Steve Blank's Lean Launchpad & Chuck Eesley's Tech Entreprenur class cancelled - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/b/107809899089663019971/107809899089663019971/posts/LniJSBQJec5

<comment><USER2> It is clear that something isn't going according to plan. With two startups coming out of the same program at a top school, I'm sure there is enough bad blood, lawyers, friendships, and did I mention lawyers that people don't want to talk.

But how does a startup handle this? When it is clear to your customers that you something is happening, but you aren't at liberty to say.

<comment><USER3> there is a rumor that initial delays had to do with (what would seem to be a very cautious) aversion re: sopa/pipa issues over the screencasts. i say that "there is a rumor" because the only extent i know about it is _as a rumor_ from someone who didn't have the clearest picture so i won't vouch for it - especially b/c it remains unclear to me exactly what the fear is rooted in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why don't they send an email "class cancelled" so people know what happened to it?

</comment><comment><USER5> The class-central.com page is now saying that all coursera classes are delayed indefinitely. This is very unfortunate because all these classes were of interest to me and my colleagues. It's rare that one can get this kind of insight in advanced topics.

</comment><comment><USER6> I suspected this becuase of the radio silence as of late. It's definitely disappointing.

I was wondering what the class would be like - it certaintly couldn't be like the class that Steve blogged about a lot last semester.

</comment><comment><USER7> I signed up for the Lean Launchpad course and apart from the confirmation e-mail I did not receive any other information, yet. It might just be a technical glitch or their way of preventing too many people from signing up.

</comment><comment><USER8> Man I was really looking forward to this. Now I'll have to go learn elsewhere.

<comment><USER9> As was I. But in the meantime, I've been reading the three books that Steve Blank has recommended in various interviews (citation needed):

\- [http://www.amazon.com/Lean-Startup-Entrepreneurs- Continuous-...](http://www.amazon.com/Lean-Startup-Entrepreneurs-Continuous- Innovation/dp/0307887898)

\- [http://www.amazon.com/Business-Model-Generation- Visionaries-...](http://www.amazon.com/Business-Model-Generation-Visionaries- Challengers/dp/0470876417)

\- [http://www.amazon.com/Four-Steps-Epiphany-Successful- Strateg...](http://www.amazon.com/Four-Steps-Epiphany-Successful- Strategies/dp/0976470705)

I'd still love to know what was planned for the class, but these volumes have been valuable to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> the udacity site (Prof Thrun's startup) indicates that they're going to have upcoming classes on:THEORY OF COMPUTATION, OPERATING SYSTEMS, COMPUTER NETWORKS, DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS, COMPUTER SECURITY, ALGORITHMS AND DATA STRUCTURES, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING PRACTICES, BUILDING WEB APPLICATIONS (sorry about the caps, copied and pasted from udacity.com)</comment>


Internet explorer to die in September 2011 - <AUTHOR> http://leastusedfeature.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/internet-explorer-to-die-in-september-2011/

<comment><USER2> The title is just missing version numbers. IE8 at the top of the chart. They are simply predicting the death of IE6 to be September, with IE7's death being March 2012.</comment>


David Wheeler (British computer scientist) - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wheeler_%28British_computer_scientist%29

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm posting this because I tried to find out who invented the 'subroutine'.

"Along with Maurice Wilkes and Stanley Gill he is credited with the invention of the subroutine (which they referred to as the closed subroutine), and gave the first explanation of how to design software libraries;[5] as a result, the jump to subroutine instruction is often called Wheeler Jump."

</comment><comment><USER2> My Second [1973] edition of _The Art of Computer Programming, vol. 1: Fundamental Algorithms_ includes a history and bibliography on pages 225-226.

Knuth mentions Babbage as envisioning the idea and Hopper as the first implementer. The implementation in Wheeler and Gill's textbook, _The Preparation of Programs for an Electronic Digital Computer_ , is noted for its influence.

</comment><comment><USER3> "All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection." — ibid</comment>


Erlang - The Movie - <AUTHOR> http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/197

<comment><USER2> On Google Video: <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5830318882717959520>

<comment><USER3> Definitely the best Erlang title so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow, what's with all the upvoted Erlang articles today?

Edit: Never mind. An OTT response to <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=512145>

</comment><comment><USER5> Is this a parody film?</comment>


Olympics: For Saudi Women, Only a Starting Line - <AUTHOR> http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/26/olympics-saudi-women-only-starting-line <comment><USER2> I want to see arab spring happen in Saudi Arabia. Not going to happen until the USA stops propping them up though.</comment>


Europe nearing Google antitrust charges - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0%2F7ca69056-0284-11e6-af1d-c47326021344.html <comment><USER3> I don't understand why Google gets attacked when at least you can install competing services and you can't on iOS. Why does iOS get a pass? If Google built the hardware itself it could lock it down all it wants? That's the reason? You can get Firefox on Android and not on iOS. You can replace almost anything, and on iOS you can't. You can disable many of the default apps on Android, I don't know if you can on iOS.

<comment><USER4> The problem, I believe, is the market share. If your OS is only on 3 or even 4 out of 10 phones, then you're not in a dominant position, and whatever you do, you're not abusing your market power, which is what antitrust is all about.

So Apple and their OSs will always be safe from this kind of thing because they're simply not the biggest player when it comes to market share.

<comment><USER5> So why is it that when people want to paint Apple in a positive light they dismiss market share and point to profits? If Apple pulling in 90% of the profits in the industry is what counts when evaluating the relative strengths of both platforms then why doesn't it matter when considering abuses of market position?

I think it's pretty clear that despite selling a minority of devices Apple has at least as much power to drive the overall direction of the market as Google.

<comment><USER6> Profits are important for the market you are in. Market share can be important for dominating markets you are currently _not_ in. That is the base of all antitrust probes: A dominant market share is not illegal. Using that dominant market share to boost your position in other markets is illegal.

So, the central question is: Does Google use the dominant market share of Android and its position to further their position in other markets, e.g. the browser market (Chrome), the mail application market (GMail App), news market (Google News) and so on. If yes, there is a problem with european antitrust law.

<comment><USER5> Apple is clearly levering the market power and integration of iOS and their other services to drive their agenda in TV, music, mobile payments, cloud storage, music and video production software, etc etc. I don't see much difference here.

<comment><USER6> Dominant market power and leveraging it are needed. Apple may leverage their market power, but they aren't dominant. Let me ask directly: Do you not understand it (so, do further explanations help) or do you not want to understand it because it goes against your positions? Both are ok, just asking for clarification to make sure I don't waste your and my time.

<comment><USER5> They are utterly dominant in the one metric Apple boosters usually claim is the one that counts. So why is that metric suddenly irrelevant now? I realize that as the law is written this may not matter but if we're discussing whether the government _should_ intervene here it's perfectly relevant.

I'm an iOS developer by the way so I'm not anti Apple. I just think there is already healthy competition in mobile and government intervention is going to hurt consumers in this case. Apple can regain market share any time it chooses to by lowering its unprecedented profit margins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > _abusing a dominant position in mobile operating systems to pre-install its > own applications and services in smartphones_

So Google made Android specifically for distributing their apps and services and everybody knew this and agreed with it. It wasn't even in fine print, it was written all over it. Everybody knew what they were getting into. I don't understand how can they abuse their " _position in mobile operating systems_ " to pre-install their apps when that has been the only reason Android exists.

Is that the sound of incompetence or that of malevolence? Are they aiming for extortion? Is that it?

<comment> iam-TJ I suspect one part of the rationale behind this is that as Android has gained dominance Google has moved some core API functions out of the generic AOSP source-code (which everyone can use) and into the Google Play services which require the device manufacturer to sign a contract for, which apparently also includes terms that have - at least in the past as I understand it - <USER2> pre-installation (possibly in prominent positions) of Google applications.

On that basis there is a strong correlation with the anti-trust convictions of Microsoft over bundling Internet Explorer into the Windows OS which effectively destroyed the paid-application model for web browsers (Netscape - which had 90% market share - could no longer succeed whilst charging ~US$20 (UK£15) and (AOL/Netscape) transferred the code to the Mozilla Foundation _).

_ apologies for glossing over fine-detail but I ran out of my daily parenthesis allowance.

<comment><USER7> I know that contractual conditions for Google Play aren't so easy on phone makers, but then again phone makers are free to build their own marketplace and ecosystem. I know at least Samsung tried it, their Galaxy phones shipping with a parallel marketplace, in addition with Google Play. Didn't work out.

I don't know specifics of things moved out of AOSP. If that's true, then there's some logic to it. But I did use CianogenMod without Google Play on it. It's still usable. Though certain things like Android's push notification system cannot happen without Google's infrastructure and that can't simply be free, even if the integration would be in AOSP. There might be truth to this, not saying otherwise.

On Microsoft, I blame them for many things, like for killing BeOS or for fueling SCO's lawsuit against Linux or now for racketeering in the mobile industry, but bringing anti-trust charges because of Internet Explorer and splitting them up (as was the plan) would have been a terrible and unjust ruling. Netscape killed themselves and sorry to say it, but Internet Explorer was not only free and bundled, but technically superior. And that was fine IMHO, because in its place Mozilla was born and the rest is history. Regardless, compare Microsoft of the nineties to what Apple is doing now with iOS. Makes Microsoft of the nineties look quite open by comparison, doesn't it? And can you imagine a phone or a computer not shipping with a browser included by default?

Speaking of browsers, Android is the only mainstream mobile OS that allows third-party browsers. Firefox is currently only possible for Android.

<comment> iam-TJ Regarding Microsoft:

The U.S. remedy of splitting Microsoft up (which was over-turned on appeal) and led to the more limited U.S. Consent decree doesn't negate the findings of fact:

"Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others." [0]

In Europe the EU consistently found against Microsoft and fined them very large sums (> €1.5B) over the course of more than 10 years due to monopolistic practices and refusing to implement judgements around bundled media-player, web-browser and lack of interoperability for server (APIs). [1]

"Microsoft entered into a consent decree in 1994 that barred Microsoft from conditioning the availability of Windows licenses or varying their prices based on whether OEMs distributed other operating systems.[8] Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said that the decree was effective in allowing Dell and HP to offer Linux computers". [2]

This was later nick-named the Windows Tax, but at the time it prevented alternative OSs such as Digital Research DOS (DR-DOS) from gaining much traction as a pre-installed OS (I owned a company back then that did pre- install DR-DOS and it was much better than MS-DOS).

Regarding Google/Android:

"While it might not be an official requirement, being granted a Google apps license will go a whole lot easier if you join the Open Handset Alliance. The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android -- Google's Android -- and members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork.

Acer was bit by this requirement when it tried to build devices that ran Alibaba's Aliyun OS in China. Aliyun is an Android fork, and when Google got wind of it, Acer was told to shut the project down or lose its access to Google apps. Google even made a public blog post about it:

"While Android remains free for anyone to use as they would like, only Android compatible devices benefit from the full Android ecosystem. By joining the Open Handset Alliance, each member contributes to and builds one Android platform -- not a bunch of incompatible versions." [3]

Also in that article is a good overview (albeit from 2013) of how Google has progressively moved open source functionality into the closed source Google applications.

And from a different source (lauding the move to Play services) there's:

"Google not only has pulled these services and their respective APIs out of the OS, it has made it easy for application developers to use them. The past few days here at Google I/O we've seen just how easy it can be to add these features to an app, because Google is doing all the heavy lifting. Developers only need to reference the particular thing they need from the Google Play Services application in their code, and the magic happens when you run it on your phone." [4]

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Judgment)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation#Anti- trus...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation#Anti-trust)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows#...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows#The_.22Windows_tax.22)

[3] [http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-10/21/googles- iron-...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-10/21/googles-iron-grip-on- android)

[4] [http://www.androidcentral.com/new-google-play- services](http://www.androidcentral.com/new-google-play-services)

<comment><USER7> Granted, the prohibition from building non-Google approved devices, along with stopping Acer from building Aliyun OS devices looks bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> To add a little context based on an antitrust course taken in a U.S. law school a few years ago, European antitrust law is quite different from American antitrust law so American ideas about market share and consumer choice may not be applicable.

In the U.S. the primary focus of antitrust enforcement is on the consumer, so if the consumer is getting a solid product for "free" and has lots of other options, there is no chance of an antitrust action happening.

From what I remember, European antitrust enforcement also takes the well-being of competitors into account, so if one company has a large market share and enough pricing power to make it difficult for competitors to survive, the authorities may bring legal action, based on the theory that it's better for society to have more different businesses offering choice and employing people.

<comment><USER9> I don't think this is actually all that different. Both jurisdictions recognize that competition is preferable. Minor differences in why they focus on that, is probably not all that relevant. Making it impossible for competitors to function in the US is problematic as well, because it leads to a lack of consumer choice. (Just because Google is free, doesn't mean all of us want it.)

Furthermore, the EU has demonstrated overall a stronger focus, I think, on the individual over corporate interests. Seen also in their handling of privacy, where they're willing to place large burdens on corporations in order to adequately protect their citizens' fundamental rights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wait so the EU can have a $7B windfall from a guilty verdict yet they will remain impartial? Nice!

<comment><USER11> The judges shouldn't be seeing a penny more or less no matter the verdict. If they're bribed that is another matter.

<comment><USER10> But don't the judges work for the EU?

<comment><USER11> Yes, and their job is to interpret the law impartially. It isn't a perfect system. How would you suggest we improve upon it?

<comment><USER12> We could create a political body that is outside any of the countries. Everyone that agrees to be part of it will have to respect its decisions.

Once this is setup the world will be united. We can then call it the United Countries or something like that. It's going to be great!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


3 things the new Nokia 3310 is missing - <AUTHOR> 4g, an SDK and tethering. <comment><USER2> It still runs Symbian and is not supposed to be some continuation of the old line of software. It was made well clear in their announcement.

<comment><USER3> AFAIK it runs S30+ which doesn't have anything to do with Symbian.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Visual diff for 3D printable models - <AUTHOR> http://cubehero.com/physibles/iamwil/robokitty/files/0cecb53528a7be6eb6236e01f36b7e37dbb260c8/robokitty.stl <comment><AUTHOR> These are STL files, which are used commonly in 3D printing. The models were generated by OpenSCAD (programming language for 3d modeling). As I've worked more on 3D models for 3D printing, I've been wishing for visual diffs in order to make it easier to collaborate with others.

Right now, it's a pre-populated demo of a robokitty (because the internet needs more cats). But soon, you'll be able to push to your own repos using git.

Let me know if you have some feedback. Thanks!

<comment><USER2> Pretty useful. Although it would be better if you could just send the diff over the wire when trying to look a previous version -- it takes way too much time to download the whole model.

Being able to continue inspecting the model in the same position it was before loading another version would be nice as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ahh, yes, that makes a lot of sense. And then if someone jumps around, send the whole model, but if it's sequential, just the diff will work.

<comment><USER3> Is this not what git does?

<comment><AUTHOR> My understanding of his question was how I rendered the diff of the models.

While git does calculate textual diffs, it does not calculate visual diffs of 3D models, which is what I've managed to do here.

<comment><USER3> I'm not talking directly about your method versus the git method. What I was alluding to: if you're planning to use git to distribute your models eventually, perhaps you should have an eye toward optimizing the models and their diffs for use with git. Then, git transmits only the diffs as needed, when needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice work, really impressive! A few comments:

\- You actually have at least four diff states you need to visualize, it's like a matrix. One axis is boolean operations (add, sub etc) the other axis is difference between revisions. For example it's hard to see form the diff if material was added or removed between revisions. You can naturally just highlight where things changed but it's a trade off you need to consider carefully and probably sketch out the most common use cases.

\- I thought for a long while that transparency is an easy way to solve problems like showing diffs. My more graphics savvy co-founder managed to convince me that transparency is usually not a good solution. When you have a transparent surface on top of another surface it feels like you can suddenly get more information on the screen. However, this is obviously not true, you still have 24 bits of color information on the screen however you slice it. What is happening is that you have divided your bits between the front surface and anything behind it. Our experience is that users have a very hard to grasping even basic 3D shapes on a 2D monitor, making it harder using transparency is usually not beneficial.

\- If you want to do transparency right you need to do something about the render order, I noticed you are rendering the transparent surfaces in a fixed order.

If you haven't checked it out already take a look at our project Tinkercad at <http://tinkercad.com>. Even if the UI uses a direct manipulation paradigm the underlying operations tree is isomorphic with OpenSCAD.

</comment><comment><USER5> I did something similar using Thingiview.js as a base: <http://n0r.org/thingiview.js/examples/client_side_diff.html>

Source: <https://github.com/nrpatel/thingiview.js>

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. I did happen upon you solution a couple months ago when I was researching the topic. :)

I checked out your snow globe and the augmented reality stuff you're doing in open hardware. Pretty neat!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Feature suggestion: be able to drag your mouse left and right to create a "swipe diff" line that reveals or hides the old version on the left vs the new version on the right.

Maybe that's in there, but I didn't spot it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ahh, like a cross-fade slider? It's not in there, but I've heard this a couple times now. Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is perfect. We've been using GitHub + OpenSCAD and have been looking for a less hacky way of doing 3D diffs.

Signed up!

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome! I'll have the accounts up soon, so you can get started on pushing to your own repo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is very good. Some suggestions - you should make the the camera point to the center of the model. Also fixing the light to the eye (not transforming it with the model) will make the rendering look good from all angles. Zoom and pan would be nice. Also maybe an orthographic projection will make better sense as the 3D printed models are likely to be quite small.

</comment><comment><USER9> Interesting demo. I don't know anything about this space but it seems to download a ton of data every time I look at a different diff (like 8-10 MB). Is there any way to reduce this? As an outsider I don't even understand how that much information could be needed to render this thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. I think eventually, I'll have it generate a photo first, and not use webGL as a default. I did it mostly as a shortcut, because it would have been more work to figure out how to make the server generate and cache a picture of the 3D model.

In addition, someone else mentioned that I can probably just send the diffs, rather than the whole model.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for the response.

Side question: what I'm seeing appears to be a wire frame model with flat shading of a model with very few vertices. I know nothing of the STL format. The only time I've dealt with it in the past was having an ME send me models of parts when doing circuit board design work. To get to the point, why on earth is it so large? 10MB is a lot of data for what I would assume would be some polygon vertex coordinates and some texture instructions(which should be minimal given this is flat shaded).

<comment><AUTHOR> It's because it's the ASCII version of the STL format. (horror!) A binary STL would be about quarter to half the size. And there are other open formats that would be smaller and perform better than STL.

The reason why I didn't futz around with it too much is that I'm still working out whether HNers and 3D modelers would find it useful to version control 3d printable models.

I could spend a long time optimizing transfer times of models, but it'd be a pity if no one wanted to use it in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Neat!

Looking forward to seeing OpenSCAD and STL diffs together on the same page - that'd be a powerful OpenSCAD learning tool as well as a good change- management / collaboration tool.

Definitely cool to see where this goes - I've been wanting "GitHub + Thingiverse" for a while.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you mean OpenSCAD and STL diffs side by side, and live edited, so when you change the code, you see the model change?

<comment><USER10> That'd be most powerful as a learning tool (and a sweet "oh wow!" demo).

However, just a GitHub-style +/- diff view on the OpenSCAD files next to the STL diff view would be awesome (basically like the GitHub commit-range/pull- request "files" view, but with STL support).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I agree. I'll have to find space to fit it, but it makes sense to do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> You might want to look at <http://3drepo.org> for a robust integrated solution including diffing and tailored 3D version control.

</comment><comment><USER12> Hope your bandwidth is cheap - how compressible are these files?

Also there's a few suggestions to just send the diffs after the initial model which is a really good idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's just using regular gzip. I'm sure I could do more work to further compress the files, but for the time being, I just wanted to get something out to show people, rather than optimize prematurely. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is really cool. Especially with the potential for ordering parts/BOM management. How are BOM vendors to be chosen?

<comment><AUTHOR> For now, that's a ways off, but I was picturing the BOM vendors be crowdsourced based on what people have been using to build the project.

<comment><USER13> Cool deal - good luck with it, I'll keep an eye as you move forward. Could be useful to us!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> that's cool.</comment>


Can Women Handle Startups?  - <AUTHOR> http://www.pluggd.in/can-indian-women-handle-startups-297/

<comment><USER2> Can startups handle women? That's a more important question, IMHO.</comment>


Obama Discreetly Signs NDAA on New Year's Eve - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/us/politics/obama-signs-military-spending-bill.html

<comment><USER2> " 'The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,' Mr. Obama said in a statement issued in Hawaii, where he is on vacation. 'I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.' "

I don't think that saying you disapprove of something cuts you any slack when just a few minutes later you sign it into law anyway. This is just as bad as the people on Youtube who say "I don't own the rights to this video" and think it exempts them from copyright infringement.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a lot of hysteria on the net over this bill. A pretty good and reasonable examination of it was published at Lawfare:

The NDAA: The Good, the Bad, and the Laws of War–Part I: [http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the- bad...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the- laws-of-war-part-i/)

The NDAA: The Good, the Bad, and the Laws of War–Part II: [http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the- bad...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the- laws-of-war-part-ii/)

They also published an earlier look at it:

NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed: [http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa- faq-a-guide-for-the-...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide- for-the-perplexed/)

</comment><comment><USER4> "The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite military detention of American citizens, because "doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.""

While I support Obama, it doesn't feel correct to sign a bill and to fix it later(maybe). Especially since that bill can be used for such awful things, like the ones cited above...

Also, it's kinda ridiculous, after saying a few months back, that he wouldn't sign it.

</comment><comment><USER5> How can a President sign a bill that is clearly anti-Constitutional (in this case, the Fifth Amendment) into law? Don't they even bother reading what they're signing anymore?

Maybe the HN community should just start campaigning for Ron Paul. Who knows whats next, have a startup, get foreign investor, go to jail forever?

<comment><USER3> Ron Paul voted for the AUMF bill, which was the bill that actually gave the President that powers that NDAA is just reaffirming.

<comment><USER5> Thats a mischaracterization of what AUMF did. Also, he believed the intelligence coming out of the Department of Defense that Iraq had something to do with 9/11...

Which we now know is false, Bush lied, and Saddam was terrified of the al- Qaeda assassinating him and taking over Iraq and had never funded them or associated with them, and the hijackers were almost all Iranians and Saudi Arabians.

Ron Paul has voted against the illegal and immoral war effort since then.

Edit: BTW, if you're implying Ron Paul voted for wire tapping and Guantanamo permanent detention and torture, the Bush administration tried to site AUMF for permission for both of those, and was shot down twice. They were in the wrong both times. Ron Paul did not support any such activities.

<comment><USER6> "Also, he believed the intelligence coming out of the Department of Defense that Iraq had something to do with 9/11..."

Really? If he's that catastrophically stupid, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a position of power.

<comment><USER5> AUMF was signed into law on September 18th, 7 days after 9/11. I don't think anyone was expecting Bush to have lied out his ass the way he did, especially after the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.

Bush used this opportunity to finish what his father started, and it cost lives, money, and for the most part, the American way.

<comment><USER6> Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I recall that it was by then already quite clear that al Qaeda was behind the attack, and that al Qaeda and Iraq were far from friendly.

<comment><USER5> Slightly faulty.

Bush tried to make it sound like Saddam hired the al Qaeda, that they were some sort of mercenaries for hire. If anything, they were murdering drug and crime lords for violating the Muslim ethics code, which makes them sort of anti-hero (and yes, I feel icky saying that). They wanted Saddam for the reason that he was torturing Muslims to death for fun.

I'm completely for Saddam being dead, but the American people deserve better than to be lied to, and so does Ron Paul.

<comment><USER6> Bush may well have tried to make it sound like that (although I don't recall that coming up until the runup to the invasion), but it was still clear that Iraq and AQ were not buddies despite what may have been said otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> nice spin in the submission title</comment>


Ask HN: Need recommendations on good multithreading 101 - <AUTHOR> I'd like to learn the fundamentals of multithreading, both in the context of lower-level considerations like mutexes and locks (i.e. what they are and how to use them, when to use the, etc), the problems they solve, manually managing threads, but also good intoruction to higher-level techniques in asynchronous development, like futures, promises, channels (if available in the language), etc.
Multithreading support and techniques widely varies between languages and a lot of the literature is language-specific. I happen to use C++ which now has the higher-level threading tools in its standard, as well as portable manual thread managements and I don't want to just read a blog post and then go down that road for a production app without a more thorough background.
Any good resources that have helped you that are accurate and thorough without being 500 pages? <comment><USER2> Multi-threading is a technique for managing concurrency. I'd recommend focusing on how concurrency is inherent in whatever particular problem domain is driving the project and then look at how different projects manage that...i.e. what problems are JavaScript Erlang, C++, Go, and Clojure each appropriate for?

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> Would this help? [https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/pthreads/](https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/pthreads/)

It does not have details on futures, promises and channels though.</comment>


$750,000 per day with 2 iOS apps - <AUTHOR> http://www.treysmithblog.com/700000-per-day/

<comment><USER2> These games take money out of the pockets of kids that can usually ill afford it and are typically not aware of the consequences of their addiction until it is much too late.

And that addiction is there by design, not by accident.

Chalk it up to bad parenting or whatever you want but in the end this is still a scam delivered in the form of a game, aimed squarely at a vulnerable group, one that by law can not enter into binding contracts.

The fact that it brings in an insane amount of money is not an excuse, though I'm sure that there are enough people to who this kind of income is enough to throw away all their ethics and start raking it in.

In-app purchases work because they defer the visualization of the amount actually spent until the phone bill comes in.

Kids literally have no idea how much they're spending on these things (in fact, most adults don't realize it either).

I see enough young kids in my surroundings getting into trouble with parents, debt collectors and all kinds of other nastiness just because games like these cause them to overspend due to the addictive elements embedded purposely in the game.

Apple, for all their oversight on the appstore is 100% complicit in this, apps are routinely thrown out for trivial reasons but mixing teenagers (a vulnerable group if there ever was one) and impulse buys at exorbitant prices is A-ok with them.

And no, this is not a 'blame the computer games for kids behaviors' argument, it is a blame the makers of addictions for the problems stemming from those addictions.

The argument seems to be that if they don't screw them someone else will. But that's nonsense and one of the reasons why marketing stuff directly to kids is illegal in many places.

<comment><USER3> > I see enough young kids in my surroundings getting into trouble with > parents, debt collectors and all kinds of other nastiness

I suspect you are embellishing your story a bit to rile people up. You can easily complain to Apple, Facebook, or any platform that has these games, if your child spends a huge amount of money on the game. It's called a "chargeback", and is very easy to do. The game developers have to return the funds by contract, and the user is typically banned as a result.

My understanding is (from personal work on social games) that the highest- monetizing users, across the board, are the older users. Even if the game looks like a cutesy kid's game, it's normally the case that it wasn't really designed for children. It only looks that way to hardcore gamers.

For the most part, children that unwittingly spend a bunch of money make up a very tiny fraction of revenue for these companies. Any of them that spend a huge sum normally end up receiving a refund a month later when their parents find out.

<comment><USER2> > I suspect you are embellishing your story a bit to rile people up.

You do? What made you suspect that?

Have a read:

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-17/kids-racking-up- huge-b...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-17/kids-racking-up-huge-bills- on-mobile-games/4266632)

> You can easily complain to Apple, Facebook, or any platform that has these > games, if your child spends a huge amount of money on the game. It's called > a "chargeback", and is very easy to do. The game developers have to return > the funds by contract, and the user is typically banned as a result.

Yes, and these rules are of course clearly advertised when you start a game like that.

I watched a kid aged 8 playing with a smartphone rack up 10 euros in charges in about 5 minutes while on the train on Saturday, nobody around had any idea what was going on.

Parents will typically be honorable to the extent that if their kid did this that they will not charge back if they perceive their kid is at fault by buying these scam products. What they don't realize is the cunning and the guile that go into designing these and I'm fairly sure that if they did that it would be a completely different picture.

> My understanding is (from personal work on social games) that the highest- > monetizing users, across the board, are the older users.

Ah ok, so that makes it ok to take money from the kids as collateral damage, after all they're not the big spenders.

The basic idea in a transaction is that you do what you can as the seller to give the other party something of value in return. The idea is not to see for how much you can 'take' a party in an a-symmetrical set-up where you have all the data and they have none. That's very much like taking candy from a baby.

These are not 'social games' they're anti-social games.

> Even if the game looks like a cutesy kid's game, it's normally the case that > it wasn't really designed for children.

Oh that must be my impression then. And that explains all the pre-teens that I see hooked on such games. It wasn't designed for them. And they shouldn't be playing with those smartphones to begin with.

> For the most part, children that unwittingly spend a bunch of money make up > a very tiny fraction of revenue for these companies.

Feel free to support that with evidence, I suspect that the large majority of the customers are technically adults (because an adult has signed for the contract) but the consumers are kids and their parents are too honorable or not informed enough to make use of the charge-back options provided. And I'm sure you'll blame them for that. Typically those options are not listed up- front and the practice with charge-backs is that even on outright scams the percentages are low enough that they persist. Most people don't even know about the possibility to do charge backs on their credit card ('card not present') charges when not using 3D.

> Any of them that spend a huge sum normally end up receiving a refund a month > later when their parents find out.

Yes, a huge sum would set off alarm bells. But $50 would likely be absorbed even if it came out of the family telco budget, or if it causes a kid to get into trouble otherwise.

I'm quite surprised that you would defend these practices, but given that you work on 'social games' I guess that you're just trying to rationalize your complicity.

<comment><USER4>
        I'm quite surprised that you would defend these
        practices, but given that you work on 'social
        games' I guess that you're just trying to
        rationalize your complicity.

I agree with your comments (and up-voted them), but I see no reason to assume that this isn't fragsworth's actual opinion and instead a manifestation of a some nefarious hidden agenda.

<comment><USER2> That was a mirror of his statement that:

> "I suspect you are embellishing your story a bit to rile people up."

That works both ways.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Have you actually played Clash of Clans or Hay Day? Those things are amazingly well designed for money printing purposes. Everything in the games are designed to be slippery conversion funnels filled with hooks that pull you deeper and deeper. The idea is to monetize addiction with very high conversion rates.

Some of the ingredients: free to play, every action prompts a IAP (wait or pay), quick&easy progress in beginning, instantly addictive, competitive (leaderboards&prizes), social pressure (you have to join a clan and fight for it) etc. All of this very well executed in a great game.

Edit: So, the author's point that they 'just executed proven idea better and added content' is not the reason why they are so successful. It's the starting point. Real innovation here is that they are probably among the first who really focus on conversion optimization in games.

<comment><USER6> I'm the author and I highly doubt that. They are far from the first company to really focus on conversion optimization.

I paid a statistician to reverse engineer the economy of Dragonvale, Tap Pet Hotel and Tap Zoo. All of the games follow a VERY similar pattern on every stat. Here is an example on XP and Level ratios:

<http://www.treylink.com/uploads/xp_leve_ratio.png>

We've done ton of research on this and most of these games copy each others economy very closely.

I could go on about that forever, but go play Galaxy Life and then Clash of Clans. You'll see it's the EXACT same tutorial story and setup. I mean, screen for screen. I'm not hating, it's just the nature of the business.

The fact is this:

Innovation is a risky business model. The companies can see what worked, tweak the theme and add to the game content, and have a MUCH higher chance of success.

<comment><USER7> The first few games to use an exponential XP curve may have copied each other, but by now basic things like this are simply conventional wisdom in game design.

Here's Diablo II's incremental XP vs. level graph — essentially identical: <http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1824/D2-XPScale.png>

<comment><USER6> See my other reply, it wasn't just XP and Level. Earn Rates per minute, cost of items per level, etc was also similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm interested to find out that this is where my 12 year old son sunk about $25 into in-app purchases ("bag of gems") over 2 days of playing this game (Clash of Clans) on his iPod Touch. He says its an awesome game, but this seems way too overpriced to me. All his friends from school are also playing it, and probably also sinking cash at a high rate into this company (and Apple).

<comment><USER9> I spent lots of money on video games growing up.

The only difference I see between my spending on nintendo games and your son is that I used cash instead of an credit card attached to an itunes account.

The problem is that it is too easy to forget we are spending real money. Clicking YES on a popup is a lot easier than physically removing a 20 dollar bill from your wallet and handing it over. After a cash transaction, I reflect on my empty wallet. After a credit card purchase, I have to check my balance... if I even remember.

I dont blame the game companies for trying to make addicting games any more than I blame restaurants for asking if I want to try the specials or if I have room for dessert.

tl;dr, credit cards are dangerous. As they always have been.

<comment><USER8> Good points, in my son's case he uses pre-paid iTunes cards - which are widely available these days. Same effect - once the initial purchase is made and the card loaded onto the account, its almost too easy to make in game purchases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When does a startup stop being a startup? 60 employees and $750,000 per day seems to me like just a normal successful company.

<comment><USER11> 270M per year in revenue on ~12M in expenses (assumes $200k/employee) certainly isn't "normal". That's a huge hit.

And of course it won't last for the whole year. These are spikey products, and sampling the biggest hit at any moment tells you very little about the value of the company behind it. You don't have to look any farther than Zynga for proof of that.

Whether 60 employees constitutes a "startup" or not I guess is a semantic thing. Back in the 90's, that was routine. Now the YC model has downsized the concept such that you stop being a "startup" (in the hipster sense, anyway) once you land funding for real employees.

<comment><USER12> The problem with a 60 person team in a volatile market is that they're going to have a hard time weathering the spikeyness. It's not like two guys in a garage who can leave and come back to it. These people are buying houses on the presumption that they'll be employed in 12 months, when the revenue stream dries up it's going to be trouble.

I wonder how these social game companies get so big in the first place. I thought it was all but proven that consistently being successful in this space is almost impossible. If it's VC funding, what's the exit? They all seem to run into the ground. In this case it seems like the founders had enough capital from the last time they shipped this game. Personally, I would seek a more stable space after hitting it big once.

<comment><USER13> > These people are buying houses on the presumption that they'll be employed > in 12 months

If you're really making a quarter-billion a year in profit, with 60 employees, thoe employees shouldn't need a _loan_ to buy a house...

<comment><USER12> If they have sense saving money from the few weeks of 6 figure sales to weather the inevitable slump while they iterate or find the next big thing. Giving every employee an equal share of the revenue would be equally short sighted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you make any sort of money, someone will always be at the other end paying that exact sum of money.

If you are a sympathetic person, the higher that sum is, the more you will be focused on ensuring that the money paid is paid by people able to do so responsibly and people knowing what commitments they are getting into.

This sounds like quite the opposite.

</comment><comment><USER15> Interestingly that is nearly 1/4 the revenue of Zynga [1] (3.2M/day if you're wondering)

[1] [http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AZNGA&fstype=ii&...](http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AZNGA&fstype=ii&ei=OGCsUKD9NOapiQKnXw)

</comment><comment><USER16> When I got my first smartphone (not that long ago) in my naïvety I installed some random free game from the Google Play store to see how obtaining software works. I don't remember which game it was, but I remember being stalled a couple minutes in, being offered some kind of upgrade that I could buy in order to progress in the game. With real money.

With. Real. Money.

I'm baffled that no one else here (although I'm sure there's plenty of us) seems to be baffled at the mere concept of playing a game and being asked in that game to spend real money in order to make it fun to play. If the commercial success of your "game" depends on it, I will not steep so low as to discuss whether that tactic is legitimate in this particular case or not. In my world, it's not, nor will it ever be. Make a game that's fun to play and then sell it. If you can't do that, bad luck. Or try harder. Or go make something else that has value in and of itself.

I feel stupid now for writing this comment. It's an overly dramatic one that probably no one will read, and it's kind of off-topic anyway. But I really feel like pointing out how I can't wrap my head around the concept of in-game- charges, and how such a lame, opportunistic thing could worm its way into mainstream game creation.

</comment><comment><USER17> Data points like this always make me wonder what the non-game part of Apple's app store (and Google's, Amazon's, GetJar's, ...) looks like. Is there any good data on that?

</comment><comment><USER18> We've been seeing articles everywhere about how App economics don't make sense, it looks like games are the exception. I'd love to see the communities thoughts about this!

<comment><USER19> Most of these articles are about the long tail of app developers who didn't make anything. I don't see how gaming is any different to that.

On a related note, this shows game developers are making their cash with in- app purchases, much as non-game app developers are increasingly making their money with subscription models.

<comment><USER20> Is it really a long tail of app developers, or is it a long tail of non- competitive app monetization strategies? That is to say, if you make something just as "evil" as one of these social-pressure addiction machines, but it doesn't break the top ten (because there are already tons of other companies making social-pressure addiction machines), will it still be profitable (because it's a good model) or will it fail utterly (because it's in the long tail)?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> 7500,000 before Apples cut, and what about expenses? especially user acquisition.

<comment><USER6> They are at about $60,000 per day. Not bad considering.

<comment><USER22> Not bad? That is ridiculously low.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> For what it's worth, the tutorial described there reminds me of at least one RTS I've played, although I can't place which one. Particularly that you start the game under attack. Maybe a C&C game or an Age of Empires game?

Not sure.

</comment><comment><USER24> $750,000 a day and he can't keep his blog up.

<comment><USER6> Haha, I'm not making $700,000 per day. Which is apparently very evident because I can't even keep my blog up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Not loading for me.

<comment><USER6> Sorry, server got overloaded but they are working on it!

<comment><USER6> Fixed :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> nice article. It would have been more effective for me without the superlatives and just in general shorter.

</comment><comment><USER27> Startup copies another game exactly down to the tutorial and makes money... CONGRATS, YAY, SO IMPRESSIVE

Zynga copies another game exactly down to the tutorial and makes money... LAWSUIT OMG HATE HATE HATE

You people are such hypocrites

<comment><USER28> From the article: "5 out of the 8 founders and executive team are from Digital Chocolate, the makers of Galaxy Life".

So it's a pretty large mis-representation to say they copied another game, as they were on the team who built said game (granted, the writer doesn't do a very good job of conveying that). MUCH different than cloning a competitor.

<comment><USER29> The game they built is the property of Digital Chocolate, so whether they're from that company or not, they're copying another company's game. The ethics of that are of course debatable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Insane

</comment><comment><USER31> That's ridiculous!</comment>


Silent Circle Launches Global Encrypted Calling Plan - mike-cardwell https://blog.silentcircle.com/why-are-we-competing-with-phone-makers-skype-and-telecom-carriers-all-in-the-same-week/ <comment><AUTHOR> I love how they talk about how they don't have any infrastructure costs and can outmaneuver "major telecoms" but then gleefully talk about connecting to the PSTN.

I'd also like to have them publish and guarantee exactly what they mean by "encrypted to the PSTN". Are they guaranteeing they have TDM access in every destination, and that their TDM access doesn't get sent out over IP? Or do they really mean the run IPSec to a handful of VoIP carriers and call that the PSTN?

Not to mention, encrypted to the PSTN solves what, exactly? How's it really any different than using my cell phone?

The whole blog post is written in a very odd, feels-like-snake-oil manner. They compare to Skype's plan, but on their homepage, their $12 plan has only 100 minutes. Skype's plan is "unlimited" (subject to fair use). So I'm not sure why they'd bother comparing the two - they don't seem the same?

The zRTP and member-to-member stuff is probably done correctly, but the rest of it feels very hype-like.

<comment><USER2> >Not to mention, encrypted to the PSTN solves what, exactly?

I presume, if one calls Germany, and the line is encrypted from the handset to Germany, then that person would be out of NSA's reach.

I suspect that would make wiretaps more difficult as well, since police would need to tap who is called, instead of the caller. That's a lot more warrants and they need them in advance of a call... or they need every call recorded from the end points for later search.

<comment><USER3> But the PSTN is the _easy_ part to wiretap. Especially the TDM part of it. Data is nicely partitioned in channels and there is only one single metadata format to worry about.

And you can not compare the NSA with the police. The latter needs a warrant (sort of, depending on locale) but the former doesn't.

<comment><USER2> According to everything I've read on the subject, including today's revelation that NSA is recording 80% of all phone calls, is that NSA grabs from the backbone. They do not have monitoring installed at endpoints. That would be expensive, and in foreign countries, infeasible. It's hardly perfect, but I think everyone can agree it's better than unencrypted all the way. Everyone except the Friends of NSA trying to convince everyone to stay away, because "it isn't truly secure"... You've got to start somewhere.

<comment><USER3> That's what I'm saying. The "backbone", by which I take it you mean the big PSTN providers, is by far the easiest point to wiretap. Internet exchange points are by design far more heterogenous, plus that wirespeed protocol parsers that has the ability to parse the plurality of protocols used is at least an order of magnitude more difficult/expensive.

The five eyes do that as well, no doubt about it. But if you encrypt your traffic on IP and then switch out to unencrypted PSTN then that's completely useless as you'd risk drawing unnecessary attention to your plaintext.

<comment><USER2> >But if you encrypt your traffic on IP and then switch out to unencrypted PSTN then that's completely useless as you'd risk drawing unnecessary attention to your plaintext.

So the solution you suggest is to try to hide in plain sight? Good luck with that.

<comment><USER3> Why would you think that? Am I really that unclear?

If I had to venture a suggestion it would be to encrypt your data end-to-end.

<comment><USER2> lol. Right, because my mom's rotary phone will work like that.

That's the "comprehensive reform" argument weaselly politicians use. Ex. Chuck Schumer works for the banking industry. The banking industry needs reform after financial crisis. Chuck blocks banking reform by demanding "comprehensive reform" and refuses to implement partial measures that would help/start the reform process. He claims he's strongly in favor of reform. So much he's unwilling to compromise for partial measures. As such, he votes against all measures of reform. Sure Chuck, we all believe you really want to reform the banks that paid for your elections.

If end to PSTN can make it more expensive for the NSA to collect, then it's good, even if it isn't foolproof.

If the default config for apache were to generate self signed certificates, you would say, that's useless, because MITM. I would say, that's great, because now NSA is forced to MITM if they want to snoop. It increases the expense for the attacker, making their ability to snoop more limited.

<comment><USER3> > Right, because my mom's rotary phone will work like that.

No it doesn't. That's why you shouldn't market products with the claim to make secure calls to her.

There are product to encrypt PSTN calls. These products needs to be used at both ends to be effective.

> If end to PSTN can make it more expensive for the NSA to collect, then it's > good,

It doesn't, that's the point. You can count on the whole SS7 being compromised, all the time. It's where these agencies came from.

> If the default config for apache were to generate self signed certificates, > you would say, that's useless, because MITM.

Again words in my mouth. I believe it is in fact the default in the major distributions, and it isn't "useless". This has absolutely nothing to do with the PSTN so I won't discuss this particular straw man further.

<comment><USER2> >I believe it is in fact the default in the major distributions

I have never once seen apache generate a self signed cert and default to http off for all connections. But sure, you didn't say that. I was simply drawing a parallel argument to what you were saying about PSTNs.

So let me make one more logical fallacy since the article clearly isn't providing enough info to prove either of our arguments.

Appeal to authority: Who should I trust dude? You, random internet poster, or Phil Zimmermann? I'm going with the guy who invented PGP and has a reputation and track record on encryption. Through his actions, he has built lots of trust/cred. You have not. If he has started a company, is delivering this as a product, and marketing that aspect as a feature, he clearly believes that it offers some benefit over a fully unencrypted line.

I'm willing to give that man the benefit of the doubt. You on the other hand could be working for the NSA and trying to derail interest in his product for all I know. Oops, that was two logical fallacies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What is this marketing gibberish and why is Zimmermann (of PGP fame) connected to this?

I first thought that it was cool they released a mass market product that encrypts PSTN communications. This is something that speciality phones do that carry a hefty pricetag and are two generations behind technologically. But on a second reading it says "encrypted TO the PSTN". What does that even mean? You could say that about every GSM phone if you wanted!

Also "secure virtual operator". Are they a virtual operator or not? In which countries? Certainly not the 41 countries listed above, even if that's what they want you to believe.

"No roaming charges". Yeah, that'd be great. But for what and where? No idea.

After making my way though the text I want to dismiss this, but Zimmermann is in. So what's the deal here?

</comment><comment><USER4> If call will go to telecommunication network i can guarantee that call can be intercepted. It is like normal call and those can be listened. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_gateway](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_gateway) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_interception)

</comment><comment><USER5> Huh, it's an interesting service that's for sure, I'm just more lost about some of it's subject.

Call me stupid, but "no roaming charges" are available for any type of "VOIP" service, not specifically to them. If I live in the US and travel to Europe, and want to make a call with what I'm guessing is going to be a US Data Only Sim on a standard Android phone, I'm going to be charged extra, right?

And if using their Blackphone, would it remove the need for US Data Sim? Just lost, the blog post didn't get too specific in those details. Can't beat all these telecom competitors listed if you're dependant on them in some way for your apps on native phones.

</comment><comment><USER6> I really want these guys to succeed, but I have to say the comparison with skype is misleading to say the least:

Skype @ $13.99 gives you unlimited calls to 63 countries for landlines and 8 countries for mobile

Silent Circle @ $12.95 gives you 100 minutes in admittedly many more places.

The crazy thing is that there is absolutely no need for them to market themselves as the cheap option, when they should be focusing more on privacy.

</comment><comment><USER7> This does sound really cool, and I'm genuinely excited that there is a market for secure communications, but this solution isn't for me. I simply can't trust something in this field that is closed source. For anyone else who feels the same way but likes the sound of this, I'd recommend looking at TextSecure and RedPhone.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't get it. If the plan covers domestic and international calls and includes no roaming charges shouldn't they be providing each customer with a SIM? Or is it similar to Skype in that you need an internet connection?

It still looks very interesting either way.

<comment><USER9> Yes, it requires a data connection (either baseband or WiFi).

Even still, a prepaid data-only SIM is pretty cheap most places, and you can continue using your number wherever you are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Really wish they offered pay-as-you-go plans... I have no need to a $10/month extra expense, but I would love to occasionally use this service if it was based on usage (although there is surely some expense for Silent Circle here).

<comment><USER11> You can make encrypted calls for free using an application like CSipSimple and ZRTP. Calls to another SIP user are completely free. Calls to a landline are $0.01 with many VOIP providers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Real solutions must be entirely de-centralized and open-source. Anything else is bandaid at best.

</comment><comment><USER13> Do I need a blackphone for this?

<comment><USER14> The lack of any mention of supported platforms and the remarks about selling phones in last paragraph seem to indicate as much.

"We snuck in the back door, by offering the most secure commercial device system on the market. We don't want to sell 100 million phones, we simply want to own the secure enterprise and prosumer market."

<comment><USER9> The client apps are available on both Android and iOS, in their respective app stores.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Better get the lawyers ready for the inevitable "national security" letters.</comment>


Apple may launch Google Maps rival today - <AUTHOR> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/news/internet/Apple-may-launch-Google-Maps-rival/articleshow/13953806.cms <comment><USER2> I wonder how many articles will miss the point tho. While they might fight for user control and so on the biggest reason for this move is simple.

Google has stopped updating the mapping software for iOS a year or two ago, when it bought Android.

Apple's Google-made map application is not very good compared to the Android version, specially due to the lack of vector support.

That gives Apple no other choice than to find a replacement.

<comment><USER3> Your time scales are way off. Google didn't just buy Android a "year or two ago", nor did it stop updating Maps when it bought Android.

<comment><USER4> Indeed, Google bought Android in 2005: <http://www.webcitation.org/5wk7sIvVb>

I can't find any info confirming that they stopped updating Maps for iOS, or when that might have happened. It's clearly been updated since 2005, though.

<comment><USER5> And on top of that, the lead story on Drudge this instant is one about Apple and Google updating their satellites to "military-grade".</comment></comment></comment></comment>


It Seems Like Alzheimer's but Peek into Brain Reveals a Mimic - <AUTHOR> https://www.voanews.com/a/it-seems-like-alzheimer-s-but-peek-into-brain-reveals-mimic/4898038.html <comment><AUTHOR> >"What is now clear is that a lot of dementia is caused by gloppy proteins. We used to think it was just two gloppy proteins, amyloid and tau," Nelson said.

>The next step: Finding better ways to measure abnormal TDP-43 and diagnose LATE. (It stands for an unwieldy scientific name — Limbic-predominant Age- related TDP-43 Encephalopathy.)

[https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/guidelines-proposed-newly- defin...](https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/guidelines-proposed-newly-defined- alzheimers-brain-disorder)</comment>


Ask HN: Where do you go to find Freelance Web Designers? - <AUTHOR>

I've been trawling websites like Dribbble and Forrst. Any other suggestions? <comment><USER2> 99 Designs has actually worked pretty well in my experience. It's like Derek Siver's strategy to have a bunch of people do the work you want be done, and then hiring the best.

Except this site does all of it for you.</comment>


Canadians may soon need a visa to enter the EU - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/eu-visa-romania-bulgaria-trade-ceta-1.3526513 <comment><USER2> I'm not sure why the Romanian & Bulgarian issue is being mentioned.

Another part of it is Canadians and Americans have access to the EU where you can just get there without forms or paying anything whereas you have to fill in a silly form and pay a bit of cash to go the other way.

Semantically it's not termed a visa but it's just like one so this is the EU trying to put in a silly form and small payment as a reciprocal measure.

<comment><USER3> You've clearly never applied for an American visa. Filling a "silly form and paying a bit of cash" is way more convenient than having to make a consular appointment, pay $$$ for that appointment, go there early in the morning on a workday to avoid long lines, still wait an hour, get grilled by a consular officer, pay more $$$ for your approved visa, and have to wait days for them to mail your passport back.

<comment><USER2> Yes that's true, but this is also about Canada & the USs silly form on EU citizens whereas there is nothing the other way.

Bulgaria, Romania & Poland have high overstay rates (above 2%) despite having a high visa refusal rate. If they were part of the Visa Waiver Program it would make them the worst offenders.

<comment><USER4> How does what your are saying (high overstay rates) go with the current fact that thousands of people are crossing the Mexican border into the US and apparently the US is ok with that?

I'm not against that, but I find it highly hypocritical for the US on one hand to require visas from RO/BG people (and maybe others) on overstaying concerns, while on another hand allowing free flow into US from the Mexican side.

<comment><USER2> It's a question of enforceability. If the requirement on Mexicans were tougher they would use the porous borders more.

The weather can't be dictated by a piece of paper and a pen.

<comment><USER4> It seems the Obama administration could order with a piece of paper and a pen the border guards to stop controlling border flow:

> The National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) and Pinal County Sheriff joined > forces to denounce the Obama Administration and accused the White House of > handcuffing the efforts of law enforcement in regards to the enforcement of > immigration law.

> He reinforced the evidence that the Obama Administration has been bypassing > Congress by taking illegal executive actions and forcing Border Patrol > agents to not do their job of enforcing the law along the border.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think bigger news here is for US citizens. US consistently denied visa-free travel for a lot of EU countries, including poland

<comment><USER6> comeuppance?

<comment><USER7> That's an egocentric view. The winds of the world are shifting and it isn't all about the US. It has played its part in the drama, but it isn't even remotely the only player or even necessarily the prime mover anymore.

<comment><USER8> I find that very interesting. What winds exactly do you think have changed such that the US isn't the prime mover now? When I look around the world, I don't see any reason to agree with your premise.

The US has an $18 trillion economy - 80% larger than China - with 43% of all global wealth, the fifth highest GDP per capita, and dominates militarily almost as much as it ever has (outside of the brief stretch from 1990-2003 when Russia was particularly weak).

I look at Latin America, Brazil is in a depression that is worsening (20 year set-back at least), and Venezuela has collapsed. So there's no challenge there from changing winds.

Most of Africa is getting better gradually, and that's tremendous news for them, however that's no challenge to the US prime mover status.

Japan is in much worse shape relative to the US than it was 25 years ago. In about six or seven years, the US will have double the GDP per capita of Japan, as they continue to aggressively debase the Yen to try to remain solvent.

South Korea is no stronger relative to the US than they were in the mid 1990s.

There are no other challengers to the US outside of China in Asia. India is rising, but they're no challenge to the dominant position the US has in the world. Maybe in 30 years if everything goes really well, they'll challenge China as an Asian power. Singapore has a great economy, but they're tiny. Vietnam and several other Asian countries will likely keep improving, but they're mostly a regional challenge for China, the US will benefit from them improving (it will take industry away from China).

Half of Europe is either broken economically or otherwise very poor. I could go down through each country and lay out their economic and political problems, but it's not necessary. Most of Europe has lost ground relative to the US on economy and military, that includes France, Spain, Italy, Britain. Overall the US is stronger today economically and militarily compared to Europe, than it was a decade ago. Where's the wind shift when it comes to Europe vs the US? There has been none. The Eurozone for example is a disaster, that hasn't seen economic growth in nearly a decade. Scandinavia is doing ok (other than their vast household debt problems and Finland's depression), but what else? And they're not a challenge to the US. Germany has been unable to grow its economy almost at all since 2008 (the US has almost added an economy the size of Germany in that time).

Russia is a non-issue as a challenger to the US. They're extremely weak now, with oil on the way out permanently, which will cripple their fossil fuel dependent economy for the next several decades at least. Their economy is 1/12th the size of the US economy now. Russia is now a regional player, a thorn in the side of Western Europe, with a median income that has fallen below much of Eastern Europe.

I go down the list, country by country, examining the situation, and the relative strength of each compared to the US. What winds have changed?

<comment><USER7> Listing all the ways in which various bits of the world relates to the US is entirely missing my point. All the bits of the world relate to each other directly as well. Not all of those relations are the US's fault or responsibility. Visa decisions are not being made around the world solely in relation to the current state of the United States. In fact, despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary, the US probably the least of concerns relating to those decisions; nobody is facing immanent social changes caused by incoming US immigration or fearing terrorist attacks from US citizens. (You can and should debate whether the US government's foreign policy is good or bad, but on the whole US citizens are individually well-behaved.) For example, Shengen is not collapsing because the US is out there agitating for it to come down. Oh, sure, trace the root causes and responsibility weaves in and out of US actions, but it's a complex tapestry and, again, a bit egocentric to specially privilege US actions in that rich tapestry.

<comment><USER8> I don't disagree with most of what you said. I consider the US to be merely one of the many big influences in the world, and it's blatantly the dominant one by a wide margin - by almost any metric we can name. However I fail to see how the US has a weaker position in terms of its dominance / prime mover status, than it did 10, 20, or 30 years ago. There has been no actual fundamental shift.

For example, the US share of global GDP is unchanged over the last 30 years - despite China's vast GDP gains over that time (meaning the US had to grow a lot to keep its position, while other former major powers lost ground). China has essentially taken the place of the USSR as a strength counter to the US.

Calling something egocentric isn't an actual counter-point (what does it have to do with whether something is factually correct or not?), it's an argument from intimidation. The only purpose it serves is to try to embarrass the other side of the discussion (since many people consider ego to be shameful; I obviously don't agree with that).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sounds reasonable. It's very difficult to get US or Canada visa in some countries. Certainly harder than getting a EU visa.

<comment><USER10> It would be an entirely spiteful act, however -- the only consequence would be a reduction in tourist dollars to Europe. Which is why it seems incredibly unlikely this would pass a EU general vote.

Canada and the United States have a refugee pact. Certain, specific countries in the EU have been a source of large numbers of bogus refugee claimants that cost considerable time and money (Canada received 23 times more "Hungarian refugees" than the rest of the world combined in 2010). Hence, a visa requirement. Spitefully saying "we'll do it too" is nonsensical -- Canada and the United States are sovereign countries, so it's not going to be received well.

EDIT: It seems that my account is dead. Yet another victim who dared to disagree with the great tptacek.

<comment><USER11> > _EDIT: It seems that my account is dead. Yet another victim who dared to > disagree with the great tptacek_

Please don't post petty stuff like this.

Your account's fine, but it won't stay fine if you continue to break the HN guidelines. That's no doubt why previous comments of yours were flagged (by users, not moderators), and it has nothing to do with disagreeing with someone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Since there's lots of discussion here about overstays, here's the US government report for overstays broken down by country:

[https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%2015...](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%2015%20DHS%20Entry%20and%20Exit%20Overstay%20Report.pdf)

Some highlights from the category of _FY 2015 Overstay rates for nonimmigrants with B-1 /B-2 visas admitted to the United States for business or pleasure via air and sea POEs for non-VWP Countries (excluding Canada and Mexico):_

Bulgaria 1.48%

Romania 1.81%

Average of all countries 1.60%

The highest rates are Bhutan 23.98% and Djibouti 26.80%.

One important factor that the report doesn't give is the difficulty of getting the visa in first place. Some countries have a _much_ higher visa rejection rate by American consulates than others. Those would be interesting statistics to see.

I couldn't find a similar report for Canada, but I'd expect the proportions by country to be similar, but perhaps higher overall for Canada since Canada is slightly easier to enter than the US.

<comment><USER2> The correct column is the other one, 'Total overstay rate'.

Also those stats for the Romania and Bulgaria are _after_ refusing over 15% of all Visas applied for, which is sort of a filter that prevents the number from being dramatically higher. Under the VWP there would be no such filter.

The other country to mention is Poland.

<comment><USER12> > The correct column is the other one, 'Total overstay rate'.

Yes, you're right. I used the column that indicates "overstayed the visa and are still in the US as far as the DHS knows", whereas the Total Overstay is sum of those still in the US plus those who departed.

Here are the correct figures since I can't modify my earlier comment:

Bulgaria 1.74%

Romania 2.06%

Poland 1.49% (since you mentioned it)

Average of all non-VWP countries 1.74%

The highest rates are Bhutan 24.89% and Djibouti 27.67%.

And for comparison: Average of all VWP countries 0.73%

The highest rates in VWP countries are Hungary 2.92% and Slovakia 2.36%.

> Also those stats for the Romania and Bulgaria are after refusing over 15% of > all Visas applied for.

I'm interested to know where you got that figure? If anything, I would have thought that US visa refusal rates would be even higher (varying by country of course).

<comment><USER2> I got it from here: [https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non- Im...](https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Immigrant- Statistics/RefusalRates/FY15.pdf)

Originally from here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program#Adjusted_V...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program#Adjusted_Visa_Refusal_Rate)

<comment><USER12> Even though it's on a US government website, I'm dubious about their numbers and methods. That report (and earlier ones from 2006-2014) are riddled with weird inconsistencies. Examples:

(1) Vatican has 100% refusal it says. The Pope and 557 people have Vatican citizenship, and that's mostly cardinals and clergy. I doubt the US was turning away 25% of them. The overstay report (linked in my earlier comment) says that the Vatican (Holy See) had a 0% overstay rate. So the US was refusing 25% of visas from a country with 0% overstay?

(2) Canada has 49% refusal it claims. But Canadians don't need to apply for B-category visas to enter the US; they get an "implied" B1 or B2 at the border. Canadians could get turned away at the US border and I'm sure some do, but it's certainly not 49% of Canadians.

(3) The 2014 version of the report says that 100% of Serbia and Montenegro were refused visas! That's not credible. It's completely at odds with the overstay report that says that the US had 20,149 visitors from Serbia in 2015 and 17,422 in 2014, and 3,972 visitors from Montenegro in 2015 and 3,214 in 2014.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't mind paying a nominal fee to enter the EU. Hopefully, this happens at the border. Mailing in my passport to a black box EU embassy and waiting an unspecified amount of time is what annoys me about visa processes.

I'm also not afraid of "Romanian and Bulgarian hordes" or whatever tired immigrant trope was used to not open the borders to those two countries.

Work it out peeps!

<comment><USER14> Visas usually involve having to queue at an embassy.

<comment><USER2> It'll likely be online just like the US/Canada eTA, so no queuing at the border or at an Embassy.

It's only there because the US/Canada has it, not for any other reason other than reciprocity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> EU needs to thread more careful here and solve this problem rather than accuse Canada for arrogance.

If visa exemption is messed up with Canada (and even the US!) then Britain voting for exiting the EU becomes considerably more likely.

After all Britain (and other Western European states) still sees itself as closer tied to Canada, US, Australia than to Romania.

<comment><USER2> The UK isn't in Schengen so it's not part of this. They're not putting visas up (or don't intend to) for Canadians or Americans. There's a bit of a bromance going on for the anglophone countries.

<comment><USER16> This has nothing to do with the Schengen treaty.

Schengen == "there are no passport controls at border crossings"

Visa Waiver Program == "you do not need to apply for a visa in the destination country's embassy"

<comment><USER17> Schengen also regulates a shared visa policy for all members and all countries that are prospective members. This affects all EU countries other than the UK and Ireland, and indirectly affects several non-EU countries. E.g. Norway applies Schengen visa rules as a Schengen member, and non-Schengen countries that are prospective EU members works towards harmonising their visa rules with Schengen because it is a requirement of EU membership.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Romania and Bulgaria both control their own borders, they are not members of the Schengen Zone. Therefore this has absolutely nothing to do with an exchange of visa free travel. A fair exchange would be that Romania and Bulgaria both revoke visa free travel... although they don't offer it in the first place.

It sounds like the EU is trying to throw its weight around in order to gain political favour with neighbour states. I hope everyone says no. The EU would see its tourism from more affluent countries plummet, cutting off the nose to spite the face.

It's political posturing and probably nothing would come out of it if everyone did say no.

<comment><USER4> What do you mean for Romania and Bulgaria to revoke visa free travel?

Romanian and Bulgarian citizens can travel all over EU, including into the Schengen Zone, without a visa. They are only subject to a Passport/ID check.

And EU citizens can travel to Romania/Bulgaria without visas. So what do you mean?

<comment><USER18> I mean coming from Canada, both countries require a visa.

It's the same the other way around, but the EU is pressuring Canada apparently to offer visa free travel to them both. Why wouldn't such a thing be worked out between the individual countries involved.

<comment><USER19> Because the EU member states decided to lift this issue to the EU level via Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001\. The EU is about harmonizing legislation after all and regulating external borders is a very important part of what the EU does.

<comment><USER18> > regulating external borders is a very important part of what the EU does.

Whoa man. Lets not open up that can of worms here, lets try and keep the topic about Canada eh/ I think telling another country who they must allow visa free travel to is similar to telling them what laws they need to follow.

Canada isn't a member of the EU, there never was any such agreement. An EU council regulation should have little to do with them.

<comment><USER19> Visa-free entry is usually done on a reciprocal basis, i.e. two countries decide that each others citizens can enter visa free. The EU member states decided that they only enter into such an agreement if there are similar agreements with all other member states.

Nobody here tells Canada what to do. They only say that if Canadian citizens should be let without a visa into the EU, they must allow all EU citizens visa-free entry.

<comment><USER18> I pointed out in my first post that the countries in questions have their own borders.

The "EU" isn't an entity you reciprocate visa free travel from and to. Some member states of the EU, don't share the same visa rules as other member states. Such as in this case here. Why am I expected to talk in circles with you.

<comment><USER19> This is the clearest I can put it: Parties A and B want to enter into an agreement. B will only do so under condition X. Party B is free to state any conditions they want just as A is free to not accept them.

Now substitute "Canada" for A, "Germany"/"France"/"Sweden"/... for B and "Enter a similar agreement with these other 25 countries" for X and you get the current situation. The EU member states decided to make this a condition to all their reciprocal visa agreements.

If Canada thinks that's not fair they can withdraw from the reciprocal visa agreements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Always amusing to see the US lecturing European countries on how they don't welcome migrants well enough, and then see that these additional visa requirement for "bad european countries" which population they do not see coming on US soil...

</comment><comment><USER20> Yes, and Turkey (80 million middle eastern people) will get EU membership.

Merkel cut a deal w/ Turkey to take back immigrants in return for EU membership.

link: [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany- tu...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-turkey- idUSKCN0SC08B20151019)

<comment><USER17> As much as I'd personally be all for giving Turkey EU membership _eventually_ , with Turkey's current trajectory they are decades away from getting it, and Erdogan seems intent on reducing their chances.

Even if Merkel tried to push for Turkish membership, it'd take years of negotiations and further years of reforms before anything could happen.

EDIT: Note that what the article _actually_ says is that she has offered to help accelerate the membership discussions. But even if Germany pushes to ensure talks with Turkey are fast-tracked, the ultimate thing that prevents Turkish EU membership is that Turkey needs to carry out extensive reforms - both political and economical - as well as convincing several EU member states not to veto membership before there's any way they will be allowed entry. Even if the negotiations concluded tomorrow, it'd take years - probably a decade or more - for Turkey to complete the required reforms (and that assumes the government would even want to carry out these reforms, which Erdogan seems totally uninterested in). I think it's more likely membership will take on the order of 15-20 years.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Locating PR for an app startup? - <AUTHOR> I have developed an app that I believe has a lot of potential for downloads and profitability.  I also think it has a great backstory that would be worthy of TechCrunch, etc.
Now to reality: I've reached out on upwork, I've tried calling PR firms and getting sent straight to voicemail, and I've tried filling in their webforms.
Crickets.
Either my idea and app has merit and I could pay them to give me some PR, or my idea and app do not,  and they could still take my money to try and fail to generate the PR.
I feel like I'm standing on a street corner trying to hand out $100 bills, no strings attached, and no takers.
Can anyone recommend a PR/app marketing firm or individual with a competent intake process? <comment><USER3> Do a Show HN [1]. That will be the quickest way to determine what the market response is likely to be. You could email the mods - email@example.com - <USER2> they can advise you on how to get the best result.

The best entrepreneurs and creators these days are able to bootstrap awareness and early growth for their product through blog posts, word-of-mouth referrals and other grass-roots techniques.

Any media outlet or professional PR agency will look for things like that as indicators of whether your product is something they want to cover or promote.

Every media gatekeeper is being pitched dozens or hundreds of times per day by people who sincerely believe they have a world-changing product, so you need to have some objective evidence that your offering has a degree of viability that the others don't.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/show](https://news.ycombinator.com/show)</comment>


Project Fi - A wireless service from Google - <AUTHOR> http://fi.google.com <comment><AUTHOR> I have been traveling through a bunch of countries with this service, and I must say I'm super happy.

Some highlights:

1\. It works perfectly with my iPhone 7 Plus (Calling, 4G, hotspot)

2\. Since it's roaming free, it always swap to the provider with the best reception

3\. fi.google.com/account is really intuitive.

4\. Support replies within 1 minute

5\. It comes with a free data sim

</comment><comment><USER2> I have been using this service for about an year. It is extremely spotty when compared to AT&T etc, but I am sure it will improve over the next few years</comment>


Have We Reached 'Social Network Saturation' [infographic] - <AUTHOR> http://www.thetechscoop.net/2011/04/14/social-network-saturation/#axzz1JTci0ysf <comment><USER2> I doubt it. Just because there exist all kinds of social networks - e.g. phones, IMs, email, Facebook, Twitter, etc. - doesn't mean there's not a LOT to be gained by thoughtful integration (hopefully with sufficient privacy safeguards)</comment>


Namespaced Terminal Client Commands 4 Node.js - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/s-a/ntcc <comment><USER2> If it meets the guidelines, this might make a good "Show HN".

Guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)</comment>


Programming humour - <AUTHOR> https://blog.sysadminsarena.com/classic-it-short-jokes-collection-great-after-a-busy-day-e5869f6076f8 <comment><AUTHOR> Your favorite one is...</comment>