of making the web less open.

<comment><USER3> See <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422540> for the progress of the GStreamer <video> backend.

<comment><USER4> I was confused by this recent comment:

<http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/theora/2009-June/002362.html>

 _"We can't ship gstreamer. We don't ship under the LGPL.

That being said, we can link to it on Linux. We would just need something for the Mac and Windows as well."_

Though the mentions of Fennec and the fact that some mobile folk have adopted Gstreamer for DSP accelerated decoding might make it useful there too.

<comment><USER4> Looks like Fennec on Nokia 810 is the first target:

[http://iloapp.mikek.dk/blog/developer?Home&post=44](http://iloapp.mikek.dk/blog/developer?Home&post=44)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure how that article turned into a treatise on how mean Microsoft is, but I stopped reading after the first third of it. Someone let me know if it picked up after that. :)

Not to shill for my employer or anything, but Ryan Paul wrote a really good overview of the whole HTML5 video thing the other day: [http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding- the...](http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding-the- html-5-video-codec-debate.ars)

<comment><USER6> You didn't miss anything, it is average Apple-can't-do-wrong fanboi article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Some more sophisticated analysis from the author in the comment thread:

 _"I did read the Ars article, which similarly voices the "free codec is good, international standards body specifications are evil" thing everyone has been repeating.

The bottom line is that x264 is GPL so the whole "Linux users can't use H.264 video" is simply wrong, and in the big picture Mozilla and Opera don't really matter. Once Chrome starts gaining traction, do you really think Google will see any need to dump $50 million on the remains of Netscape's ashes? And what purpose does Opera serve other than to make the EU feel like it has some say in the browser market?"_

Sounds like someone pissed in his cheerios. Bloody fanboys.

<comment><USER7> It isn't about the implementation's license, it's about patents. H.264 is patented while Theora is not. This makes it illegal for anybody to distribute H.264 decoding software, whether open source or not, until they've paid for the patent license.

<comment><USER8> FooBarWidget: "This makes it illegal for anybody to distribute H.264 decoding software, whether open source or not, until they've paid for the patent license."

Only within the jurisdictions in which the patent is valid and in force (renewal fees paid).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Amazing; the very first sentence in the article is factually incorrect:

 _Pundits are roasting Apple over a scuffle raised by Mozilla and Opera to define the free Ogg Theora video codec as the official way to present video on the web in the new HTML 5 specification._

There was never any attempt to define Theora as the "official way to present video". It was merely provided as a baseline, a lowest-common-denominator format that could be relied upon by content providers.

 _Ogg Theora is based upon VP3 video technology originally proprietary to On2, and subsequently abandoned after it became obsolete._

Theora is not obsolete; it is superior to most popular codecs, such as XVid, WMV, and QuickTime. In standard-definition encoding, it's even superior to modern proprietary codecs such as H.264:

<http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html>

<http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/youtube/>

 _Apple has also voiced concerns that Ogg Theora may be encumbered by unknown patents. That risk isn't significant to Mozilla and Opera, both of whom could simply abandon the format for something else [...] Apple also has a bankroll to attract patent trolls that Mozilla and Opera both lack._

This hand-waving ignores that Google will also be supporting Theora, and undoubtedly has deeper pockets than Apple. Besides, a risk of unknown patents applies to _any_ video codec. There's no technical or legal reason to exclude Theora support.

<comment><USER2> _Theora is not obsolete; it is superior to most popular codecs, such as XVid, WMV, and QuickTime. In standard-definition encoding, it's even superior to modern proprietary codecs such as H.264:_

Are you seriously this misinformed?

1\. Quicktime isn't a "codec", it's a video player. There is no "Quicktime codec".

2\. H.264 isn't proprietary.

3\. Theora is roughly between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 SP in potential efficiency; it's nowhere near VC-1 or H.264. Right now it's worse than MPEG-2 because the encoder is so bad, but Thusnelda is working on fixing that. The eventual goal is to become on par with FLV1 and similar formats; reaching more modern levels of compression will require a spec revision.

The purpose of Theora is to provide a patent-free video format, not to be the best out there in compression, since the two goals are basically contradictory. Spreading lies like these are a great way to completely ruin any chance of Theora's adoption, because expectations will be set so high that the Theora developers will never be able to realistically reach them. This is a disservice to Xiph in every way.

Despite the fact that the Theora specification is terrible and even their own developers admit it, they have one thing going their way: the quality of an encoder is far more important than the format itself. In other words, a really good MPEG-2 encoder can give better output than a really bad H.264 encoder, for example. A classic example of this is Quicktime's H.264 encoder, which is so bad that it is widely used across the industry as a marketing tool by competing encoder developers to demonstrate how good theirs is by comparison.

As such, it is possible for Theora to beat some of the lower-end H.264 encoders if they really work hard at it, even if H.264 as a whole is vastly better than Theora. This is why Thusnelda is a big deal for Theora.

This is also why it's such a problem that people consider "H.264" or "MPEG-2" or "JPEG" to be single entities; the compression quality can vary _massively_ between different encoders. That's why I always cringe when someone posts, for example, an "H.264 vs Theora" comparison; they're really doing an "X H.264 encoder vs Thusnelda" comparison and generalizing it far beyond its meaning.

<comment><USER3> _Quicktime isn't a "codec", it's a video player._

What codec is used for .MOV files, then? As far as I know they can only be en/decoded by Quicktime.

 _H.264 isn't proprietary._

Cool -- so if I start distributing H.264 videos without paying the appropriate licensing fees, there wouldn't be any trouble, right? And there's an encoder/decoder that I can install legally?

Last I checked, the answer to both of those is "no".

 _Theora is roughly between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 SP in potential efficiency; it's nowhere near VC-1 or H.264. Right now it's worse than MPEG-2 because the encoder is so bad, but Thusnelda is working on fixing that. The eventual goal is to become on par with FLV1 and similar formats; reaching more modern levels of compression will require a spec revision._

Obviously you've not used Theora for months or years. It is significantly better than MPEG-4 SP, and on par with H.264 for standard-def video.

<comment><USER2> _What codec is used for .MOV files, then? As far as I know they can only be en/decoded by Quicktime._

MOV files have used dozens of different video and audio formats over the years. Currently, the most common is H.264 video and AAC audio, and they can in fact be played by nearly everything, mainly because the MOV format is basically the same as MP4. You might have to remux the file though, as there are some subtle differences between MOV and MP4. Yes, this is yet another reason to hate Apple.

 _Cool -- so if I start distributing H.264 videos without paying the appropriate licensing fees, there wouldn't be any trouble, right? And there's an encoder/decoder that I can install legally?_

"Proprietary" has a very specific meaning in the multimedia format world; it revers to formats like Real Video, VP6, and so forth which are _completely closed_. In other words, there is no public specification, nobody can implement an encoder or decoder without reverse-engineering it. If you want something to describe H.264, say "patent-encumbered" or similar; don't misuse words with a specific meaning.

 _Obviously you've not used Theora for months or years. It is significantly better than MPEG-4 SP, and on par with H.264 for standard-def video._

I've read the spec. Here's the basic summary:

1\. Prediction. DC/AC coefficient prediction is somewhat similar to MPEG-4 Part 2. Intra prediction is similar, as is motion compensation, which is basically the same as MPEG-2/4 halfpel except that the center position averages between the diagonals instead of all four neighbors, which is slightly lower quality but much faster (a smart decision, H.264 does the same for qpel). 4MV mode is supported in the same way as in MPEG-4 SP.

2\. Transform is basically the same as MPEG-2/4, though it's bit-exact like VC-1's and H.264's in order to avoid decoders disagreeing on the correct output. It's slightly slower though because of how On2 originally designed it.

3\. Entropy coder is bizarre but not too terrible; it should probably give results similar to MPEG-4 SP's entropy coder, though I can't be entirely sure just because of how weird it is. Speed-wise the entropy coder is a real problem, especially for hardware implementations. The reason for this is because _every single data element is coded in a massive bitplane_ , requiring that the entire frame be decoded before a single inverse transform is done. This requires a cache larger than the decoded size of the frame itself, as DCT coefficients are stored in 16-bit precision as opposed to the 8-bit precision of the actual pixels. It's probably fine compression-wise though.

That's for residual coefficients though; the primary problem in terms of compression with Theora is the motion vector coding...

3a. Motion vectors can be coded in three modes: "use the previous vector", "use the previous previous vector", or "write an entirely new vector". The last mode requires writing 12 bits of raw data with no compression; X and Y vector components. The problem with this is twofold. First of all, it means you can't have motion vectors longer than 16 pixels, which is crippling for high resolutions. Second, it means the motion vector coding is actually worse than H.261 (the original standardized video format from 1988); Theora probably loses at least 10-30% compression solely because of this. It would in fact _simplify_ the specification to fix this, which is why many have been pushing to revise the spec and release a "Theora 2".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> JPEG, GIF, PNG are used as long as nobody threatens us with patent lawsuits.

Just make H.264 free for the world to use (without fine print legalese) and we will adopt it and support it inmediately.

Meantime, theora is the only free and viable option.

<comment><USER2> Actually, GIF was patented for a very, very long time:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format#Uni...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Interchange_Format#Unisys_and_LZW_patent_enforcement)

LZW patents only expired in 2003. Before that, GIF was not only patented, but the patents were actively (and often obnoxiously) enforced by Unisys. The situation was similar to that of MP3 with Frauenhofer in the late 1990s.

<comment><USER10> LZW _encoding_ was patented, decoding was never patent encumbered. So web browsers never had to worry, since all they were doing was decompressing. For the H.264 case, decoding is also encumbered, so it's not the same situation.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Dumbass – UI Made Simple - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dosyago/dumbass.git <comment><USER2> The ever immature concept of using something edgie as a name, that will likely result in you having to change it, or never getting broad adoption.

<comment><USER3> "Dolt" [https://www.dolthub.com](https://www.dolthub.com)

"Gun" [https://gun.js.org](https://gun.js.org) (Bonus points for gun-shaped logo.)

<comment><USER2> I mean, do you really think "Gun" or "dolt" are on the same par as Dumbass?

I mean is dumbass will likely be filtered by 90% of content filters, the other two would not.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello Meph, I don't really want to change the name but I am open if you have any awesome suggestions.

I think there's truth in what you say, and other comments saying this limits the usage. previous iteration of this same framework was called brutal and end up getting 500 Stars.

recently I had this idea to name things after flowers. I think it's underused and there's a lot of great flower names. chrysanthemum rhododendron. just an idea. maybe you got some cool name for this I love to hear it.

<comment><USER4> In the same vibe, maybe Dumbbell could work. Also, it relates to the "brutal" concept in some way ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice. Didn't think of that. Good logo as well :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This may be a good idea but the schtick is tiresome

</comment><comment><USER6> If you are willing to use JSX you can be even more dumbass, with an even smaller lib, and you'll get compile-time checks for HTML tags to boot. Check out this lib: [https://github.com/wisercoder/uibuilder](https://github.com/wisercoder/uibuilder)

</comment><comment><USER7> Instead of a JS-centric approach, how about an even simpler, HTML-centric approach with Apline.js? :)

<comment><USER8> This HTML-but-not-really kind of approach makes everything more complicated, not simpler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems massively less "dumb" and "debuggable" than say, templated HTML that's rendered on the server (erb, blade, whatever).

I get that it's trying to be "dumb components" but maybe that's an invalid starting point?

</comment><comment><USER2> Iim not great at naming things, but avoiding anything that will get you blocked by content sensors, or something you cant use in a board meeting.

Off the top of my head though Nematode would be my suggestion

</comment><comment><USER10> This reminds me of Reef: [https://github.com/cferdinandi/reef](https://github.com/cferdinandi/reef)

</comment><comment><USER11> I like it! I'd argue TypeScript over JS as adoption gets broader (and/or toolchains simpler)

</comment><comment><USER12> It sounds easy but not simple to me to refactor on the TodoMVC code.</comment>


Show HN: Oboxly – tell headhunters what you want - <AUTHOR>

As you, I get a lot of messages from headhunters and recruiters via email, LinkedIn or XING. Most of them are of no interest to me, though I am always open to really interesting or life changing things. So I scratched this
itch with some code last weekend. On Oboxly you (I :-) can tell headhunters and recruiters what would make me change my job and what makes me unique. It also enables me - you - to send the link to Oboxly in a reply without being searchable by your employer (a reason not to be candid on LinkedIn)
http://www.oboxly.com
Feel free to critizize, I'm open for everything and please assume I know nothing. <comment><USER2> I like this idea and will try to create a profile myself. Could also be useful to rethink personal targets anyway :)

<comment><AUTHOR> It helped me with formulating my targets and reflect what would pull me away from my (fine) current job :-)</comment></comment>


UN Data: the Ultimate Research Tool - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/un_data_the_ultimate_research_tool.php <comment><AUTHOR> It is still far from <http://www.gapminder.org/> (which does an incredible good job at leveraging data using visualization techniques/fancy UI), but at least it's free. Last time I used World Bank data, even for educational purposes, one needed to pay.

It's hard for me to see a good reason why data from the UN or the World Bank should not be accessible to everyone.</comment>


Causal Models - <AUTHOR> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causal-models/ <comment><USER2> Anyone read Judea Pearls, Causality book? I've started, and Im hoping it's going to be my next of those rare "oh f??k ... wow ..." moments. It's a short- ish textbook that needs to be slowly read.

I read a SEM book , with a chapter on casual models ... which made me wonder why the hell I bothered with SEM. Any practitioners care to comment?

<comment><USER3> FYI there's (at least?) two Judea Pearl books on causality. "Causality" was written in early 2000s, and is filled with theorems + proof + prose detailing all the major results from the theory. It's not a particularly hard book if you studied Mathematics, but it is Mathematics.

"Causal inference in statistics" is a 2017 book that covers the actually important results from the previous book, in an approachable manner, and with a focus on applying the results to actual problems. Some theorems are stated formally, but usually without proof. It's 40$ on Amazon, strongly recommended. [https://www.amazon.com/Causal-Inference-Statistics-Judea- Pea...](https://www.amazon.com/Causal-Inference-Statistics-Judea- Pearl/dp/1119186846/)

<comment><USER4> There's also "The Book of Why", which is a pop-sci-ish book by Pearl and Dana Mackenzie. It contained just enough math and examples to get me really excited for causal inference, so I just bought "Causal inference in statistics" to see the theory in detail. If you want to learn what causal inference is about, but don't necessarily want to wade through a textbook immediately, I highly recommend "The Book of Why".

[https://www.amazon.com/Book-Why-Science-Cause- Effect/dp/0465...](https://www.amazon.com/Book-Why-Science-Cause- Effect/dp/046509760X)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've spent a fair amount of time studying econometrics. Is there a fundamental difference between that and causal models?

<comment><USER6> Econometric models typically do not say anything about causality. For example, the coefficients in OLS are just correlation, i.e. one unit increase in X is _associated_ with $\beta$ increase in Y. Let's say that we regress "happiness" on "being married." It's impossible to tell which way does the causal relation flow, or if "happiness" and "being married" are both caused by a third factor altogether.

In contrast, causal models explicitly think about when we can claim that an effect is causal.

<comment><USER7> While an econometrician is aware that statistics does not prove causality, the primary goal of econometrics is causal inference.

<comment><USER8> yes and no.

From the econometrics I have seen there is a heavy focus on finding correlations and at best argumentations whether such correlations are plausible causal relationships.

<comment><USER7> Good scientific method suggests working in the opposite direction: first make a hypothesis, then test it. Working backwards from the statistical test to the hypothesis is... troublesome.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The myth of perfection - <AUTHOR> http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/06/25/theMythOfPerfection.html <comment><USER2> What is the purpose of that image of the United Airlines jet?

It's an interesting post but I couldn't get past being distracted and concerned about that impossible angle.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it common that a startup gets acquired without informing their users? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, I'm the co-founder of Threader, a Twitter client that curates good threads and compiles them in an article format.

One of our competitors was acquired by a US company 7 months ago. They didn't communicate about it and still pretend to be indie developers. They even kept their Patreon, which is misleading since users might think they're supporting indies.

I was wondering if people from the HN community have already heard of similar cases.

<comment><USER2> For analogies, look to the craft beer industry. You get a sort of "we are going to start a very similar underpriced brand, or invest in you, or buy you outright, which do you prefer?" From the mega competitor.

<comment><USER3> i think the post is more about how their competitor(copycat?) developed by an indie developer got acquired by a company and they still act like if nothing happened. Which means there is a company buying an indie made product, with the deal that they will not reveal that they got purchased, and than keep using the "indie" image to make better profit via Patreon..</comment></comment></comment>


The future Firefox UI - <AUTHOR> http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/ux-presentation/ux-presentation.html <comment><USER2> What I don't like about these Chrome UI's is that they don't respect my OS settings. I am on Windows 7 with the classic NT skin. iTunes and Chrome are one of the few programs that don't respect this skin.

While in this case it is simple user preference, in other cases it could mean an accessibility concern, or even give room to malicious attacks: With all these custom browser skins, pop-ups over the HTML body (link destination on hover) and no clear divide between window and application, users won't clearly know the difference between interaction with the browser, and interaction with a smart malicious website.

With smart design one could make the bottom browser toolbar appear to be higher, and control the top half with your website. Fake plug-in install modal windows etc.

<comment><USER3> > What I don't like about these Chrome UI's is that they don't respect my OS > settings

Hear, hear. On our new serious workstation, we mostly run a variety of developer tools and browsers, some basic office software, various graphics/DTP/modelling stuff from companies like Adobe and Autodesk, and a bunch of tools to automate things and join the dots.

On a quick look, exactly none of the major products there uses the standard Windows 7 UI conventions.

I, for one, am sick of:

\- not knowing which keyboard shortcuts perform frequent tasks like undo/redo, or more generally, not being able to navigate a UI using systematic and intuitive keystrokes;

\- every application's windows having different conventions for dealing with multiple documents, docking panels, and so on (and making the labels ever- smaller wherever they are, so your documents all look like "C:\users\Fred\\..." and your web pages are all "Favourite Site | The S...");

\- every application having different and increasingly obnoxious methods of giving you "important" notifications;

\- every application having different and increasingly obnoxious auto-update policies that break stuff;

\- every application having different ways to download and maintain plug-ins;

\- more and more applications trying to squeeze every last square inch of screen space by hiding commands behind a small number of tabs or, worse, meaningless menu-icon-things (we bought large, hi-res monitors for a reason, and having access to browser bookmarks within two clicks is worth far more to us than reading a web site at 2560x1400 instead of 2560x1370);

\- every application shoving its executables and config files in its own place (not helped by Windows 7's holier-than-thou "you can't put that in that directory" and "are you sure you want to do that" messages);

\- and many other things that just make day-to-day work horribly inefficient.

I wish Microsoft would define a robust, standardised set of UI conventions again, based on usability rather than flashy stuff, and then at least stick to it themselves instead of inventing a whole new bunch of tricks for every new version of Office, IE, Visual Studio and so on.

And then I wish other software, including everything I mentioned above and most definitely including Firefox and Chrome, would just follow the conventions or make some effort to collaborate and standardise in connection with Microsoft (or whoever else writes the platform(s) they run on).

<comment><USER4> > I wish Microsoft would define a robust, standardised set of UI conventions > again, based on usability rather than flashy stuff, and then at least stick > to it themselves instead of inventing a whole new bunch of tricks for every > new version of Office, IE, Visual Studio and so on.

This, to me, is one the biggest pluses for Macs at this point. Microsoft keeps trying to reinvent the GUI, but they don't get rid of the old stuff, even in their own systems.

I also wish Microsoft would adopt actual application bundles. 99% of applications should not actually need installers and uninstallers. Despite what Raymond Chen says, a simple folder is not the same thing.

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately the Delicious Generation (including some of its adherents inside Apple) threw out the HIG. And now we have the weird iOS-OS X hybrid that is Lion.

<comment><USER4> I haven't used Lion yet, but from what I've seen, it's still far more consistent than Windows.

<comment><USER6> This is undoubtedly true (with the flagrant exception of iCal and Address Book), but some of us old-timey Mac users remember a glorious past full of matte gray and a spatial Finder…

<comment><USER4> That's true about iCal and Address Book. I don't use either of those, so I'd forgotten what they'd done to them.

I'm not an "old-timey" Mac user by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't help wondering when Macs were "full of matte gray". Are you referring to pre- OSX days, because it seems that OSX is more gray now than ever before?

<comment><USER6> I am in fact. If I remember correctly (I may very well not!) Mac OS 8 or so (maybe 8.5) was the height of the let's-never-ever-deviate-from-the-HIG days.

This also included a glorious commitment to the desktop metaphor, when that phrase meant anything: you really could map your mental representation of virtual objects onto their real-life analogs and expect things to work remarkably like you expected.

Now, I don't know that a desktop metaphor is the right way to interact with a computer (I certainly avoid it like the plague), but it seems preferable, in my experience, to the hodge-podge of mixed metaphors that the modern desktop UI has become, in both Mac and Windows.

I'm reminded of the scene in _The Big Lebowski_ when the protagonists encounter a group of nihilists: say what you will about the desktop metaphor, but at least it's an ethos.

<comment><USER7> You remember correctly; in the 8/8.5 days, Apple's HIG was considered a must- read for any application programmer, and deviating from it was guaranteed to get you lots of criticism. IIRC, about the only 'non-standard' common widget in applications was the floating windoid, which started out as a hackish WDEF.

As an (at the time) longtime Mac programmer and enthusiast, my disappointment in the OS X UI was one of the reasons that I walked away from Mac programming and never went back. In fact, OS X drove me to more seriously try out Linux and learn to appreciate Windows. Now, I tolerate OS X, but still find myself pining for good ol' 8.5.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Folk are focusing on the two changes that make this more like chrome (tabs in title bar, and apparent removal of search bar.) There's more going on here.[1]

* Simplified, customizable graphical menus. No idea how well this will work, but it's only a mock-up at this point.

* Removal of the forward button, merging the back button with the URL bar.

* Refinement of per tab UI. In chrome you still get the browser chrome on pages like preferences or history.

* A change in browser chrome when entering fullscreen mode. (Chrome just over-lays the standard UI when you mouse to the top.)

[1] If anyone knows the context for these images, would be nice to link it!

<comment><USER9> I hope there's an option to put the forward button back in. I use it a lot.

<comment><USER10> If you think about it, the forward button is disabled about 80% of the time -- so it doesn't really need to always be there. The forward button isn't being removed completely; it'll just be hidden when it's not clickable. It will slide out when there's a "forward" URL available.

<comment><USER11> Ugh. I hate shapeshifting UIs. Muscle memory depends on stuff being fixed in space relative to other elements.

<comment><USER12> muscle memory is less relevant when mousing. the range of starting positions is large.

<comment><USER11> I can usually mouse to within a few dozen pixels of my target without looking at the screen, thanks to a combination of muscle memory and spatial sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The dev tools' UI[1] looks _amazing_.

<http://people.mozilla.com/~shorlander/devTools/devTools.html>

<comment><USER14> Are they going to fully integrate firebug into firefox rather than having it as an extension?

<comment><USER10> As I understand it (it's still somewhat in the planning stages, and things are evolving), Firefox will ship with a set of developer tools which will cover the major use cases (inspector, console, etc). Firebug will be an extension, and will add more advanced functionality. It's being rewritten in JavaScript, and could potentially work on any browser (Firebug and Firebug Lite are going to merge).

This is how I understood it when I talked to the Firebug team a few months ago. Mozilla has since hired a ton of people for their Dev Tools team and John J Barton has left Firebug due to lack of funding from IBM -- so I have no clue if things have since changed.

<comment><USER15> PLEASE integrate these things carefully and in a sensible way. If I have to use "dev tools" for x, b, and z and firebug for a, y and c that's going to be annoying as hell.

<comment><USER16> You will not be annoyed. Promise :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Strongly reminiscent of Chrome, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Chrome's UI was one of the primary reasons I switched from Firefox.

<comment><USER18> And for me the Chrome UI is the primary reason I can't stand Chrome and stay with FF.

Whatever they do to the default layout in FF doesn't bother me, just keep giving me the option to put it back the way I like it. So far, so good... other than needing a plug-in now to get a bottom status bar.

<comment><USER19> What do you use the bottom statusbar for?

<comment><USER18> I use it for the standard things like hovering over URL's and watching page load progress. And I also agree that the pop-up in Chrome works reasonably well for this too... however...

FF went and added an 'Add-Ons Bar' to replace the bottom real-estate that plugins wanted to sit in lost by the status bar removal. So now, if I use the Add-on bar, AND allow the Chrome style status pop-up, I loose even more space since the URL is now outside the bottom bar, and I'm left with a ton of unused space on the Add-on bar. FF should have just made the Status label a movable element and allowed it to go back in the bottom bar if desired. Since the bar is going to be there anyhow for some people with plugins then their effort to save UI space just cost me 2x the UI space. It frustrates me that what could have been a simple and flexible change (optional, draggable status label) has turned into a hodge podge of work-arounds.

<comment><USER20> _And I also agree that the pop-up in Chrome works reasonably well for this too... however..._

However the Chrome pop-up has a tendency to obscure useful page content, especially on (oh, irony) Google docs.

I much prefer a devoted status bar. OTOH, I have a WUXGA screen (1920x1200) so I have less need to obsess over vertical screen space.

The rise of so-called "HD" screens is one of the tragedies of modern computing that ranks up there with Comic Sans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm hoping they will do away with the "you need to restart Firefox after installing an add-on". Chrome has been able to install/uninstall/disable/tinker with add-ons without the need to restart for years. That and a new logo (tired of that fox) and I may give it another try.

<comment><USER22> I promise you the fox isn't going anywhere, but add-ons made with the new APIs don't require restart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I can't believe nobody's complaining about the missing dedicated search box. I thought that was everyone's big beef with Chrome. Then again, I haven't used Firefox in quite some time so maybe they've already dropped it.

<comment><USER24> Dramatic decisions are often criticized until people accept it and adapt.

I remember reading about how consumers wouldn't be able to adapt to a touch screen phone that didn't have a keyboard option.

<comment><USER25> Sometimes what actually happens is that people get used to the change and get tired of fighting against. But they still don't like it at all. It's hard to see the difference from outside.

<comment><USER26> Exactly. Someone might have their leg amputated and complain for a while, then eventually accept it and adapt. This does not mean that having a leg amputated is a good thing.

<comment><USER24> That's not a fair analogy.

The alternative to not having your leg amputated in given example is likely eventual spreading of a disease and death.

With consumer goods and services often no one forces you to have to accept their changes.

No one forces you to use touch screen phones: there are plenty of alternatives which do include a keyboard.

Even if you don't like one input box does all approach, you can use previous browsers or browsers which retain the standard model.

If you don't like Netflix's price hikes, you can just use another service or don't subscribe at all. Your life won't decline because of it.

<comment><USER25> Not in every case. I want to use firefox because of some plugins. There is pretty much no alternative for them. Given that is was the best choice so far, I get to choose again between something that doesn't do stuff I need, or something that doesn't look the way I'm used to. Staying with previous versions is never an answer due to lack of bugfixes, security updates, etc.

Same mistake ubuntu does sometimes. It's the best in general, but has more and more really annoying changes in my opinion.

You cannot "just switch" in many cases. In some other you'll have to choose between two things you don't like the least. That's not a good outcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't understand why no browser manufacturer integrates tree tabs. It's such a great interface innovation, and everybody is just ignoring it.

<comment><USER11> Because to a user that barely understands tabs as it is, it's simply not going to fly. And yes, many nontechnical users do struggle with the idea of tabs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm not sure what people like about Personas (or the equivalent in other browsers). It always stands out, distracts, and for me even messes up the great website I may be viewing at the time.

I'd be much more interested in a CSS extension that lets websites 'bleed' their background into the browser chrome.

</comment><comment><USER29> [shakes his head in disgust]

If I wanted to use Google Chrome, I'd install Google Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER30> Very nice, if they actually manage to pull this look off it would probably make it the best looking browser. My only concern is that they wont and that it will still look like crap in linux.

<comment><USER31> Personally, I think all these weird modern UIs look like crap, and the relatively standard Firefox UI on Linux is quite nice.

<comment><USER30> I don't know, that floating button in the top left bugs me in linux. It makes sense in windows because it just blends in with the tabs next to it, but in linux it's on its own line with the tabs showing up below it. The wasted space annoys me to the point that this is one of the main reasons why I do not use Firefox anymore.

<comment><USER31> I'm not sure what you're referring to. On my computer, it looks either like [this](<http://i.imgur.com/jZiFO.png>) or [this](<http://i.imgur.com/yHMKH.png>). No "floating button in the top left" either way.

<comment><USER32> <http://i.imgur.com/d4jjL.png>

<comment><USER31> That can't be it, he said, "it's on its own line with the tabs showing up below it".

<comment><USER32> nxn messed up his or her pronouns. The "it" in "its own line with the tabs showing up below it" refers to the the title bar. It's that on Windows, the tabs and button take the place of the traditional title bar. On Linux, drawing in the title bar proved too difficult for a generalized approach that worked across window managers, so the title bar remains intact, and everything is offset by it.

<comment><USER31> oh. well, in that case, i like my titlebars too. i guess if someone doesn't, they can use a WM without titlebars?

also, chrome gives you the option of disabling the titlebar, so it must be possible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I could be an edge case, but I really dislike branded chrome skins that become a part of the window (like the Harry Potter example). Just feels tacky to me.

</comment><comment><USER34> I wonder whether this latest proposed redesign will finally have Firefox behaving like, y'know, a native OS X app, or whether it'll be just as shallow as all previous efforts.

<comment><USER8> Curious, since I only recently started using a mac. How does firefox not act like a native app?

<comment><USER34> The whole app feels like an imitation of a Mac app. Most obviously on 10.7, the window chrome is wrong. Other small things like incorrect and wrongly sized fonts inside controls, or the whole menu bar disappearing when you use an extension in its own window. When you add everything together, it just feels wrong, like wearing clothes that don't fit.

The way they've been updating the UI so far has seen some improvements, for sure, but it's as if they've been patching it bit by bit. I just wondered whether this signalled a change of approach.

<comment><USER32> > or the whole menu bar disappearing when you use an extension in its own > window

Could someone explain to me the correct way for a developer to handle this?

I've been aware of this problem for a while, and I've newly come to own a Mac, so I've looked into it more and looked at what other apps are doing. There doesn't seem to be a correct solution.

I looked at how Safari handles the Web Inspector, and it just adds a new, dedicated Debug menu to the menu bar. This is a no-go in my case.

Suppose you're developer faced with a problem similar to the Firefox–extension problem. You have something like an app-within-an-app, or maybe A and B are actually even more closely tied together than that, but independent enough that on any other platform it would be a no-brainer: each one gets its own menu. What do you do for OS X?

You can't re-use A's menu items in B, because A's items—in, say, the Edit menu—don't serve B. You can't just augment A's menu set to include B's menus and items, because B's menus and items are so numerous and specific to B and vice versa, that there's just so much clutter from the other's menus and items.

<comment><USER35> I think the solution that Apple would suggest is to just not put an "app- within-an-app". If the feature set is far enough apart that it feels like a separate app that needs a separate menu bar, it should be a separate app.

(I actually agree: when is that ever better than a dedicated app?)

<comment><USER32> I'll reply by pointing out that I wrote

> something like an app-within-an-app, _or maybe A and B are actually even > more closely tied together than that_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wow. I really hope this isn't just speculation and something that's being put into production. Yeah, it looks like a Chrome clone, but it's been done well and with a slight twist. As a dedicated Chrome user, though, it's going to take more than just a coat of paint to get me to switch back. Can't wait to see where this ends up.

<comment><USER37> What would you want to see in another browser that would make it worth switching away from chrome?

<comment><USER38> Be faster than Chrom(ium) with regards to start up speed and JS execution.

I abandoned FF after having used it since it was "Phoenix 0.1", because it had become slow and bloated, like NN had been before. Would love to switch back, but not if I can open 5 Chromium instances in the same time it takes to open one FF window.

<comment><USER39> Have you tried a new profile? A long-time user will end up with a really crufty Firefox profile. Sync will move all your data to a new profile quickly and you can see what a new profile in Firefox is like.

<comment><USER32> Sync will not move all your data. I switched to a new profile after installing an add-on that introduced problems and uninstalling didn't correct those problems. I fell back to Sync for the new profile so I could salvage my history and bookmarks from my 2-ish year old profile, but it left out something like 9 months of history, all but two of my tags, and a good chunk of my bookmarks and search keywords (including the ones I'd set up for MXR).

I'm not sure if it was buggy, or if Sync was intentionally not tracking the stuff that didn't get copied over. (cf mconnor's blog post a month or so ago about implementing Sync quota caps).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> While this does look very pretty I'm kinda concerned that they're throwing a lot of good stuff away. I'm running Firefox 5 and it really feels polished, there's so many things I'm still discovering and thinking "hey, that's cool". It's a feeling you most often get when a design has been iterated, and tweaked, and worked on for a long time... I get the same feeling frequently on the Mac I have to use at work.

This is prettier, yes. It's also a lot curvier and wastes a lot of space compared to Firefox 5. In particular, vertical pixels are at a premium for me, and Firefox 5 has done a lot to improve this... this is a step backwards, as the main bar at the top is larger.

And seriously, those curves take up a ridiculous amount of real-estate - compare those tabs to Chrome or FF5, how many can you get on your screen?

<comment><USER4> > _In particular, vertical pixels are at a premium for me, and Firefox 5 has > done a lot to improve this... this is a step backwards, as the main bar at > the top is larger._

Really? Looks like an improvement to me, because tabs have now consumed the titlebar area. The tab area itself is larger, but the total change is a reduction in the amount of vertical space used.

> _And seriously, those curves take up a ridiculous amount of real-estate - > compare those tabs to Chrome or FF5, how many can you get on your screen?_

The curve is only on the active tab, so I don't see how it's reducing the amount of tabs you can have.

<comment><USER40> > Really? Looks like an improvement to me, because tabs have now consumed the > titlebar area.

I compared FF5 and these screenshots on my screen together, FF5 uses slightly less real estate. It's only a minor regression though, and hey, this is Firefox - I can customise it! It's just that prior to the current look, I had to modify Firefox quite a lot to optimise vertical real-estate, and it's quite nice that it's now good out of the box, so I selfishly want it to stay that way!

<comment><USER4> What OS are you on? Comparing my FF5 install on OSX to the mockups, the mockups use less space due to the tab / titlebar merging. I don't recall if FF5 is already doing that merging on Windows or not. Looking at screenshots online, it also looks like the mockup is smaller than stock FF5 on Windows, but I haven't confirmed myself.

<comment><USER40> Oh, I'm on Windows, which already has that merging in FF5.

<comment><USER4> Ah, ok. Perhaps it is worse with respect to space in Windows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I agree that these mocks seem to waste space. I much prefer a more compact design.

In these mocks, only the active tab actually looks like a tab. The other tabs visually communicate that they are another interface element all together. I would suggest that all tabs have a full tab outline. Currently, the S-shaped curve on the tabs feels too wide and takes up too much horizontal space. The curve on the corner of the tabs should be sharper to match the rounded corner of the window. The difference in shape of the s-curve near the traffic lights and the s-curve of the tabs is bothersome.

I am quite happy with the way Firefox 5 looks with a custom skin ("Default Mod") and some minor customizations. It would be nice to be able to move the tabs into the title bar to free up a little space.

</comment><comment><USER42> Why has Firefox been so slow to slim down its UI? The back button is still way too big and the button colors not subtle enough. A browser should disappear into the background to some extent. It's just a window into the interwebs after all.

<comment><USER43> The back button is intentionally bigger as it is one of the most used buttons in a browser. In accordance with Fitt's law, the size allows a user to get to it quicker than a smaller button.

<comment><USER4> I understand the logic of the bigger back button, but I think it is a poor choice. It's rather awkward-looking, but more importantly it causes the entire toolbar to be several pixels taller. It's an amazing waste of space.

<comment><USER8> For people who care about such things, you can customize the toolbar and enable "Small Icons".

<comment><USER42> It's always the first thing I do but unfortunately defaults matter.

<comment><USER8> Sure, but many like the current default -- on a netbook, I used small icons, but everywhere else I willingly sacrifice a couple of pixels for an easier target.

<comment><USER42> The other browser makers seem to disagree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Status bar 4 eva. I don't want "improved" UX, I want to keep it as is, and anyone who wants a new UX should opt in for that. Don't force me to look at your latest designer's attempt to be noticed.

</comment><comment><USER45> They sure love showing off screenshots on Mac OS X. But when are they going to follow the basic Mac OS X convention of putting the close button on the left, and centering the tab titles?

</comment><comment><USER11> So... chrome?

</comment><comment><USER46> Seems much cleaner. They should do a comparison of how much screen space is used by the chrome vs. other browsers. Can't wait for this to high the nightly / dev builds.

<comment><USER8> I've been running the nightly, and there was a brief period where the tabs were moved into the title bar. Not sure why they backed it out, but I didn't really like it anyway. (I kind of like knowing the title of the page I'm on -- for instance, with this particular link it conveyed semantic information that was missing from the page itself.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I hope they allow people to keep the old current look if they'd like. I'm more tired of changing constantly then anything, and I love the UI in firefox now. Not that new ideas shouldn't be tried, just that what's not broken shouldn't be "fixed". And I personally don't like chrome because it seems to simple, so trying to turn into Chrome isn't going to win my vote. (but hey, it's about what the mass wants right?)

<comment><USER39> Firefox will always be the most customizable of any of the major browsers. If you don't like the default theme there are thousands of others to choose from, as there are today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I did some digging around -- it should start appearing in Firefox 9, 10, and 11 (i.e. it will probably be complete in the Nightly channel before the end of the year, and in Beta/Stable builds next year some time): [http://www.extremetech.com/computing/91652-mozilla- unveils-n...](http://www.extremetech.com/computing/91652-mozilla-unveils-new- firefox-interface-for-firefox-9-and-beyond)

</comment><comment><USER49> The final design was awesome, just get rid of the home button and it will be even better. I can't remember the last time I used that button.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not the home button but the home tab: [http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2011/06/10/home-tab-and- new-...](http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2011/06/10/home-tab-and-new-tab- conceptual-mockups/)

<comment><USER50> I love that design, makes me really excited about the future of Firefox. They're finally started to catch up with Chrome in regards to speed of innovation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Does anyone know if they are planning on bringing back Ubiquity. Of the different lab projects, this one I miss a lot.

<comment><USER8> You can actually download[1] an updated version of Ubiquity that works with even the nightly versions.

The commands I personally wrote seem to be broken now, but I think the main pre-installed ones work.

[1] Get tip.xpi at <https://bitbucket.org/satyr/ubiquity/downloads>

<comment><USER41> Thank you so much for posting this. I have missed Ubiquity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I really hope this new tab layout doesn't mean Tree Style Tabs is out of the picture.

</comment><comment><USER53> Very good mockup. Hopefully it will get into the main releases without many changes

</comment><comment><USER54> If you want to try the new look out right now, SoapyHamHocks has put together a theme <http://soapyhamhocks.deviantart.com/#/d425ffz>

</comment><comment><USER55> I'm glad they finally got rid of that extra search bar, it was ugly and clunky and useless. Any word on when this changes happens for real? I would love a better looking firebug delivery device.

</comment><comment><USER56> i hope they roll this out gradually. one of the biggest things that makes people stick with old browser versions is a reluctance to move to a new UI. if they introduce a big change, we're going to see a whole bunch of people sticking with an old browser version for much longer than they should.

this is something that chrome is awesome for. they have changed the UI around a bit since v1, but each change has been so minimal that nobody has really noticed too much.

</comment><comment><USER57> Is the background blue check thing a Lion desktop picture or just something blueprinty that moz are using for this? How do I get it (with nothing drawn on top of it)?

</comment><comment><USER24> I would most likely use the full screen view as I never need the menu options anyway (it's also how I use Photoshop).

I would likely switch back to Firefox if they executed this.

</comment><comment><USER58> I like that wallpaper. Does anybody have a link to that?

<comment><USER59> He posted it on his blog, [http://blog.stephenhorlander.com/2011/08/desktop- backgrounds...](http://blog.stephenhorlander.com/2011/08/desktop-backgrounds/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> It looks fantastic! Only thing I fear about firefox is the speed. (Speed at Starting, loading setting windows, obviously loading pages, caching, etc.)

</comment><comment><USER61> What does it look like with a bunch of tabs open?

</comment><comment><USER38> Glad they finally copied Chromium.

Would be great if they copied it too with regards to startup speed and JS execution speed.

<comment><USER62> Firefox 8 nightlies are as fast if not faster than the Dev Channel build of Chrome 14.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Love the ones with the short URL bar. That is one thing from IE9 that needs to be copied.

</comment><comment><USER64> This UI may be good for small screens - but for desktops? I'm not so certain.

</comment><comment><USER4> What's the green "tree" button to the right of the home button?

<comment><USER65> It's the favicon of a site that is pinned as an "app tab".

<comment><USER4> Makes sense. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> I hope they don't get rid of the ability to have extra toolbars since I use the web developer toolbar quite a bit, and adding an extra step to get to it would be very annoying.

</comment><comment><USER67> this new UI is just awesome

</comment><comment><USER68> Where's the mockup for Windows? There are way more people running Firefox on Windows than OS X.

<comment><USER69> It's towards the bottom. Just scroll down.

<comment><USER68> Oh, I see. They have 1 mockup for Windows and the rest are for OS X. Brilliant.

<comment><USER8> These aren't design blueprints. I don't really know why the OP linked to a set of images without any commentary, but it's obvious from the URL that these were part of a presentation. Showing exactly the same changes on every OS wouldn't have been very useful in that context.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> I don't care as long as I can still use the Add-Ons (extensions, themes, etc.) to make it work like I want, which is pretty much like an improved Firefox 3.6 or so. That's the big thing Chrome doesn't have: The ability to customize the experience in very deep ways.

</comment><comment><USER71> I see wasted pixels...

</comment><comment><USER72> Chrome, is that you?

</comment><comment><USER73> Yeah, let's make thing more round and diverge even more from the OS look. Morons.

<comment><USER74> How is name-calling useful to anything here?</comment></comment>


On 'Jeopardy,' Watson's [Redacted: Spoiler]  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/17jeopardy-watson.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice to see some numbers on Watson's much discussed reaction time:

 _Watson, on the hand, does not anticipate the light, but has a weighted scheme where when it is highly confident it can buzz in as short a time as 10 milliseconds, making it very hard for humans to beat. Less confident, and it buzzed more slowly._

Also, this quote:

 _"It sort of wants to get beaten when it doesn't have high confidence," Dr. Ferrucci said. "It doesn't want to look stupid."_

This line:

 _The researchers also acknowledged that the machine benefited from the "buzzer factor."_

And the other players' take on it:

 _Both human players felt that Watson's button pushing skill wasn't necessarily an unfair advantage. "I beat Watson a couple of times," said Mr. Rutter._

</comment><comment><USER2> After yesterday's dominance, it was a little surprising to see how (relatively) few questions it answered this time, and with lower confidence. Any explanations?</comment>


Cable Haunt: A critical vulnerability found in cable modems - <AUTHOR> https://cablehaunt.com/? <comment><USER2> This is nothing new, really. Crappy SOHO routers have been proven to be vulnerable over and over again.

The thing though is that in most countries you don't actually own the modem, it stays property of the ISP. And because of that you are locked out, and often you can't even run a firmware update even if you have the technical knowledge.

Really, ISPs should be held responsible for this. It is their equipment so they should also maintain it.

For me this is the reason my 'modem' is still in the original box, I've installed my own equipment which I maintain myself. Granted, I am lucky because I have a fiber connection to my home, so really all I needed was an SFP module for my Edgerouter. I also live in a country where ISPs are required to support running your own equipment. With cable this becomes a lot harder or even impossible due to all kinds of network specific systems such as DOCSIS.

<comment><USER3> You make it sound like the providers giving you a modem is a bad thing. This is a good thing. You as the consumer just needs to buy a decent router, and it's your ISPs responsibility to maintain the modem. If you have a decent router you have nothing to worry about. You can simply consider an attack on your modem an attack on your ISP.

All ISPs I've ever seen in the US allow you to use your own router.

<comment><USER4> At a $5+/mo fee for items that normally sell for $60 it seems like profit seeking behavior.

Comcast at least now made equipment returns easier though ups franchises, historically, it could take hours at an under staffed, low budget facility to return a item. And if you didn't you'd often expect to argue with collections.

<comment><USER3> 5/mo is 120 over 2 years, which is imo the expected life on a modem. Now of course some last 5 years or more, but then some last 6 months. I think 60/year is a decent price for a 100 percent satisfaction guaranteed working modem.

<comment><USER4> > for a 100 percent satisfaction guaranteed working modem.

Importantly, the company I mention historically had such a bad satisfaction experience that it was rated lowest for customer experience. Such issues that they rebranded. With their contractor model it was regularly the experience of customers that the install goes through 2 or 3 cheap cable modems until one worked; in combination with their Mac locking, dns poisoning data caps, almost daily scheduled downtimes.

Though I'm still not sure how it's a decent price to pay $120 for something that retails for $60.

<comment><USER3> Satisfaction guaranteed. Don't like the service? Move along, you're out very little/nothing.

<comment><USER5> This would be a good argument if:

* there was any choice in the market * my satisfaction was actually guaranteed * The cost of switching was low (it will take at least a day of coordination to end one service, and start the second)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I recently had the frustration of trying to use a Vodafone ISP Supplied modem. It had a propietary interface which didn't allow using the modem as a bridge to a network not on a vlan. Along with the help of the awesome team at hack- technicolor we managed to find a command execution exploit in the dyndns updater which allowed us to free the Vodafone UltraHub Technicolor DGA0130VDF modem along with others. The device is a cool box running a Dual Core Broadcom 400MHz CPU with 256MB DDR3 RAM it's a DSL/WAN router with ADSL/VDSL, Wi-Fi 11b/g/n/ac 5GHz/2.4GHz, And SIP support for two phones. Also now a working WAN port to a non-vodafone gateway. The device was running openwrt; We also figured out how to keep persistance on the device after a firmware update to an unexploitable version meaning you can even have SSH running on the latest kernel from Vodafone too. In all had a great time working on this box and feels awesome to free an otherwise awesome device from the trash-heap! [https://github.com/kevdagoat/hack- technicolor/issues/68](https://github.com/kevdagoat/hack- technicolor/issues/68)

</comment><comment><USER7> For years now I insisted on getting a modem operating in bridge mode, with a Ubiquiti Unifi USG doing the actual routing and Unifi access points providing Wi-Fi. I never trusted the crappy modems, especially the ones provided by the cable company.

Ubiquiti cares much more about frequent software updates and the general security and reliability of their gear. The cable companies push trash, because they can get away with it in most cases.

In this particular case, I don't know if my modem is affected, but I don't really care: it's part of the operator's network, beyond the security boundaries of my network.

<comment><USER8> My cable modem is in bridge but I can also reach its web interface the management IP. In that case, you should find out if the modem is vulnerable because an exploited modem could still be messing with your traffic.

<comment><USER7> Messing how?

I mean, yes, it is a problem, but so is any networking device anywhere on the Internet — as soon as the traffic leaves my network, all bets are off.

The point is not to allow operator-managed crappy devices (like cable modems) into my network.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm hoping someone secretly deploys tor nodes onto all of these 200 million connections, and tor (or something like it) becomes the defacto standard for connecting to the internet.

Privacy matters more now than it did in the 1980's, and in todays age, having every website operator see your IP address isn't really cool.

<comment><USER10> It doesn't seem to be feasible using this vulnerability:

> Cable Haunt is exploited in two steps. First, access to the vulnerable > endpoint is gained through a client on the _local network_ , such as a > browser. (emphasis mine)

<comment><USER11> This is almost certainly exploitable remotely with a DNS rebinding attack.

<comment><USER12> You don't need any fancy rebinding attacks. That's a bit 2001 era web hacking :)

This issue is based on WebSockets where the software on the modem:

a) Doesn't verify any of the origin headers sent, so any origin works (rebinding is designed to beat origin checks)

b) Copies an uploaded message straight onto the stack without doing any size checks

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm wondering, how prevalent is DSL in the US?

In France, cable is basically non-existent except in a few large cities. DSL is everywhere as legacy infrastructure and fiber coverage over the whole country is increasing at a fast rate.

Is the US in a somewhat similar situation or is cable found pretty much anywhere?

<comment><USER14> Cable is probably the leader in most markets in the US. DSL hasn't been given the same innovation love, so in markets where it is still marketed (primarily by AT&T) the speeds are almost always lower/capped at 50Mbps down. In more rural areas DSL still has a stronger foothold. But in general, yes, cable is quite prevalent.

<comment><USER15> I haven't seen DSL at more than 2-3mbps down even around the biggest US cities. The only real high bandwidth download option is cable (coaxial), and the only high bandwidth download and upload is fiber.

<comment><USER16> This is exactly my experience as well. In DSL's favor I would add that it's not a shared pipe and the latency is generally low and very very consistent. If it were 20-30mbps down DSL would be competitive again. Emotionally I'd like to ditch both the phone and cable providers, they and their exploitive business model suck fetid dingo kidneys.

<comment><USER17> That's weird, DSL is the most common way of going online in Germany and many providers offer 20-200 Mbit connections

<comment><USER18> My current ILEC "offers" 100 Mbit DSL, but you have to be within a certain distance of their main infrastructure (I forget what it's called. DMARC, maybe?)

This means it offers 100 Mbit service, but at my house it actually maxes out at 8 Mbit.

<comment><USER19> DSLAM: Digital subscriber line access multiplexer

That's probably the device you're looking for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think it's high time for an FPGA-based, open hardware, open software, auditable-by-everyone, cable modem project...

Even if it isn't immediately DOCSIS compatible...

Heck, just get a single packet of data over a cable from point A to point B using an open FPGA-based design... Put that on the Internet... that's the starting point...

Let it evolve from there...

<comment><USER21> Our ISP (Spectrum) refuses to work with customer-supplied equipment. Even when I have proven their equipment to be faulty - I still had to wait a day or two for a technician. And having a business account, at least it was that quick. My residential neighbors can sometimes wait up to a week for remedy, and are frequently told things like "check with your neighbors to see if they have service" when reporting service problems.

<comment><USER22> Eh? I have Spectrum and use my own modem and router... It's even advertised as something I can do.

<comment><USER23> You both seem to be right. According to [1], residential customers can use Spectrum-approved modem models, but business customers must use Spectrum- provided modems. (I use my own modem with Spectrum too.)

[1] [https://www.spectrum.net/support/internet/compliant- modems-c...](https://www.spectrum.net/support/internet/compliant-modems- charter-network/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> As mentioned by several comments, an import defensive step that most home users can take is to ensure you have a firewall rule in your router blocking any traffic on your LAN from accessing the modem on its LAN port, and any traffic originating from the modem LAN IP from getting onto your LAN.

This could be a default setting when going through a setup wizard on most routers, detecting the MAC of the modem is easy, and automatically blocking any LAN traffic to that MAC which is not merely using it as a next-hop.

I think the only challenge is that very rarely you will want to access your modem's LAN IP for debugging purposes. But I suppose the average user will have no clue how to do this anyway...

Unfortunately this is just the tip of the iceberg for so many ways these SOHO devices are vulnerable, this level of defense in depth is nice in theory but perhaps just a finger in the dike.

<comment><USER25> > As mentioned by several comments, an import defensive step that most home > users can take is to ensure you have a firewall rule in your router blocking > any traffic on your LAN from accessing the modem on its LAN port, and any > traffic originating from the modem LAN IP from getting onto your LAN.

Yep, most of this vulnerability is (very) old news. There used to be a vulnerability for the very popular Motorola / Arris SB series where any website could CSRF into the modem's webpage and do a "reset", which would shut off your internet for up to half an hour until it could reprovision with your ISP. There was even a proof of concept site that did this (with a big red warning first), I really wish I could remember the domain name.

Anyway, I used that modem and of course I just completely blocked access to its IP address on my router's firewall. It's really incredibly unfortunate that even today you have to be tech savvy to protect yourself from the devices running in your home. Basic security should come default.

Here's a another vulnerability for you. On my grandparents' DSL, the ISP supplied combined modem/router has a config page that is (mostly) not password protected. You can see the passwords for _every SSID_ without logging in, you can reset the router, see information on other devices connected to the network, etc etc. Absolute insanity.

Edit: I did find the website, but it was eventually taken down by the creator after (most?) ISPs patched the problem. [https://web.archive.org/web/20160921191154/http://www.reboot...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160921191154/http://www.rebootmymodem.net/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Does someone know if I can « unlock » my modem speed with this exploit?

<comment><USER27> Super illegal, AND all ISPs have bandwidth accounting that will quickly spot the manipulation.

<comment><USER28> > Super illegal

[citation needed]

Also, what makes it super? And how does that compare to normal illegal?

<comment><USER27> Heh - sorry for the hyberbole.

At least in my country, Germany, fraudulent use of telecommunications services, public transport or paid events/facilities ("Erschleichen von Leistungen", § 265a StGB) is not just a civil matter, but also a criminal offence. If you got caught manipulating your modem to avoid paying for faster broadband, you would likely to get into trouble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why are the admin pages of all these cable modems written with websockets if they can be accessed via a websocket request from any rando website you visit? Is this just a bunch of massive mistakes or is there a good reason?

<comment><USER30> I'm sure that this kind of thing is farmed out to the lowest bidder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I do not allow Comcast modems or routers on my network. I think this still saves me $9/month or something, foregoing the rental charge for their hardware, but even if it didn't I wouldn't trust them.

</comment><comment><USER9> Nobody should be trusting a modem. You don't put your private keys on a modem. Your credit card number isn't saved on the modem.

So if hackers break into the modem, the worst they can do is shut off your internet. And if you really cared about reliability of your internet, you'd have two connections anyway.

Really this is a non-issue.

<comment><USER2> > the worst they can do is shut off your internet

No, if your modem gets owned, you are in a whole lot of trouble.

You become vulnerable for all sorts of MITM attacks. The attacker now also has access to your LAN, which is usually trusted by all devices on it.

<comment><USER31> You mean you're not using end to end certificate based encryption for all your applications these days?

And all the pushback we get from people here that DoH/DoT is a bad thing.

<comment><USER32> Not all applications are, and there are specific automated downgrade attacks for encrypted comms that force some back to plaintext. Giving outsiders access to your internal network is rarely a good idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I haven't read the full report, but, the PoC[1] and the explanations I have seen before seem to indicate one has to be on the "local" side of the cable modem to run the exploit. That is, it doesn't seem like this is exploitable remotely.

That is, the attacker either needs to have been allowed to connect to your WiFi (either through another vulnerability or voluntarily) or attached a cable to your WiFi router or your cable modem.

This is not impossible (not even requiring reliance on the fact that Google, Apple, and Microsoft among them have pretty much everyone's WiFi passwords[2]), but a wave of attacks based on this is much less feasible than if they could be carried en masse on the internet.

[1]: [https://github.com/Lyrebirds/sagemcom- fast-3890-exploit/blob...](https://github.com/Lyrebirds/sagemcom- fast-3890-exploit/blob/deb542553a90d84c6c5ffba59eaeab8bc126aadd/exploit.py#L32)

[2]: [https://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting- windows-...](https://tourkick.com/advice-tips-howto/myth-busting- windows-10-wi-fi-sense-google-wireless-mapping/)

<comment><USER33> This is incorrect. It's accessed with websockets, that can be run from any webpage, so all you'd have to do is follow a malicious link.

From the article:

> Accessing the Endpoint

> The endpoint, which serves a tool called spectrum analyzer, uses a websocket > for communication with the graphical frontend displayed in a browser. > Whereas CORS would restrict access to such an endpoint for HTTP requests, > websocket is not protected by this protocol. Therefore, it is up to the > server to verify the relevant request parameters added by the browser. > Because these parameters are never inspected by the cable modem, the > websocket will accept requests made by javascript running in the browser > regardless of origin, thereby allowing attackers to reach the endpoint. It > should be noted that the exploit is not limited to run in a browser. Any > place where running code can reach an IP on the local network, can be used > to exploit Cable Haunt.

<comment><USER10> Thank you for correction. Voted your comment up.</comment></comment></comment>


Pokémon Crystal disassembled source code - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal <comment><USER2> Two interesting fun facts about Pokemon Crystal:

1) Pokemon Gold/Silver, the prior versions of Crystal, was programmed by _four_ people. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokémon_Gold_and_Silver#Develop...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokémon_Gold_and_Silver#Development_and_release))

2) Crystal is 1MB in size. Yes, one megabyte.

<comment><USER3> > Crystal is 1MB in size. Yes, one megabyte.

Is this notable because it's little or because it's a lot?

Zelda III for the SNES was 1MB. Pokemon Red and Blue was 512KB, which is also quite a lot for a Gameboy game.

<comment><USER4> Considering busybox (statically-linked ls, etc.) is 2MB, 1MB is pretty impressive.

<comment><USER5> There was an interesting talk on this at Linux.conf.au a couple of years ago, trying to figure out why modern binaries are so large. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbv9L-WIu0s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbv9L-WIu0s)

> Bloat: How and Why UNIX Grew Up (and Out) - Rusty Russell, Matt Evans

> The 'ls' binary on the original release of Unix (version 6) was 4920 bytes > long. Thirty six years later, 'ls' on Ubuntu is 105776 bytes. Is this the > laziness of modern coders? Increasing features? Does 'cat' really now do 313 > times more stuff, or is there something else going on?

<comment><USER6> OT: I find it slightly disturbing to read people's Google+ conversations that were imported to extend the YouTube thread. I hope YouTube/Google isn't really buying Twitch, despite the return that would mean for the Twitch investors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Unlike a disassembly of code that is written in a higher-level language like C, these old NES and Gameboy games were written in the assembly language you're seeing disassembled. Obviously there are no comments and labels, but the actual _logic_ and the intent of the original developer is clearly communicated.

This allows for a really special type of awesome when you're working on fan translations and ROM hacks. You actually have the opportunity to analyze the work of the developers you idolized when you were younger, and celebrate a their clever hacks or curse them for their spaghetti code, 15 to 25 years later. Furthermore, you can contribute your own clever hacks to the code base.

<comment><USER8> > Gameboy games were written in the assembly language you're seeing > disassembled. Obviously there are no comments and labels,

These look like labels and comments to me:

[https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/engine/ti...](https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/engine/title.asm)

[https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/battle/ai...](https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/battle/ai/scoring.asm)

[https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/home/deco...](https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/home/decompress.asm)

[https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/battle/hi...](https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/battle/hidden_power.asm)

<comment><USER9> They meant "obviously the comments and labels of the original programmers are not included."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is certainly a thing of beauty. See, for instance, the way the trainers are defined:

[https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/trainers/...](https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/trainers/trainers.asm)

It almost looks like a high-level language.

<comment><USER11> This is a pretty commmon technique in video games generally referred to as "data driven design". Basically put as much of the runtime decisions that are made into a data value that can be tweaked by designers without having to ask an engineer to do it each time.

<comment><USER12> Final Fantasy for the NES seems to be designed the same way. A lot of the spells are actually "call function A with strength N, call function B with strength M and flag X". And with a large enough vocabulary of functions and flags, you get fire spells, healing spells, instant death spells, protection spells, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Repo owner here. Yes, it's a disassembly, but also it compiles back into the original ROM if you follow the README (it's not a "dump and flee").

<comment><USER13> Would you care to comment on what tools are popular for disassembling these ROMs? I think it's a pretty neat hobby, anywhere suggested to read more about it?

<comment><AUTHOR> From looking at the docs

Assembler used: [https://github.com/bentley/rgbds](https://github.com/bentley/rgbds)

RE tools used: [https://github.com/kanzure/pokemon-reverse-engineering- tools](https://github.com/kanzure/pokemon-reverse-engineering-tools)

<comment><USER13> totally missed that, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This made me wonder if it's possible to automatically reverse engineer a small binary file into human readable (and understandable) source code. Assuming you know the language and compiler used (and all of its quirks and optimizations), and considering that human written programs aren't so random and their patterns are most likely predictable, I think it should be possible though not at all trivial. Are there any projects attempting this?

<comment><USER15> Labels and comments go a long way to making an assembly project readable. I don't know how an automatic tool could interpret the human intention behind a label.

<comment><USER16> It's not that difficult, but I think the main obstacle is gathering and representing the collection of knowledge in a useful form.

There was a disassembler called Sourcer that would annotate code with a set of predetermined comments based on its knowledge of the PC hardware. For example a sequence of instructions that enabled the interrupt controller by setting a specific bit in its register would be identified and get the comment "enable interrupt controller". I seem to remember IDA can do the same thing, although it's been a while since I last used it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is fairly nonlegal, right? ...

<comment><USER18> To sad that so much work is likely to vanish within a few days. But they probably knew what was coming.

<comment><USER9> Many famous Nintendo games have been publicly disassembled before, and Nintendo is either unaware or turns a blind eye. The only different thing about this disassembly is that it is hosted on GitHub, where it is much more likely to be seen by people that aren't already interested in ROM hacking and retroprogramming.

<comment><USER19> Thankfully Github doesn't do preemptive DMCA removals, so it looks like it's safe for the time being.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Relevant: [https://bitbucket.org/iimarckus/pokered](https://bitbucket.org/iimarckus/pokered)

<comment><USER21> That link is, alas, outdated. pokered is now located here: [http://github.com/iimarckus/pokered](http://github.com/iimarckus/pokered)

<comment><USER20> Thanks! I didn't know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Well, it looks like I can finally catch'em all (after fifteen years!)

<comment><USER23>
        printf("You caught them all!\n");

I'm a winner!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> any clue what language the original development took place in?

<comment><USER8> Originally the game was written in a variant of asm resembling z80.

<comment><USER13> I knew that the Gameboys were Zilog machines, but I never really put any thought into game development. I imagined they used a higher level language during actual development and ran the code through something that would result in the assembly for use in whatever. Pretty cool stuff.

<comment><USER9> General purpose high level languages[1] didn't become practical in commercial game development[2] for even what we would consider to be "non-critical" code until Doom, the PlayStation era for consoles, and the Game Boy Advance era for handhelds. Pretty much everything produced for the systems before them was done completely in assembly, and the practice remained relatively common for a while afterward.

This is partially because C compilers of the time weren't that great, partially because "everything is a critical section" when you're pushing the limits of extremely limited hardware, and partially because C's virtual machine model does not fit the average 8-bit CPU architecture at all, making pretty much impossible to this day to compile regular C code to (say) 6502 machine code that is anywhere close to optimal.[3]

[1] Ok, many games had custom bytecode interpreters, like SCUMM or the typical RPG's textbox language, but that's not quite the same thing. They could have used FORTH more (were there any games that used FORTH?), but I guess even in the days of HP calculators, people hated RPN.

[2] I guess I'm ignoring the many games done in BASIC for the 8-bit micros, but there's a clear difference in quality between these games and the average NES action game.

[3] There is a C compiler for various 8-bit architectures called cc65, but it chokes on anything resembling modern C. To get anywhere close to the performance of even naively written assembly, you have to hold its hand with machine-specific annotations (like "stick this variable in the zero page," or "make every variable static because the machine has no stack-relative address modes") to the point that it's easier to just write in assembly from the start.

<comment><USER24> Actually Pokémon Crystal itself, the rom we were discussing, has an extensive higher-level scripting language built-in for events, messages and movement. It still looks very much like assembly, but it is built up of Pokémon commands instead of machine code.

For example, this is the script to choose your starter pokemon: [https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/maps/Elms...](https://github.com/kanzure/pokecrystal/blob/master/maps/ElmsLab.asm#L171)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow, it looks like half a dozen people have been working on this for two years...

</comment><comment><USER25> I flagged this story because I don't like to see blatant copyright violations on HN. Instead, I would have loved to seen a tool that automatically disassembles a user-provided ROM to the equivalent of this repo.

<comment><USER26> > Instead, I would have loved to seen a tool that automatically disassembles a > user-provided ROM to the equivalent of this repo.

Well ain't you fancy.

Look at the commit log. Please. This stuff can't be "automatically disassembled" into the great looking codebase it's currently presented as.

Whatever though, I guess asking some people to think for more time than it takes them to click a link is a bit much these days.

<comment><USER25> I did see the commit log. I believe the project could instead check in symbol names, data structures, and comments that tag addresses in the ROM. You would also want to group those symbols into logical translation units. The copyright status on this repo may still be murky (are the comments and symbol names derived works?) but much better than the current situation where the copyrighted ROM can be rebuilt from from the repo.

Edit: I believe you can do something similar with IDA database dumps. The database doesn't contain the original executable image but instead contains a log of the IDA commands applied to the imported image. Another user can import their executable image and "replay" the IDA commands in the database.

<comment><USER27> Have you written a program that can do this?

These people put a lot of hard work into something people find interesting. I'm glad this is on hacker news because I'm interested in how these games were written and developed.

<comment><USER26> > Have you written a program that can do this?

Heavens no, it's much easier to complain and criticize other people's work.

I had a feeling "being useful" is something people like OP don't actually do, and checking his online presence only proved me right. This is making me abnormally furious.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rumour: US officials agree on new ways to control high tech exports to China - <AUTHOR> https://www.platformexecutive.com/news/blog/us-officials-agree-on-new-ways-to-control-high-tech-exports-to-china/ <comment><USER2> Suspect this will form part of a wider governmental push to 'limit' China.</comment>


Show HN: PopVox helps you follow legislation - <AUTHOR> https://www.popvox.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> This showed up in my Facebook feed, and I thought it was interesting enough to share with Hacker News. It was recently founded by a friend-of-a-friend who's worked in DC for a while.

I've been looking for good sources for filtered political news lately. I have lots of sources to keep up on technology news, but I've been wanting to keep up on politics and world events more than I have been without trying to drink from the firehose. I think this website might help achieve that.

Btw, their website isn't very well organized (I think they just launched and have some issues to iron out). For example, you have to click the "Home" link before some more useful links are displayed, such as "Bills in Congress" (<https://www.popvox.com/bills>).

</comment><comment><USER2> I have to say, the design is beautiful.</comment>


[Course] Introduction to Docker and containers for beginners - <AUTHOR> https://cloudacademy.com/cloud-computing/courses/getting-started-with-docker/

<comment><USER2> Nice link, thanks for sharing! Docker is so hot, good to have stuff like that about it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great Course!! I didn't know that docker is based on LXC

</comment><comment><USER4> Is there a course about advanced usage of Docker too?</comment>


Grapevine Message Aggregator: finds & posts messages - <AUTHOR> http://grapevine-project.info/

<comment><AUTHOR> From looking at the feeds, it seems it does a pretty good job of finding interesting projects:

<http://twitter.com/#!/github_js> <http://twitter.com/#!/github_rb>

What I find really neat about it, though, is that rather than just solve the case of aggregating and posting github repos referenced on twitter, it's designed to support other sources and destinations, by writing just a little bit of custom glue code.</comment>


GNU Bison 3.3 - <AUTHOR> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2019-01/msg00016.html <comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19007302](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19007302).</comment>


Why Go sucks in 22 lines - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/simplyianm/caa9e7105864ce03835ecd32ce4499b6 <comment><USER2> Golang never posed as functional. It is this way by design. The same holds for C. If you need a functional language try something else.

For me, the code does not prove anything. It would prove if Golang posed as functional and you had to do it this way.

Disclaimer : Big Golang fan.</comment>


The Fusioneers, who build nuclear reactors in their back yards - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2016/05/26/fusioneers/ <comment><USER2> These are Farnswoth Fusors[1], first developed by Philo T Farnsworth, one of the inventors of television.

The devices use about 100,000x more energy than they produce FROM FUSION (edit, thanks), but some fusion does occur. An individual ion can be heated by 11,000 kelvins with a single electron volt, so 15,000ev is enough to reach fusion temperature. The statistical challenge is getting ions to collide - overcome the (repelling) coulomb force - and fuse.

There are discusson groups online for this topic [2] and there's even a high school in the Seattle area that has a fusor [3].

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

[2] [http://www.fusor.net/board/](http://www.fusor.net/board/)

[3] [http://www.industrytap.com/overview- polywell/31940](http://www.industrytap.com/overview-polywell/31940)

<comment><USER3> I've built a fusor[1], and in its simplified form, it's just a large, negatively charged grid in a vacuum chamber with some hydrogen sitting around. Nothing to be afraid of!

You're absolutely right that these devices don't produce net energy. I built mine because I wanted to learn more about all the tech involved (high vacuum, high voltage, some nuclear physics). They're really good teaching projects for folks going into experimental physics, since there's a neat outcome without too much danger.

I assembled a coffee table book with some pretty pictures about it, PDF copy here: [http://shia.wsyntax.com/stuff/fusion/fusor_book_web.pdf](http://shia.wsyntax.com/stuff/fusion/fusor_book_web.pdf)

[1] [http://fusion.wsyntax.com/](http://fusion.wsyntax.com/) , [http://fusion.wsyntax.com/setup/](http://fusion.wsyntax.com/setup/)

<comment><USER4> How much would it cost, roughly, to manufacture helium from one of these?

From what I understand, we are running out of our natural stock.

<comment><USER5> It would cost a fuck ton! Here's how I figure it:

Each fusion event makes one He atom and releases about 17 MeV of fusion energy. Since (one mole) X (one eV) = ~100,000 Joules, fusing one mole (2 grams) of He would produce about 1.7 X 10^12 Joules. That's about 472 megawatt-hours of fusion energy produced.

Another commenter says that the energy INput (to the Farnsworth fusor) is about 100,000 times the energy OUTput; so fusing that 2 grams of He would require a 2,000 megawatt power plant to run for 23,600 hours, or 2.7 years.

Readers: please correct any mistakes you find.

<comment><USER6> Since a fusor normally runs on deuterium fuel, wouldn't the output be helium-3 with a mass of 3 grams/mole?

Not that it makes a big difference - producing helium with a fusor remains extremely impractical.

<comment><USER5> Oops! I used He's atomic number (2) instead of its atomic mass (usually 4).

I believe deuterium fusion events mostly produce He4, occasionally He3 + neutron. So we'd actually produce between 3 and 4 grams.

<comment><USER6> No, deuterium-deuterium fusion reactions usually produce helium-3 and a neutron. Due to the conservation of energy, producing helium-4 requires the emission of a gamma ray. This happens rarely because, since the strong nuclear force is stronger than the electromagnetic force at small distances, fusion reactions tend to release energy as protons and neutrons rather than gamma rays.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have a hack project like this going in my garage.

I'm trying to build a resonant tuned polywell device. The tldr is polywell + tesla coil power source + microwave oven = fusion? I have no idea if it will work but is something I wanted to try.

The original polywell is a steady state device, where this is meant to create a dynamic system in tune with the power source.

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

[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3BPtWiGxd3c/Vj7ecWEoXuI/AAAAAAAAGc...](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3BPtWiGxd3c/Vj7ecWEoXuI/AAAAAAAAGcs/ywhNj7we_AU/s1600/4.png)

<comment> mh-cx > I'm trying to build a resonant tuned polywell device. The tldr is polywell + > tesla coil power source + microwave oven = fusion? I have no idea if it will > work but is something I wanted to try.

I hope you thought about all the consequences this may have. See Primer.[1]

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_\(film\))

<comment><USER8> The sequel is a let down though. Oh well.

<comment> mh-cx There's a sequel? Or did you mean Upstream Color? It's definitely quite different and more artistic. But I want to give it a second chance.

<comment><USER8> Oops! Must have gotten my timelines mixed up. Please don't tell anyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Impressive people, but I don't feel that I got a sense of what they were actually doing. I understand that it's a challenge for a writer who probably doesn't understand the subject well, to talk to the average read who doesn't understand it at all. Still, this feels like a wasted opportunity to teach, and to inform others with more knowledge about what these interesting people are doing.

<comment><USER10> Felt like we read just the beginning to a very thorough article. Instead we just got introduced...

<comment><USER11> This feels like the introduction to a book. It sounds like an interesting one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This listing won't be full without David Hahn aka "Nuclear Boy Scout". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn)

<comment><USER13> Hahn was working with fission not fusion , he was not a 'fusioneer' but splitting the atom.

Hahn produced amazing amateur nuclear work nonetheless, ( somewhat out of control when his reactor went critical ).

<comment><USER14> I wonder if you could use a Farnswoth Fusor as a neutron source to do some fissioning?

<comment><USER15> yes you can, and it means you can have a reactor which (when the power to the fusor fails), it turns off(ish).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Lockheed-Martin's Skunk Works is trying to build a useful fusion reactor using a somewhat similar approach.[1] They announced this a few years ago, and last fall, their people gave a talk at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. (There's video, but it won't play in Firefox on Linux.[2])

It's striking that a very capable organization is working on this.

[1] [http://www.pppl.gov/events/colloquium-lockheed-martin- compac...](http://www.pppl.gov/events/colloquium-lockheed-martin-compact- fusion-reactor) [2] [https://mediacentral.princeton.edu/media/Thursday+Colloquium...](https://mediacentral.princeton.edu/media/Thursday+Colloquium,+August+6,+2015,+%22The+Lockheed+Marin+Compact+Fusion+Reactor%22,+Dr.+Thomas+McGuire,+Lockheed+Martin/1_5j8kix93)

</comment><comment><USER17> Nice bios. Would rather read about what they're building.

<comment><USER18> Exactly - this was just the opening page to the article I would have like to have read; that may be because I did my apprenticeship in the UK Atomic industry and long for my 20s, but maybe it's because it would be really interesting to read about this stuff - I had no idea people were doing this sort of thing as a hobby. I feel an evening's search-and-read activity coming on!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Let's not forget Doug Coulter:

[http://sploid.gizmodo.com/this-chain-smoking-gun-loving- guy-...](http://sploid.gizmodo.com/this-chain-smoking-gun-loving-guy-built-a- nuclear-reac-1536653459)

He has a forum dedicated to all kinds of stuff. He occasionally stopped by Schneier's blog to deliver insightful posts. I particularly liked his calling out the Anarchist Cookbook's many ways of killing people... that try to do what it says. ;)

</comment><comment><USER20> While we're at it, are safety considerations the only problem that prevented nuclear powered automotive engines? I've always wondered why.

<comment><USER21> Mostly its about size. There is effectively a minimum viable size for a fission reactor. There are a pinch more than 2 neutrons born from each fission event. In order to operate at criticality, exactly one of them must go on to produce another fission. Leakage of neutron radiation from the effective surface of the core is a major way that neutrons don't make it to cause another fission event. As the ratio of surface area to volume goes up (because the core got smaller) it becomes harder and harder to design a core that doesn't lose neutrons to the other loss mechanisms to keep up with the increasing loss out the core's surface.</comment></comment>