[Stack Overflow]Design a function f, such that f(f(n)) == -n  - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/731832/interview-question-ffn-n <comment><USER4> If you want to quickly understand the answers, the key insight is here:

[http://stackoverflow.com/a/824878](http://stackoverflow.com/a/824878)

Paraphrased: _defining such a function over a symmetric subset of the reals X is equivalent to partitioning the positive ( >0) elements of X into disjoint pairs (a,b)._ This uniquely describes a satisfying function f, under whose action:

        f:  0 -> 0
        f:  a -> (-b) -> (-a) -> b -> a

And conversely, any such function is uniquely described by such a partition. That's all there is to it!

There is no such partition on the set of int32_t's, because the # of nonzero int32_t's is odd.

For the set of all integers Z, the "obvious" partition is {(1,2), (3,4), (5,6)...}. This is what many of the answers are getting at with even/odd tests.

This also works for some subsets of the integers, such as {-2,1,0,1,2}. These are the symmetric ones with an even number of positive elements. These have 4n or 4n+1 elements total, depending on whether they include zero. [-2^31, 2^31] works (this has one more element than int32_t). As does [-2^31 + 2, 2^31 - 2] -- the largest such subset of int32_t.

This has a natural extension to the rationals, the reals, etc. Namely: (a,b) is a member of the partition iff (floor(a), floor(b)) is a member of the partition for integers, and their fractional parts are equal.

There is no such function on the reals that is (analytically) continuous. Any such f must be bijective (a != b implies f(a) != f(b)). If f : R -> R is both continuous and bijective, it is monotonic, and therefore so is (f . f), which is incompatible with the requirement that (f . f)(x) = -x.

<comment><USER5> The best you can do is getting all but one number (2^n - 1) correct.

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately no, 0 also can't be handled.

The chains are

1 -> 2 -> -1 -> -2 -> 1

3 -> 4 -> -3 -> -4 -> 3

....

2^31 - 3 -> 2^31 - 2 -> -2^31 + 3 -> -2^31 + 2 -> 2^31 - <USER2>

And now you're left with just 2^31 - 1, -2^31, -2^31 + 1, 0. If you define f(f(0)) = 0, then you have only 3 numbers and you need 4 for a chain.

Possible solutions:

* f(f(0)) = -2^31

* crash on any of the 3

* crash violently

* enter an endless loop (technically if the function never completes, it doesn't return a wrong value)

<comment><USER5> Here the example for 3 bits.

       0 ->  0
      +1 -> -2 -> -1 -> +2 -> +1
      +3 -> -4 -> -3 -> -4

The first cycle takes care of 0, the second one of -2, -1, +1 and +2. The interesting thing is the third thing - it consists of the cycle -4 -> -3 -> -4 and the attached chain +3 -> -4 entering the cycle via -4. This one correctly maps +3 to -3 and -4 to -4 (-(2^(n - 1) is its on inverse) and only fails for -3 which is incorrectly mapped to itself, too. There you go, 7 out of 8 correct.

(This is the essence of my way longer answer on Stack Overflow [1] although it is not necessarily any clearer because it evolved a lot.)

[1] [http://stackoverflow.com/a/731857](http://stackoverflow.com/a/731857)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> OK am I the only one who thinks this question is on the same lines as hose brainteasers from Google and Microsoft like why are manholes covers round, or how many crows are there in Manhattan?

Honestly, can anyone tell me exactly in what kind of a programming scenario do you have to write a function where f(f(n)) comes out to -n? This is more a math question than a programming one and unless you are expected to do a lot of complex math in your job I don't think such a question is appropriate for a programmer's interview.

<comment><USER8> I would probably walk away from an interview (if I ever have to do one again) with such questions.

I would not be interested to work in an environment using that kind of filter to let people in.

<comment><USER9> carefull with that line of reasonning though. i had one candidate that self destructed with this behavior. he didn't like my questions, and did very poorly on the test ( which i warned him before was very specific, and i knew didn't pretend to assess completely his skills). but the talk i had with him before that convinced me that he was still an interesting candidate.

what happened was, even before i told him anything, the guy decided he wanted to stop the interview. In the case of that guy, the tests showed that he took failure in a very very bad way.

<comment><USER10> Or maybe he realized he didn't like you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Okay.

        function f(n) { return -Math.abs(n) }

EDIT: something that works for negative numbers:

        function f(n) { return -n[0] || [n] }

</comment><comment><USER12> f(n)=in

Where i=sqrt(-1), either would do.

Without proper constraints, the problem is trivial. The fact that the variable is called 'n' means nothing.

OTOH, if f is integer-valued and of an integer variable,

        f(0)=0
        f(2n)=-(2n-1)
        f(2n-1)=2n
        f(-(2n-1))=-2n
        f(-2n)=2n-1

Unless I am pretty confused (which may be).

The difficult one is f(f(n))=n^2.

<comment><USER13> 1) They disallowed complex numbers.

2) You can't just do an operation to the right side and then do the inverse inside of the function on the left side. It has to be done outside of the function.

3) You didn't accomplish anything with your butchered math. We wanted f(f(n)) = -n

<comment><USER12> I _guess_ you do not understand my formula...

Given z a non-zero integer, either z=2n or z=2n-1 or z=-2n or z=-(2n-1), for some natural n>0... f(n) is defined according to each case. Uhu? And AFAIK f(f(n))=-n.

This should not be too hard to express in 32 bit arithmetic. With bitwise shifts etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Source:

        /*
         * f(f(n)) = -n
         */

        #include <stdlib.h>
        #include <stdio.h>
        #include <stdint.h>

        int32_t f(int32_t n) {
            return (2 * (n & 1) - 1) * n + (2 * ((n & 1) & ((n >> 31) & 1)) - 1);
        }

        int main(int argc, char** argv) {
            int32_t n[] = { 1, 2, 3, -1, -2, -3, 0, 5, 6, 10, 20, 50, 0x7fffffff, 0x80000000 };
            int count = sizeof(n) / sizeof(int32_t);
            for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
                printf("      f(%d) = %d\n      f(f(%d)) = %d\n", n[i], f(n[i]), n[i], f(f(n[i])));
            }
        }

Result:

          f(1) = 0
          f(f(1)) = -1
          f(2) = -3
          f(f(2)) = -2
          f(3) = 2
          f(f(3)) = -3
          f(-1) = 0
          f(f(-1)) = -1
          f(-2) = 1
          f(f(-2)) = 0
          f(-3) = -2
          f(f(-3)) = 1
          f(0) = -1
          f(f(0)) = 0
          f(5) = 4
          f(f(5)) = -5
          f(6) = -7
          f(f(6)) = -6
          f(10) = -11
          f(f(10)) = -10
          f(20) = -21
          f(f(20)) = -20
          f(50) = -51
          f(f(50)) = -50
          f(2147483647) = 2147483646
          f(f(2147483647)) = -2147483647
          f(-2147483648) = 2147483647
          f(f(-2147483648)) = 2147483646

<comment><USER14> Something looks wrong here…

          f(-1) = 0
          f(0) = -1
          f(f(-1)) = -1

Your code doesn't seem to handle the f(f(-n)) == n case

<comment><USER6> Yeah, you're right. I had some more time to think, here's an updated, clearer version. I really really hate how you HAVE to define the last loop as 0 -> INT_MIN + 1 -> INT_MIN -> INT_MAX -> 0\. And there's no way to do it other than to use ifs. And there's no getting around that f(f(0)) != 0 (if you want the function to be correct in the most possible cases, that is). If you remove the ifs, it fails for INT_MAX, -INT_MAX and 0. Ifs in numeric code always make me uneasy.

        /*
         * f(f(n)) = -n
         */

        #include <stdlib.h>
        #include <stdio.h>
        #include <stdint.h>

        int32_t f(int32_t n) {
            if (n == 0) {
                return -0x7fffffffL;
            }
            if (n == -0x7fffffffL) {
                return n-1;
            }
            if (n == -0x80000000L) {
                return 0x7fffffffL;
            }
            if (n == 0x7fffffffL) {
                return 0;
            }

            int32_t s = 1 - 2 * ((uint32_t)n >> 31);
            int32_t m = 2 * (n & 1) - 1;
            return m * n + s;
        }

        int main(int argc, char** argv) {
            int32_t n[] = { 1, 2, 3, -1, -2, -3, 0, 5, 6, 10, 20, 50, 0x7fffffff, 0x80000000, -0x7fffffff };
            int count = sizeof(n) / sizeof(int32_t);
            for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
                printf("      f(%d) = %d\n      f(f(%d)) = %d\n", n[i], f(n[i]), n[i], f(f(n[i])));
            }
        }

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here is a working go implementation...

[http://play.golang.org/p/FgZp8xNfPt](http://play.golang.org/p/FgZp8xNfPt)

<comment><USER16> Nice, but it doesn't work for largest possible signed int value:

-( 2147483647 + 1 ) this overflows ( in C/C++ )

I guess you could change the part of the function to

           if n > 0 {

    		if n%2 == 0 {
    			return n - <USER3>
    		}
    		return (-n) + 1   //here
    	}

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This has probably been said in the SO thread already, but what is the negation operator supposed to mean for the one int32_t (typically the number -2^31) whose additive inverse (the number 2^31) is not a member of int32_t?

</comment><comment><USER18> Did it say "free of side effects"? Seems trivial to me.

      #include <stdio.h>

      /* works for all signed integers, but isn't particularly  useful */
      int f(int n)
      {
          static int b;
          return b = !b ? n : -n;
      }

      int main()
      {
          int n=-1234;
          /* int n=1234; */
          printf("%d\n", f(f(n)));
      }

<comment><USER5> Just look at the answers - all tricks you can come up with are there, this one included.

<comment><USER18> Indeed, I didn't look that far down, thanks. Too many FP purists on SO apparently. ;-)

<comment><USER5> This wasn't intended to sound that rude - it just happens that I know this question quite well because I wrote one of the first answers. I was just a bit »WtF!?! Why is everybody posting solutions that are already there?« turning this discussion into a unreadable mess within minutes; HN isn't really made for posting code.

<comment><USER18> I'm used to seeing the "correct" answers on top at SO and since the first couple with many upvotes had deficiencies, I assumed that there were no better solutions (for my personal definition of "better" apparently!). Most of the people who posted on HN probably did the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Isn't the obvious answer, abs and negate? ie

f = negate . abs

That way f always returns a negative regardless of input.

<comment><USER20> so what if i call f(f(-1))? It should return 1.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Can I abuse dynamic typing? Javascript:

        function f(n) {
            if (typeof n == 'object')
                return -1 * n.val;
            else
                return {val: n};
        }

The unit test passes, so much be good, right?

</comment><comment><USER22> You can actually use complex numbers to solve this, but using a representation that fits in the regular integers.

[https://gist.github.com/richardkiss/5857101](https://gist.github.com/richardkiss/5857101)

</comment><comment><USER23> Here's a shady looking Common Lisp macro.

(defmacro f (n)

      (cond ((numberp n) n)
                  ((not (listp n)) (error "not a number"))
                  ((equal (car n) 'f) `(* -1 ,n))
                  (t n)))

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm pretty sure this isn't what they were looking for but it technically works: [http://jsfiddle.net/8c7BE/1/](http://jsfiddle.net/8c7BE/1/)

</comment><comment><USER25> My take, probably present in the original link tho

      int f(int n) {
        static int timesCalled = 0;
        return ++timesCalled % 2 ? n : -n;
      }

<comment><USER26> This was my thought as well. So many people jump to complicated math when the question was about a function. KISS applies, as does out of the box thinking. :)

And here's a solution (in PHP, my language of choice) that doesn't use any static variables :

        function f( $n ) {
            if ( is_string( $n ) ) {
                return -1 * (int) $n;
            } else {
                return (string) $n;
            }
        }

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Should I be worried that I couldnt come up with a proper solution for this. How do you get better at solving such questions ?

<comment><USER28> 1) Write down all you know. Seeing `f(f(n)) == n` is frightening and tells your mind nothing, it just blocks it. If you start with a simple example, say `f(f(1)) == 1`, you then say `f(1) == y` for some `y`, and then you can "generalize": `f(x) == y`, `f(y) == -x`.

2) Simplify and limit the problem: instead of `f : int32 -> int32`, have `f : {-2, -1, 0, 1, 2} -> [-2, 2]`. Then, you would probably think of the sequence `f : 1 -> y -> -1 -> -y`, from which you see that either `y == 2` or `y == -2`. Or, you would figure out another sequence, say `f : 1 -> 0.5 -> -1 -> -0.5` or something similar.

So: write down what you know, and try simple/limited examples first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> f(n) = i*n ?</comment>


Show HN: Our first iOS app built on Bootstrap 3 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/f23d6ace540a

<comment><USER2> Cool app + demo. One thought is that I want to see a map, calculation, and/or proof as to why that's the shortest route. Perhaps you can show me the distance for this route, and tell me how much better it is (by %) than the median and worst routes.

Also, please tell me whether it's the shortest route by miles (by car routes? walking routes? bike routes? as the bird flies?) or time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great Idea!

Being mobile first, we dropped this plan in favour of reducing clutter.

We'll consider putting this info in a separate view.</comment></comment>


Mailbox.org gpg encrypted €1,- email solution now in english. - <AUTHOR> https://mailbox.org/en/ <comment><USER2> FYI, in Germany if you provide more than 10000 mailboxes you have to add a SINA box to your network. [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichere_Inter- Netzwerk_Archite...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sichere_Inter- Netzwerk_Architektur)

This allows law enforcement to silently direct specific user's mails to them. This requires a ruling and the provider will be aware of it. Still, I think a company like this should mention this in a full disclosure spirit as it can render their promise "No disclosure: Your data remains with us. We never pass on any data to third parties without authorization." void.

\--- I do not understand the Legal Certainty paragraph.

<comment><USER3> Data Privacy Statement from mailbox.org:

"According to TKG Section 113 (German Telecommunications Law), the public prosecutor and the police can access the user data held by telecommunications providers such as ourselves relatively easily. A simple information request suffices; no court order is needed. According to TKG Section 113, a telecommunications provider has no legal recourse against such a request; it must comply. It should also be noted that according to TKG Section 113 (II), the provider is required to treat such a request confidentially, and that the affected customer must not be informed about the request."

[https://mailbox.org/en/data-protection/](https://mailbox.org/en/data- protection/)

<comment><USER4> You should have included the next paragraph. They make a difference between user data and the users emails:

"Access to the log data of mail and web servers and to the e-mails contained in a mailbox, on the other hand, requires a search and seizure warrant signed by a judge, unless the investigative authorities can claim exigent circumstances. Telecommunications providers again have no legal recourse against search warrants; seizure of the log data cannot be denied."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is another lavabit. They receive e-mails in clear text and then they encrypt it. This is not secure at all.

It would be ok if it they were clear about it, but it's exactly the opposite "[...]This means that no one can read your e-mails except yourself – no password thieves, no governmental or law enforcement agencies, not even us here at mailbox.org."

<comment><USER6> We ARE clear about that. It's explained on

[https://mailbox.org/en/doodle-video-explains-fully- encrypted...](https://mailbox.org/en/doodle-video-explains-fully-encrypted- mailbox/)

and our doodle film explains the benefit and risk.

Using the feature does not forbit to set up a "real" PGP end-to-end- encryption. Users should do that and our job is to help them -- step by step. And we're explaining that to them.

Our encrypted INBOX is useful in case an e-mail hasn't been sent encrypted, because there ARE many senders (like companies or unexperienced users) that do NOT encrypt their e-mail. That's how it is, so we have to deal with that. It's a kind of "add on".

Right today round about 10% of our inboxes are completly encrypted. That's great, but we'll still have to raise that level. An: > 10% of our users are familiar with encryption in their daily e-mail-usage. -And they will explain that to friends, business contacts and family. The usage and knowledge of encryption has to grow -- and having an encrypted INBOX is one (!) step to it.

Peer (mailbox.org)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> In fact you can't use gpg in mailbox.org when you send an email. Gpg is only used to encrypt your mailbox (it encrypts the emails you receive) which is kind of weird. You can of course use GPG in command line or with an external program.

<comment><USER8> ... and useless, because they've had access to the mail in plaintext.

<comment><USER6> Yes, we HAD access to the plaintext e-mail. And we explain that and warn about that.

But after encrypting the e-mail, nobody will have access to that e-mail any more: Even hackers, phishers or the government. Many people are storing their e-mails for years in their INBOX. Great to protect those e-mails over the time.

But, anyway: The best way is always to use real end-to-end-encryption. In that case, you don't have to trust us any more. We're happy to help to set this up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So I clicked the page to check if I can a) use my own domain. b) upload my public key and decrypt the mailbox locally to serve IMAP from localhost. Then I read this

> _Our grasp on technology is flawless_

And they completely lost me.

<comment><USER6> We're not native english speakers and we just got everything back from our translation office. We're still proofreading our website and the translations.

"marketing speech" is not our way of talking and if the translation office did a bad job there, we'll correct that. But there wasn't enough time to read and correct everything.

We just started last week with our englisch website, please give us some days.

Peer (mailbox.org)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> That's a great landing page, lots of information and not stuffed with marketing fluff.

And in case you are wondering if they are offering these services for your own domain? - Not yet. [0]

[0] [https://mailbox.org/en/can-i-use-e-mail-addresses-from-my- ow...](https://mailbox.org/en/can-i-use-e-mail-addresses-from-my-own-domain- with-mailbox-org/)

<comment><USER11> They claim "Our grasp on technology is flawless". How much hubris does it take to set off your marketing fluff alarm?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "The domain name, email@example.com, is easy to remember and can be understand anywhere in the world. "

understand?</comment>


TouchStudio Lets Windows Phone 7 Users Program Directly On Their Phone - <AUTHOR> http://www.ohgizmo.com/2011/04/12/microsoft-researchs-touchstudio-lets-windows-phone-7-users-program-directly-on-their-phone/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Ohgizmo+%28OhGizmo%21%29 <comment><USER2> Neat!

I actually got pretty productive with programming on my Treo through VNC (over 2G, not even Edge!). Something that just really has never been practical on my iPhone, due to the virtual keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh, and if you want to see what TouchStudio looks like "in action", you can see the authors of TouchStudio using it here: [http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Peli/TouchStudio-Script- Your-...](http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/Peli/TouchStudio-Script-Your-Phone- ON-Your-Phone)

</comment><comment><USER3> It was surprisingly easy to write a program in TouchStudio to display the pictures from reddit.com/r/pics!

Here's the "source": <http://screencast.com/t/EMHLAcLVC>

And here's what it looks like after running and scrolling a bit: <http://screencast.com/t/W57MX2xcCZ>

</comment><comment><USER4> One of my earliest "useful" programs was a gambling game I wrote on my TI-80. I think this kind of thing is fantastic, and will breed a new generation of programmers.

</comment><comment><USER5> Now that's something a hacker would love. I am going to give it a shot. Lot of interesting scenarios to think of: Calling home number if office is not answered, Not uploading to skydrive if the pictures are taken at a specific location (home etc)</comment>


Blockchains, Determinism, Monads, Agents and Functional Reactive Programming - <AUTHOR> https://thomasbarker.com/16/03/blockchains-determinism-monads-agents-and-functional-reactive-programming <comment><USER2> Despite all those buzzwords, a good read</comment>


Show HN: SHML (shell markup language) - <AUTHOR> https://maxcdn.github.io/shml/ <comment><USER2> Nice! I am using some of the funny characters!

Some remarks:

I doubt if it is needed to launch a sub-process for each markup directive. This is fine for small output, but will slow down processing of larger chunks of text. I would be interested in a bash solution based on associative arrays.

As an example, one might want to look at the zsh implementation of the colors script in the main distribution[0], which makes colors available as an associative array:

        # Set once in shell init script:
        autoload -U colors && colors
        # And use it anywhere:
        print $fg[blue]hello colorful world!$fg[reset]

[0]: [http://sourceforge.net/p/zsh/code/ci/master/tree/Functions/M...](http://sourceforge.net/p/zsh/code/ci/master/tree/Functions/Misc/colors)

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm a little surprised something like "$(fgcolor red hello)" requires a $(fgcolor end) - if you include arguments shouldn't it be self-closing? Then you get nice things like "$(fgcolor red " $(hr)")"

$(title "header") could be cool, outputting " header$(br)</comment><comment>"

An alias for \r could be nice, to go with $(br).

<comment><USER4> But if you've done: "$(fgcolor red)red text$(fgcolor green "green text") what color is this?"... then it would have to model a stack on top of the actual underlying implementation, which does not have any concept of "closing" a sequence to pop the colour back to the previous colour. It could automatically emit the \x1b[0m, but it would be making assumptions about nesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really like the idea of this, great work!

Unrelated, I'm pretty sad that there hasn't been further work in packaging shell extensions like this. Most of it is adhoc, and people usually tend to stick to `curl | bash` (I'm guilty of this as well with dokku and other OS projects).

</comment><comment><USER6> Well, I like it. Thanks. I shall try using it for the MOTD on the HPC cluster I manage.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. Please reach out if you have any questions or general feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Making tty formatting very close to dom/css semantics, interesting.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is awesome, just a shame there isn't anything like this for MS PowerShell.

<comment><USER9>
       function color ($name) { $Host.UI.RawUI.ForegroundColor = $name }
       function sayhello { 'pardon me do you have any grey poupon?' }
       echo $(color yellow) $(sayhello)

The other stuff (bold, pictures) requires host support (more than regular powershell.exe provides).

<comment><USER10> > The other stuff (bold, pictures) requires host support (more than regular > powershell.exe provides).

PoshConsole made a nice stab at it. Sadly it is no longer developed, I think.

Simple unicode characters (the smilies etc as used in OP) does work in powershell ISE.

[1] [https://poshconsole.codeplex.com/](https://poshconsole.codeplex.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> At first I got dyslexic and was excited to try the Shaking My Head Language (SMHL).

</comment><comment><USER12> I like it! It even works in MobaXTerm. Although two tests failed.</comment>


Outsource for productivity, not because of laziness - <AUTHOR> http://euphonious-intuition.com/2012/09/outsource-for-productivity-not-because-of-lazyness/

<comment><USER2> Interesting points are made, but I miss the "How to find people to outsource to" part.

What websites do you use to find competent people to work with ? And many other questions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I wasn't sure if I should address that in this post or not. I'll write another one about finding and validating a developer/designer/whatever. It's a mix of methodology and black magic...so I wanted to keep this post on-point for one topic.

For small things, I use oDesk. The PSD-to-HTML slicing and part-time developer were both found through oDesk. I've also found good help on oDesk for other things like audio transcription and data-entry.

I found my designer through Forrst.</comment></comment>


Thermos-Like Passive Homes Aggressively Save Energy - <AUTHOR> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2015/01/150120-thermos-like-passive-homes-heat-up-in-the-us/ <comment><USER2> Even "nice" homes in the US seem built out of the cheapest building materials. Just a minimal framing, a couple of girders, and then everything else is medium-density fibreboard prefab junk. It is like living in a very sturdy tent.

They try to make up for how poorly the walls are constructed by shoving tons of insulation (mostly hazardous-during-deconstruction fiberglass) but really it is just nothingness. I'm sure with a wood axe I could literally chop my way into someone's bedroom from outside.

In much of Europe both new and old homes are built using brick(!). These homes have already lasted over one hundred years and will likely last at least another fifty or more with normal maintenance (e.g. roof repair, replacing some plumbing, etc).

Most US homes seem to have a lifetime of around 50 years before they get demolished and replaced by identically terrible homes. Except there are a few places in the Eastern US where older homes were built well (e.g. Maine) but newer ones are built like junk.

I'm not surprised they're bringing in building materials from Ireland. I doubt anyone in the US produces real homes anymore.

<comment><USER3> > In much of Europe both new and old homes are built using brick(!). These > homes have already lasted over one hundred years and will likely last at > least another fifty or more with normal maintenance (e.g. roof repair, > replacing some plumbing, etc).

AIUI, Brick construction is actually less resistant than wood-frame to many kinds of things including -- particularly relevant to California residents -- earthquakes.

Its less resistant to axes, sure, but then that just means that modifications are less expensive -- but its not exactly like hostile attacks by axe against homes are that common.

<comment><USER4> Unreinforced brick construction is actually illegal in many parts of California, possibly all. It's pretty easy to reinforce, though; if you sink rebar through the brickwork every now & again, it's as resilient as concrete and arguably prettier.

Admittedly this is much easier in new construction...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > So far, it has been defined by the German standard that limits the heating > and cooling load to 4,755 British thermal units per square foot (or 15 > kilowatt hours per square meter)—about one-tenth that of homes built to > current U.S. codes.

In the comments section, there's a clarification that this is per year. (Kind of a shame to see "unit fail" in a publication that should know better.)

I'm kind of curious to know what sort of new technology (if any) makes high- efficiency targets easier to meet these days. The article talks about triple pane windows and thick walls. Are these stick-frame houses with fiberglass and offset 2x6s in the walls or something like that, or are there new materials? I recently read that aerogel has been coming down in cost to the point where it's plausible that someone with deep pockets might insulate their house with it if they didn't want super thick walls. Insulated concrete forms and autoclaved aerated concrete are also something that some builders use. What else is new?

<comment><USER6> It's partly materials, but there are lots of factors:

\- building codes raising the bar, which has brought down costs for what used to be "fancy" materials

\- improvements in building science

\- increased energy costs driving demand for improved efficiency

\- greater awareness of energy consumption amongst the population

I've renovated a few houses build in the 60's and 70's in Canada. As far as I can tell, they had the materials and knowledge to make far more efficient houses, but much of the time, it was just easier, quicker and cheaper to install a big-ol' heater and drive the cold out. With a few simple and relatively cheap building envelope modifications and a more efficient heat source, it wasn't difficult to bring heating costs down by 50% or more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are dangers in sealing home so tightly to control energy use. Blocking the escape of hot/cold air saves on the bills but can lead to condensation problems when the mechanical systems fail or are not designed perfectly.

Even something as simple as replacing an electric range with a gas one (burning gas is a huge source of moisture) can lead to mold in the long term. A clogged vent into a basement can see moisture from a gas water heater creep into wood on the inside the impenetrable vapor barrier.

And don't get anyone started on the dangers of off-gassing from new construction materials in an airtight environment.

<comment><USER8> There are a number of mitigating technologies which can be used to maintain quality indoor air. Our home has a heat exchanger to bring in air from the outside & venting in the mechanical room which is on a timer to exhaust any buildup of products of combustion from the gas furnace and water heater. The crawl space is also vented to avoid a build-up of radon gas. Interestingly, the homes used as an example in the article are getting mini-splits which don't have venting capabilities. They are awesome and I love the one we have in our home theater, but am afraid that when they are the only solution used for heating and cooling in a well sealed home the important issue of venting the home properly and in an energy efficient manner may not be addressed. With a central air system it's relatively easy and cheap to do an external heat exchanger. With a mini-split solution, a dedicated heat exchanger system would need to be installed separately from the main source of heating and cooling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is a horrible trend of sealing homes up tight, and then we start to notice a raft of problems developing - in the fabric of the home, and it's inhabitants. I am lucky to live in a 1930's building in London, with plenty of ventilation built it. It is certainly not the most eco rated property, but, it is healthy. It might cost a couple of pounds more to heat over the year, but, it has proven itself over time, from coal fires, to back boilers, to central heating, air flows throughout, damp does not get a chance to thrive, nor mould nor fungi nor other related issues.

<comment><USER6> Houses with poor ventilation will have problems, but sealing buildings up is good for energy efficiency. "HRV" (heat recovery ventilators) are common and required by code in many cold climates (Canada, northern Europe) which do whole-house ventilation with a heat exchanger so you're not just blowing all your nice warm air straight outside when it's -40C all week.

The German Passivhaus standard shows what can be done with this approach, and it works very well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Many of these new energy efficient homes are built for low-income/no-income housing. The middle class who have to pay for their homes themselves can't afford the construction methods, solar panels, etc. Easy to do if you are using someone else's money. Funny thing is these HUD houses won't last long at all because the copper and other precious materials will be torn out and sold for drugs.

</comment><comment><USER11> "The windows are one of the most expensive features,"

The obvious follow-up is what the 80/20 might be on these features. If going with readily available double-pane windows shaves $10,000 off the cost, it may be a decent trade-off - maybe use that money to buy some solar panels instead, aiming for net-zero?

<comment><USER12> Even the best available windows are not very good. My not-very-special house has R-17 walls; expensive triple panes windows can go to U-0.15. U values are 1/R values, so that's a whopping R-6.

If your roof is in good condition, points the right direction and is unobstructed by trees, solar power is probably a better economic bet than replacing decent windows with super-windows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Don't these also have poor indoor air quality since they don't frequently exchange air with the outside?

<comment><USER14> Yes, with the upshot being that a purposeful entry point for air allows for targeted temperature control and cleaning in the duct.

A sizable living wall/vertical garden would be pretty cool in a home like this.</comment></comment>


Facebook is predicting the end of the written word - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/706461/facebook-is-predicting-the-end-of-the-written-word/ <comment><USER2> I see tons of problems with Video especially around Accessibility. How do others think of this move?

</comment><comment><USER3> Huh.... Sounds pretty fun!!!!</comment>


Ask HN: Any good studies of mental illness and substance abuse in homeless? - <AUTHOR> Specifically, if possible, I'd also like the study to account for the fact that substance abuse is a DSM-V diagnosis.  IMO a good study would break out non-substance abuse mental illness from substance abuse when tallying mental illness. <comment><USER2> Try advanced searching on google:

 _substance abuse and mental illness in homeless population "doi" after:2015-01-01_

the "doi" ensures it has an identifier you can search on [http://sci- hub.tw/](http://sci-hub.tw/) to read the full article for free, and the after: gives you articles within 5 years

<comment><USER3> 1st DDG result: Homelessness and severe mental illness in low- and middle- income countries: scoping review

NCBI link: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611071/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611071/)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Project Roulette, fun programming challenges - <AUTHOR> https://project-roulette.glitch.me <comment><USER2> Nice, but you need to fatten up the lists of things to throw together.

I'm off to "Program a Hacker News Clone with Brainfuck and HTML + CSS"</comment>


Alice: Hierarchical Threshold Signature Scheme - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/getamis/alice <comment><AUTHOR> Digital signature is a digital analogue of a pen-and-ink signature on a physical document. The purpose of digital signature is to solve the following scenario. Alice has a digital document and she wants to attach some "proof" that can be used to prove that she had approved this document. Therefore, digital signature can be recognized as an analogue to her handwritten signature on an ordinary document.

It is very critical to clarify and confirm that who had signed the contract. In order to prevent forged digital signature, we have to apply public-key cryptography. Public-key cryptography, is a cryptographic system that uses pairs of keys: public keys, which may be disseminated widely, and private keys are known only to the owner. Using this cryptography primitives, the basic idea of digital signature is that the person who signs a message by his private key, and anyone can use the associated public key to verify the signed message. Meanwhile, an ideal digital signature should have the following properties:

1\. A signed message can unambiguously be traced back to its originator as a valid signature is only generated by the unique signer's private key. Only the signer has the ability to generate a signature on his behalf.

2\. Anyone can use the public key to convince himself/herself that the signer has actually approved this message.There are three popular public-key families, namely integer factorization, discrete logarithm of finite fields or elliptic curves. Each of these allows us to construct to ideal digital signatures: RSA, DSA, ECDSA. Bitcoin and Ethereum both adopt ECDSA as the standard method of digital signature because ECDSA has shorter signature comparing to others such that we can save more signatures in a fixed space.

In the architecture of digital signature, anyone can sign transaction by using the correct private key. Therefore, key management plays a significant role in blockchain technology regarding digital assets protection. Practically speaking, losing private keys leads to great losses. Improper key management and poor system implementation may increase the risk of asset being transferred maliciously. Take an extreme case that happened before as an example, a principal died suddenly and no one was able to recover keys so that the whole asset was frozen. To solve these problems, experts therefore propose two solutions: multi-signatures and threshold signature scheme (TSS) to reduce the risk of key management. The purposes of both are:

1\. Avoiding a single-point of failure, making it substantially more difficult for the asset key to be transferred.

2\. M-of-N backup where loss of a single seed doesn't lead to loss of the asset. Multi-signature requires multiple private keys to authorize a transaction, rather than a single signature from one key. In detail, the multi-signature can be t-of-n type where any t private keys out of a possible n are required to move the money. For example, a 2-of-3 multi-signature might have your private keys spread across a cold wallet, laptop, and smartphone, any two of which are required to move the money, but the compromise of any one key cannot result in theft. However, the main flaw of multi-signature is not so natural such that we have to write similar logic codes in different blockchains. To solve this problem, TSS has come in view of people. Let n be the number of participants and 1<t<n. A t-of-n threshold signature scheme means that a private key constructed by this scheme is divided into n parts called "share", and at least t shares are required for creating a signature. In details, threshold signature includes four phases as follows:

•Key Generation:Each participant chooses his/her secret value first. All the participants run a progress together to determine their private key, the public key, and their own private shares based on these secret values.

•Sign a transaction: Each participant uses his/her private shares and a public message to be signed as input. All the participants in this protocol will exchange some necessary data such that each person produces a partial signature and broadcast it. Combining these partial signatures will produce a digital signature. The most important thing is that the process ensures that no leakage of secret shares will occur and the private key is never appeared.

•Verification: The verification algorithm of TSS and the original case are the same. Anyone who has the knowledge of the public key and the message is able to verify the correctness of a signature.

•Refresh share: Refreshing the shares means that we change the value of shares without altering the public key. Periodically refresh can reduce the number of compromised shares to zero. Assuming that old un-compromised shares are erased, the refreshing process makes it more difficult to reach a state where the number of contemporaneous compromised shares surpasses the compromise threshold.

Compared to multi-signature, TSS offers shorter signature and better privacy. Most importantly, TSS does not save private key on the server and provides risk control as well as separation of duties. It seems that TSS may be a fabulous solution, but there are still some problems. For example, an important contract not only requires enough shares to sign, but also needs to be signed by a manager. Despite the fact that vertical access control can be realized on the application layer and tracked by an audit log. Once a hack happens, we will have no idea about who to blame for in TSS. To solve this scenario, Professor Tassa introduced Hierarchical Threshold Signature Scheme by assigning different ranks of each share such that any valid signature generated includes the share of the manager (i.e. All shares in TSS have the same rank). A naive application of HTSS in cold wallets describes as follows. Assume that t =2 and n=3. In this case, we generate two high-ranked shares into different cold wallets and a low-ranked share in the cell phone or computer (ie. more risky place). After we generate all shares, one of the cold wallets can be used as a backup. Remember that if we want to sign a transaction, it should be either a high-ranked shares combined with a low- ranked shares or two high-ranked shares. As usual applications, there exists two situations to be considered:

1\. Low-ranked shares lose: No matter how many low-ranked shares lose, no one can generate a correct signature due to the advantage of HTSS. Because any signature should involve at least a high-ranked share.

2\. A cold wallet lose (i.e. a high-rank share lose): User uses his/her backup cool wallet to transfer his/her property to a new address. Or another solution is to add a new share and then refresh all the shares.

In conclusion, we regard that HTSS is more flexible and more suitable for applying in business models.</comment>


Why English Eggs Are Way Different From American Ones - <AUTHOR> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/english-eggs-vs-american-eggs_n_5403941.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

<comment><USER2> 2 nations, separated by a common egg.</comment>


Show HN: A tracker for public figures in united states newspapers - <AUTHOR> https://www.whoispopulartoday.com/?country=us <comment> grif-fin Interesting. Can you explain a bit on which sources you used and how are you calculating the trendiness?</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best way to get started with practical LISP? - <AUTHOR> Looking for tips and pointers on learning and getting started with practical LISP, i.e. say build a web API or a basic GUI, etc. <comment><USER2> Use Practical Common Lisp [0] as the book to start learning Lisp, Common Lisp is the more production version lisp.

Download LispWorks Personal Edition [1], if you want to start working with an IDE setup. Use it when working through PCL. LW also has GUI library, mobile runtimes and other libraries available from QuickLisp [2], CL's package manager to install various libraries.

After working through PCL, you will have a good CL foundation. You can expand your macro (pun unintended) knowledge by working through [3].

Other good resources: PAIP and Land of Lisp. Note about PAIP is more a specific application of CL to solve classical AI Problems, despite that it is still counted as among the best programming books out there. Hope this helps and `Welcome to the Dark Side`.

PS: Except `Land of Lisp` cited in the resources, everything is free.

[0] [http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/](http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/)

[1] [http://www.lispworks.com/products/lispworks.html#personal](http://www.lispworks.com/products/lispworks.html#personal)

[2] [https://www.quicklisp.org/beta/](https://www.quicklisp.org/beta/)

[3] [https://letoverlambda.com](https://letoverlambda.com), [http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisptext.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisptext.html)

[4] [http://landoflisp.com](http://landoflisp.com), [https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp](https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp)

</comment><comment><USER3> I would look to Clojure / ClojureScript. Suggest you start here [https://www.braveclojure.com/foreword/](https://www.braveclojure.com/foreword/) and when you feel fairly comfortable you can proceed to [https://github.com/metosin/compojure- api](https://github.com/metosin/compojure-api) for a solid approach to building a web API.

<comment><USER4> I like Clojure as a language, but there are a lot of moving parts because Clojure is built as a DSL on other languages (Java and Javascript) and because the middle point of Clojure tooling lives in Emacs. To me, Clojure is a great production language and but a not so a great teaching language.

<comment><USER5> Clojure is a programming language. it's not a DSL by any mean. I don't have much experience with it but it does not look like a DSL to me. maybe you know something that I don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The second Racket getting started tutorial, [https://docs.racket- lang.org/continue/index.html](https://docs.racket- lang.org/continue/index.html) and the third, [https://docs.racket- lang.org/more/index.html](https://docs.racket-lang.org/more/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> > [http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/](http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/)

try this book out. if you don't hate JVM then Clojure could be a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER6> I recommend reading SICP and using Clojure to implement the exercises. There're plenty of solutions out there should you get stuck or need inspiration. Not only are you going to learn a LISP-like language, you also study one of the best programming books plus get to know a compelling language.

</comment><comment><USER7> Unless it's hobby, not sure how pragmatic idea is to program in AST nowadays... Even Norvig switched to Python.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> What about an IDE, tooling, etc?

<comment><USER8> Emacs is probably the way to go- it has its own lisp dialect for scripting the editor. I don't have any experience using it as I use vim, though :).

<comment><USER4> For Lisp in general, Emacs is all a person really needs. That's not a comment about IDE's or editors. Because Emacs has eLisp, there's no need to pick another lisp like Clojure or Common Lisp. eLisp is a full fledged, well documented, Lisp with a lot of features.

It even has built in coverage for interactive user interfaces of windows and menus (though not exactly what people might call GUI's). It can reach out and do networking, though it is closer to the Unix model of making system calls than language libraries or "built in sockets" approaches...but the proof is in tools like Magit and sx-mode or even the older Rmail and GNUS. Basically, Emacs is a virtual Lisp Machine which is why some people are able to live in it all day, everyday, year after year.</comment></comment></comment>


Heredoc syntax (am I the only one in the room who didn't know about this?) - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredoc

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I never got paid for programming, which basically means I'm not a programmer.

</comment><comment><USER2> unfortunately yes. Here doc syntax is pretty common. Even C has it.</comment>


It's Official: Samsung Has a 10.1 Inch Galaxy Note - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2012/02/26/samsung-has-a-10-1-inch-galaxy-note/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29

<comment><USER2> Talk about brand dilution. I have no idea what the "Galaxy" brand stands for anymore. Why do they have to create a product for every possible demographic? Is the "Galaxy Beam" really needed? Do we really need another Galaxy Note form factor that intersects with the Galaxy Tab"?

<comment><USER3> They've just announced the Tab 2 (10.1), which is actually thicker than the original Tab, and has very similar specs.

It seems quite likely that Samsung is going to use "Tab" for it's low end tablets and "Note" for its high end tablets.

As for Beam, it's a niche product, and has a place. A very few people will buy it and be happy that it exists, and the rest of us can safely ignore it. Large companies can successfully address both volume and niche markets simultaneously without shortchanging the niche or diluting the volume markets, although this is a very difficult task and most companies who try, fail.

<comment><USER2> I guess my point with the Beam is, why isn't the projection a peripheral? Seriously, how often are you going to need to use a projection feature from your phone? Something like this ([http://www.flash-memory-store.com/hand-held- iphone4-4s-dlp-p...](http://www.flash-memory-store.com/hand-held- iphone4-4s-dlp-projector--.html?gclid=CNqfkqO0vK4CFYmK4AodNjtYNQ)) for the iPhone seems reasonable if that feature is a must-have for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't get it. I thought Galaxy Note clearly referred to the medium-sized stylus-driven PDA replacement - why would they compete against their own Galaxy Tab brand? Does anyone know if there is a technical reason to separate stylus-driven and multitouch devices?

<comment><USER3> The Note uses a separate input mechanism for its S-Pen input, which is licensed from Wacom. They could use the capacitive input layer for both finger and pen input, but that would not work as well -- compare Galaxy Note reviews to Samsung Vu reviews.

So the pen is actually adding significantly to the cost of the Note, which is probably why they're shifting the pen-less Tab to the low-end of the market.

Jobs called a pen an 'automatic failure', but he's not Korean, Chinese or Japanese. A pen is a much better input mechanism for Chinese and Korean characters than a keyboard, virtual or no. In North America, the target audience for the Note probably overlaps fairly well with the type of people who buy Wacom tablets for their computer -- a very small minority, but those who do love them.

<comment><USER5> Do many phones in that area come with styluses?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Fimally? Finnally? Big typo on "handwritten" note?

<comment><USER7> At school, I learnt to write n and m with 2 and 3 creases respectively (so one more than the typographic n and m), so this image doesn't shock me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does it work as a phone?

<comment><USER9> Almost certainly - other Samsung tablets can be used to make calls.</comment></comment>


Google Cloud Vision API is evidently decent at aircraft identification - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/gregsramblings/status/703275041396404224 <comment><USER2> I would love to see this built into Picasa.</comment>


Internet use 'good for the brain' - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7667610.stm Good news for all the hackers out there! The more you use the net, the smarter you get, the better you can hack, the better the net becomes, the more you (and others) will use the net, smarter you (and the world) become(s). <comment><AUTHOR> well, this applies as you get older at least. At least you will not be a senile hacker and start coding web 0.0 sites :p</comment>


Show HN: Testing at Compile-Time - <AUTHOR> http://billsix.github.io/cac.html <comment><AUTHOR> Let me know if anyone has questions. I learned quite a bit in making libbug. Being able to do any computation during Compile-Time, such as state and IO, was more powerful then I had initially expected.</comment>


Show HN:company-internal community with just 2 files to install - <AUTHOR> http://devels.databay.de/?p=89

<comment><AUTHOR> How about running a company-internal community for you and your employees just by copying 2 PHP-files onto your webserver. You do not need any database or other components. Use every shared host or one of your local (l)a(m)p-servers. Aktually you just need an php-enabled server. No MySQL, and it does not need to be linux. Maybe you just install it on your working-Windows-machine using XAMPP.</comment>


Universal Lessons We've Learned - <AUTHOR> http://blog.collections.me/post/38351891168/arman-lessons

<comment><USER2> > 5.The ability to produce "hard to build, easy to use" services is inversely > proportional to the number of articles read on startups and productivity. > The number of times I visited Hacker News and the like in the last 3 months > can be counted on one hand [3].

Great way to take the focus off a marginally worthwhile blog post.

</comment><comment><USER3> 12\. Ironically, when we work so hard and with such passion on perfecting our craft and producing output worth sharing, we often don't find the time to share it.

Maybe it's because I've been thinking a lot lately about how I should start blogging about my life experiences, that this stood out for me right now. I am guilty of #12 — I find myself so deep in working that I forget to pull out and actually take time to self-reflect, write about it, and share it. I think reserving time to write and share your experiences can be a helpful part in the "perfecting our craft and producing output worth sharing" process. The saying 'there is no such thing as no time, you can always make time' pops into my head from time to time. Both ideas sound nice to me, and hopefully they're things I actually incorporate into my habits for the upcoming year! Thanks for the post :)

</comment><comment><USER4> How long did it take you to build this application, and in what ways do you expect it to grow in the next 5 years? What problem does this service solve?

I'm just a curious guy. Good post! :)

<comment><USER5> Thank you! { 'Time': 'since June 2012', 'Problem': 'content segmentation', 'Vision': 'universal Finder' }

<comment><USER4> Oooo, I got a json reply! :) So what key features will distinguish this from safari's reading list, and other tools like that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not that universal, but still useful! And I found language a bit hard for non- English speakers :) Great post!

</comment><comment><USER7> It's a bit petty of me, but these universal truths are totally specific to the author's context.

</comment><comment><USER5> Bruce Lee in the screenshot? His quote as the prologue would be relevant.

</comment><comment><USER8> _4\. The most successful product-related decisions we've made grew out of a "zen mind, beginner's mind" mentality. Decisions that resulted from long intellectual debates, complicated forward-looking arguments, or ornate over- intellectualizations rarely led to anything useful._

== Clarity of mind, and its opposite.</comment>


California woman ticketed for wearing Google Glass while driving - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/+CeciliaAbadie/posts/Kofr18UWLfc <comment><USER2> One wonders if this was staged. And by staged I mean if there was a note out to officers saying "If you pull over someone for a violation add this charge if they are wearing Google Glass."

There are a bunch of unanswered questions (and by that I mean not yet litigated differences in opinion) with respect to glass.

For example, if you're driving and you notice you are being tailed, and you say 'Glass record' and you look down at your speedometer, and up at your rear view mirror, and then record the entire traffic stop. Is that video admissible in court? There have been stories of police officers being less than truthful in how a stop occurred, video makes that harder. There is also the infamous 'resisting arrest' charge which people of various demographics feel is used when profiling to hassle them. So if you can get it on record that it is illegal to drive with Glass, then you make it more obvious if someone reaches over and puts on their glass when they get pulled over.

Another question, is it a phone or not? It has a cellular connection capability so kind of. If its a phone are you 'texting' when it is showing text? Who knows, some would argue yes, some would argue no. Again, not yet litigated.

All these things are going to come through the courts eventually if this product gets any traction. So did the CHP tell their officers to add this if they stopped someone? I don't know but I can't think of any reason an officer would try 'watching tv' as the infraction.

<comment><USER3> Depending on the State it may also be illegal to film an officer who is stopping you.

<comment><USER4> No, no it isn't.

<comment><USER3> It may not be illegal but you still can get arrested.

[http://www.infowars.com/illinois-citizens-still-being- arrest...](http://www.infowars.com/illinois-citizens-still-being-arrested-for- filming-cops-despite-court-ruling-which-blocked-unconstitutional-law/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I got hit by a car a few months ago and painfully walked away. The car was turning and not even at a fast speed. My friend passed away a few weeks ago when she got hit by a truck.

People forget just how much force is behind a vehicle moving at the speed limit.

I think, I THINK, that maybe we can respect the value of a human life enough to put down our computers while we drive.

<comment><USER6> I am a firm believer that everyone should have to do the following things before getting a drivers license:

1\. Spend a month in an accident recovery unit, seeing first hand victims of MVAs.

2\. Be in a crash. Somehow this would have to be simulated, at a speed that won't cause injury, but will shock. (I was in a simulated 15mph crash at a fair - it HURT!)

<comment><USER7> It doesn't hurt the first day, it hurts the next day after the adrenaline wears off. I got TBoned by who ran a red light because he was texting, he hit me at 35. He never hit the brakes. Funny thing if you believe in karma, is that his air bag shoved the cell phone into his face and knocked him out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Whether it's valid or not, something capable of projecting into your eye while you are driving seems like it is a potential danger. It is not the same as a monitor that is not directly in your line of vision or obstructing your view of the road.

My question would be what this woman was doing that attracted the attention of the police in the first place.

<comment><USER9> It sounds like a lot of people comment don't actually own a glass. I do. It doesn't project anything into your eye and unless you tap it or use the head nod to turn it on, it doesn't display anything. And if you don't give it a command (voice or tap) then it turns off in a few seconds.

Unless she was actually watching a video on it, then it's no more distracting than the clock on your dashboard.

<comment><USER10> It's worth saying that some states make having a television mounted in your dash illegal. (Some states are a bit more lenient, only making it illegal for the driver to _watch_ TV) The sensibility of those laws aside, if they exist, application to Glass isn't much of a stretch.

<comment><USER11> Anyone else _really_ wishing for a way to quickly look up the exact text of the laws being referenced?

<comment><USER12> [http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm](http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm)

This is the law relevant to the current situation. It has to do with televisions, and makes no provisions devices capable of multiple functions (for example, cellphones can be GPS devices or show movies).

<comment><USER11> bdcravens's claim was "some states" and "some states are more lenient".

So California is _one_ state. There are 49 others to check. :(

<comment><USER10> Obviously your concern isn't the general discussion, but to establish whether I'm incorrect :-)

Like most HNers I'm checking in on stories and commenting to the best of my knowledge while working. If I can invoice you for the time, I'd be more than happy to provide you with a properly MLA formatted list of sources.

In lieu of that, I hope you'll trust that I'm not just making this up. I do recall there's a list of at least 4-6 states that are very hard-line on this issue, and probably a majority of the states have laws prohibiting the driver watching video while driving.

<comment><USER11> I'd like more information, which may or may not establish that you're correct. Or incorrect. Or wrong in a way that's subtle. Or right, despite that, because of legal precedence I'm not aware of.

I recognize that such a utility would make it harder for lawyers to make money, since a hefty chunk of their value-add is removed. I'm okay with that. It would be even awesomer when local laws aren't _de facto_ locked away from public perusal through paywalls, though that probably doesn't apply to this particular case.

I honestly don't care if you're making it up. I want to know what's actually on the books. About 20 minutes ago, a mailing list informed me that Tetris has been used to treat flashbacks and Chess has been used to treat ADHD. A 5-second google was able to confirm that this isn't complete bullshit. Googling "states that make driving with a television illegal" gets me nothing but random things about driver's licenses and illegal immigrants.

Seriously. Full-text search on up-to-date records of law. That's all I ask.

<comment><USER10> No problem; you made it a bit clear here what you were trying to say. What you're asking for would probably make someone quite wealthy, and would be a great startup idea. In the context of the thread, it was kind of unclear if you were talking more about my comment or your idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a user of Google Glass, driving with it is idiotic.

It is great when walking or riding the bus/subway. Having anything except critical driving information such as speed presented in a Heads Up Display fashion is a distraction. Especially when going 80mph with other vehicles on the road.

Book her!

<comment><USER14> >Having anything except critical driving information such as speed presented in a Heads Up Display fashion is a distraction

The HUD is less distracting than the alternatives.

<comment><USER15> You seem to be ignoring one alternative; no distractions whatsoever.

<comment><USER16> I was recently shopping for a car, and I will tell you now, I did not see a single one that had a front seat with no displays or controls besides the steering wheel, pedals and speedometer.

<comment><USER17> It's true, cars have headlight switches, tachometers, gas gauges and electronic mirror controls. The horror.

The only devices that can actively command your attention are the gauges & lights in the instrument cluster (which are all important to driving safely) and possibly the screen on your radio. Speaking of which, I hated the old radio on my old car, because it was too bright and had too much activity on the display.

<comment><USER16> > It's true, cars have headlight switches, tachometers, gas gauges and > electronic mirror controls. The horror.

You forgot climate control, cruise control, a confusing array of wiper settings, CD controls, radio, bluetooth, GPS, fuel efficiency feedback and probably a few others I didn't think of right off the top of my head. The point is not that cars are insanely distracting, but just that Glass is probably not the most distracting thing in your car.

<comment><USER17> Many of these have similar risk cost vs. risk reward tradeoffs. Climate control helps keep you focused (I know I have a hard time focusing on the road when it's 40F in my car) and cruise control helps keep you predictable to other drivers.

Bluetooth integration assumes people are going to use their phones either way, and thus handsfree is the safer choice. GPS informs drivers in advance so they don't have to swerve across seven lanes of traffic to make their exit.

My point is, what problem does Glass solve that makes it worth the risk?

<comment><USER14> If future iterations of Glass are able to incorporate existing dash functions, thus making them safer to access by not having to take one's eyes off the road, then the benefits are obvious.

<comment><USER17> Future iterations of Glass are still exactly that- in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow, her feed is such an echo chamber.. pretty much everyone's profile pic there features them wearing Glass.

She passed a cop doing 80 in a 65, I wonder what was so distracting that you'd miss a cruiser one lane over..

<comment><USER19> Doing 80 in a 65 is the entirety of the 101 and 280, outside of rush hour, when it's 20 in a 65.

<comment><USER20> That's the bog standard response when anyone gets pulled over for speeding.

<comment><USER21> And the reason for that response is that US speed limits tend to be unreasonably low for a given road when driving a modern car.

<comment><USER20> And I suppose like every good software engineer on HN, you are an expert in civil and transportation engineering?

<comment><USER22> What's engineering got to do with it? Maximum speed limits are set by law, not by science. Heck, sometimes road engineers push for _higher_ speed limits. [http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be-...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/09/be- safe-break-the-law.html)

<comment><USER23> Engineers design roads around traffic speeds - a higher intended traffic speed has ramifications for how the road is designed and built.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I really don't want people driving with Glass, even if it was turned off as she claims (how could a PO know?)

<comment><USER25> How is it worse than a GPS screen on a dashboard?

edit: if the PO cannot prove it was turned on, then there is such a thing as an assumption of innocence.

<comment><USER26> California or in general road driving laws don't mess around: [http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm](http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm)

12) A portable Global Positioning System (GPS), which may be mounted in a seven-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield farthest removed from the driver or in a five-inch square in the lower corner of the windshield nearest to the driver and outside of an airbag deployment zone, if the system is used only for door-to-door navigation while the motor vehicle is being operated.

<comment><USER27> Seems like a law that would make driving with a GPS _more_ dangerous for many people. When I use a GPS (either dedicated, or my phone), I place it in a pocket in my center console, down below my radio / AC controls. This prevents me from constantly looking at it, as I rely solely on it's TTS feature. I consider this to be much safer, though it sounds like in California it would be forbidden.

<comment><USER28> You've misinterpreted the law. It's not telling you where to put your GPS; it's telling you what manner of device you may mount on top of the dash.

<comment><USER27> Well in that case I don't see how that law is applicable to Glass at all, since Glass is not mounted on top of the dash.

<comment><USER28> Maybe it's not the law the woman violated. Naturally, she posted a blurry picture that makes it hard to read, on top of which google plus has decided I shouldn't be able to zoom in, so I can't quite make out the citation number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It would seem to comport with the law, as best I (as some random dude) can tell. You're not allowed to be looking at a computer or mobile device while you drive; Glass would seem to count.

<comment><USER30> As someone who commutes on a motorbike I'd even go further and say that it _should_ be illegal. When you're driving you need to be focused on the road, not watching your friend's facebook wall.

Hopefully soon enough we'll get fully automatic cars and this will be a problem of the past but in the meantime this seem the safest approach.

<comment><USER25> So, you'd like to have car dashboards illegal as well?

First of all, Glass could've been turned off. Second of all, she could be using it for GPS and other things.

Personally, as a driver, I'd prefer to have all my car information on some kind of a HMD, and not on the dashboard, where I have to look away from the road.

<comment><USER26> Glass is directly obstructing the field of view. It is not a defensible position to be frank. If it is turned off, well and good, but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems. If it is turned on, no matter for what purpose, then it is a distraction and a direct one. Why do you want your one organ that is keeping you safe on road, be bombarded with information other than the one in its periphery?

<comment><USER31> >but still the "eyepiece" can cause problems like glare, reflection, transparency problems.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you don't drive much.

I spend a lot of time on the road (60,000+km this year). There are a multitude of things to distract you behind the wheel, from eating, phones, stereos, day- dreaming, other drivers, nature, whatever. It's endless. If having a small eye piece is distracting to you, by all means don't wear one. But don't project your inability to maintain focus on all other drivers.

<comment><USER26> A persistent illumination 2 inch in front of my eye, can be a major cause of distractin and fatigue though. Also glancing at phones do cause accidents. You are also projecting the ability to focus with an eye piece on, on all drivers. How about extensive testing before letting it on road?

<comment><USER32> The display is only on for a couple seconds at a time.

I personally fall on the other side; why not extensively test before banning. We live in a society that jumps to conclusions. I believe we should have a proper understanding of something before deciding to make laws relating to it. What about the positive benefits. Also, do you really expect them to do the research after banning it? Look how long it has taken the FAA to even start reducing the ban on mobile devices.

<comment><USER29> We already have laws relating to it - it's basically a mobile device. It's a special mobile device, and may deserve an exception, but it should be shown that it's less harmful than the other devices that were banned based on evidence.

<comment><USER25> No, it should be shown that it's just as harmful as other kinds of screens before being banned.

I've lived in a country which forbade everything by default unless law explicitly allowed it. I guarantee you don't want to go this way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Good! A person operating a moving vehicle should have 100% of their attention focused on the road. I have yet to see an argument to the contrary that doesn't attempt to rationalize unsafe behavior.

Any device that actively creates distractions occluding a person's field of vision should be prohibited while driving.

<comment><USER34> Do you think that drivers should avoid listening to the radio? Should they pull off the road before manipulating their heater? Windshield wipers?

I ask because I kind of doubt you truly mean "100%", but you insult anyone going for anything less.

<comment><USER35> >Do you think that drivers should avoid listening to the radio?

Yes, radios are distracting and therefore dangerous, especially if drivers take their eyes off of the road to adjust the controls.

>Should they pull off the road before manipulating their heater? Windshield wipers?

No. It is often necessary to adjust windshield wipers and climate control systems to ensure safety, and sometimes those adjustments must be made in situations where pulling off the road is unsafe or impossible. For example, if it starts pouring rain while on a narrow bridge (no way to pull over), you will need the wipers to keep the windshield clear. The heater can be used to de-fog.

<comment><USER34> Sounds like an attempt to rationalize unsafe behavior to me. You can always roll down your window and stick your head out for an unobstructed view until you arrive at a place where you can pull over.

<comment><USER17> Operating the controls of your vehicle to respond to environmental conditions increases your safety more than it decreases it. Turning on my high beams _does_ take a few brain cycles to flip the switch, but it also lets me spot the deer on the side of the road.

<comment><USER34> It's almost as if there are legitimate reasons not to have 100% of your attention focused on the road, that aren't simply attempts to rationalize unsafe behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> jack-r-abbit There seems to be some misguided or misinformed people in here. Or maybe people that just want to bend reality to fit their own. We have some people arguing that Glass is safer than traditional dash mounted GPS because with Glass you don't have to look away from the road like with a dash mounted GPS. But then you have other people arguing that it is safe because it doesn't block your view... it is in the upper right corner and you have to consciously look at it. I've never worn Glass... but my gut tells me that both of those arguments can't be right at the same time. Can they?

</comment><comment><USER36> Do we really have to argue about not using entertainment video equipment while controlling over a ton of hyperaccelerated death through other peoples lives?

<comment><USER37> Well, imagine that there were no laws pertaining to driving at all. Do you think people would just stop looking where they were going in favor of watching TV from the driver's seat?

It's already been pointed out that CA law bans the driver from looking at a mobile phone. I assure you that's not making anyone any safer, because compliance is zero. What's the benefit of the law?

<comment><USER29> _" I assure you that's not making anyone any safer, because compliance is zero."_

That's a strong (and I believe false) claim. You think the number of _instances_ of people wanting to look at their phones, and thinking _" no, I might get ticketed, better not..."_ is zero? or no greater than the number of times people think "fuck the law, I'm going to look at my phone now _because_ it's illegal when I wouldn't have otherwise!"? You don't think anyone has cut a cellphone conversation shorter partly because they didn't want a ticket? Compliance is well ( _well_ ) below perfect, and it _may_ be that the reduction isn't enough to merit added complexity and bureaucracy, but I would be flabbergasted if it hasn't at all reduced the time people spend interacting with devices while driving.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> From the comments:

      > cited for speeding (80 in 65 zone) and passing a police vehicle while speeding

Once you're pulled over they can throw the book at you.

<comment><USER39> The citation element relevant to Glass appears to be:

[http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm](http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm)

which partially reads:

 _Television

27602\. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver's seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:

(1) A vehicle information display. (2) A global positioning display. (3) A mapping display. (4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.

(5) A television receiver, video monitor, television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal, if that equipment satisfies one of the following requirements:

(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.

(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner._

[ there is more regarding displays in vehicles operated by utility companies]

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Lets ignore Google Glass for a moment and realize what she was ticketed for and how it will affect anyone with a cell phone in California.

She was ticked for having a display that could show non-car related information somewhere within her field of view. Any person that has there cell phone on their center console could be ticketed under the same law. Have your cell phone mounted on your dash, your just asking for a ticket if this goes through. Cops will give whatever ticket they can because they know part of that ticket will go to their department and pay for extras they like to have. More tickets, more overtime they get to have.

I fully agree, driving while distracted it bad. Very bad. But to my knowledge they haven't outlawed drinking coffee or eating yet in the car. Far more dangerous than being responsible and having your phone mounted in a place were it doesn't take anymore eye time than your speed speedometer does.

I have my phone mounted on the dash for a simple reason, I want to know who is calling me. I limit who I take to when I'm driving. I'm not going to take work calls unless it's my boss and he's fine if I hang up on him if it's important. I'm going to take calls from my wife, because of the same. But if it's someone else, I ignore it unless I know it will be urgent and worth the risk of talking while driving. Yes, I use Bluetooth. But is talking on the phone that is dangerous, not if you are holding the phone.

And the argument that she must have been distracted by the google glasses because she passed a cop while speeding. I'm sorry, but people get ticked for speeding every second in california without google glasses on.

</comment><comment><USER41> Passed a cruiser while speeding.

To those saying Glass is not a distraction: sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

<comment><USER42> What's the highest form of wit?

<comment><USER43> Brevity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm not generally a fan of Google Glass and skeptical of its future in the form it is today. However, I see a huge potential for it as a tool for cyclists, runners, etc. and ... drivers. It can potentially improve our awareness while we're driving. I have a HUD in my new car and it's amazing in its ability to make me constantly aware of my speed and navigation without taking my eyes off the road.

This sort of idea isn't new because pilots of military helicopters and fighters have these. It improves awareness and safety.

I hope the court allows this because making it flat out illegal to have a head mounted display would kill off innovations in this area, which could save lives. Maybe we can accept some compromises like a "car mode" for these device, etc. I don't know what the right answer is but I want the possibility for these devices in the car to be left open.

</comment><comment><USER45> Did California outlaw billboards too? How about road signs? As a Glass owner they provide the same distraction as eye glasses, virtually none. Billboards and signs take your eye off the road, not an 'off' Glass.

<comment><USER46> Yeah for like a split second (even if that). Do you actually hold a conversation with and/or get immersed in a billboard?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Thank you CHP! I think completely makes sense - its illegal to mount a video screen on your dash, so why should it be legal to have over your eye?

<comment><USER48> No it isn't.

<comment><USER49> Yes, it is, unless the TV meets the following requirements:

(A) The equipment has an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive.

(B) The equipment is designed, operated, and configured in a manner that prevents the driver of the motor vehicle from viewing the television broadcast or video signal while operating the vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner.

<comment><USER48> Right, so as I said, it's not illegal to have a screen on your dash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I got ticketed for having a GPS attached to the centre of the screen. According to the cop, all devices that obstruct the view must be removed. So, GPS is permitted on an attachment on your dash or far left corner of the windshield.

Google Glass is not a phone but an obstacle in view. Therefore, I guess that the cop decided that it should be ticketed. I think this ticket will be upheld in the court as well.

<comment><USER51> I'm guessing that the cop wrote "Driving with Monitor visible to Driver" using that language because there's a law specifically against that. If so, she might as well just pay the ticket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Don't most patrol cars have laptops in them? Laptops that I usually see open and turned on, while the officer is driving?

I don't care what kind of special training you have, a vehicle can still pull out in front of you in less time than it takes to look at a mirror, let alone a laptop screen.

Yet police officers hand out expensive fines to citizens for doing the same. Bewildering.

<comment><USER53> "Emergency vehicles" are not required to obey the law. A friend of my was ticketed for "riding a bicycle on the sidewalk," by a police officer who was riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. The District Court ruled against my friend based on my first sentence. (True story, really.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I really wish they would perfect a HUD display for cars that everyone wanted to use.

I wonder how many deaths could be prevented.

Oh that makes me remember that the Android app "Torque" has a nifty HUD mode that inverses the display on your phone to put speed, etc. on the windshield. I tried it once but my car doesn't have good angles for that.

<comment><USER55> Exactly the same number of deaths as could be prevented by having a proper driver's education.

<comment><USER54> All the education in the world doesn't seem to overcome the belief that laws are for "everyone else".

But even having to look down at your speedometer or odometer can be a problem at speed, considering how much distance you cover in half a second.

<comment> jack-r-abbit Danger exists in more places than just in front of you. A proper driving education taught me to scan my whole surroundings while driving... not lock eyes with the road in front and never blink. I am not looking directly in front of me 100% of the time. I am looking front, left, right, behind, at instruments... and repeat (not exactly with any particular cadence). My eyes are always moving. Glancing at the speedo is such a minor part of it. Even with a full-on HUD, I'd still be looking left, right and behind.

EDIT: when I say "looking behind" I mean the rear view mirror. I don't physically turn my head around to look behind me. That would not be comfortable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> She should be ticketed for wearing Google Glass, regardless of whether she was driving or not.

</comment><comment><USER57> Unless a law to specifically disallow the use of Glass computing devices is passed, how is this cop in the right? Isn't Google Glass off unless activated which would mean you're just wearing a pair of glasses and wearing glasses is definitely not illegal while driving. Unless they can somehow prove you were using Google Glass while driving (which would be stupid in the first place) I don't see how this ticket is valid. Cecilia needs to fight this or it could set a dangerous precedent, Google needs to volunteer to pay for legal costs for her to fight the ticket, it would be in their best interests to do so.

</comment><comment><USER58> I bet Google will pull some of their lawyers on this. The precedent that will be set by cases like this is pretty important for their technology especially while it's in its infancy.

<comment><USER59> to do what ? it's not Google's problem,it's the glass user's problem.

<comment><USER8> Google wants to maximize the size of their market.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I am pretty sure wearing/using Glass while driving will be banned in germany pretty quickly if its gets popular.

Texting while driving or talking on your phone while driving is simply banned. Even if you are not driving but the engine is running and you talk on the phone, you will get a ticket. The only thing you are allowed todo is using the speakers, but anything that takes your attention away from driving with visual information that is not related to operating your vehicle is problematic.

</comment><comment><USER61> More impetus for Google to hurry up and perfect self-driving cars.

</comment><comment><USER62> When someone has a head mounted display on, it is hard to tell whether they are paying attention to the display or to the outside world. That is essentially the issue here and I think that as the technology progresses this will only become more ambiguous. Drivers should have there full attention focused on the road and any ambiguity in the situation is unwanted from a law enforcement/ harm reduction perspective.

</comment><comment><USER63> does anyone else notice that the person pulled said they were 'genuinely speeding'? as in they didn't notice the change in speed limit? personally i find the idea of that as an excuse pretty reprehensible.

its a very reasonable step to assume that a computing device attached to your face is not going to help you pay attention to such things - this one data point supports that claim (it is still one data point, but this is the only safe conclusion to draw realistically). in these cases i think 'better safe than sorry' \- you will get in trouble for reading a book, using your phone or even smoking a cigarette if it is distracting you from driving. Google Glass is nothing special in this regard - aside from its popularity amongst vocal hipsters on the internet.

also, don't get me wrong, i am in favour of speeding - but i knowingly break the law when i do it and will have to live with the consequences...

still curious to see how this plays out, but utterly convinced this is a case of 'your own stupid fault for doing something stupid'.

</comment><comment><USER64> Side note... almost every person in the comment thread on that page is wearing Glass in their profile picture _rolleyes_.

</comment><comment><USER65> Tickets for wearing them while driving is a good start, but when are we going to start cracking down on GlassHoles in public?

<comment><USER66> I saw my first Google Glass wearer in public. It looked ridiculous to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Good. Wearing Google Glass while driving should be banned. The people using cell phones while driving are bad enough.

<comment> V-2 Perhaps it should be banned, but it hasn't been banned yet. On what grounds did she get a ticket then?

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> when you run over a pedestrian or cyclist because you are distracted, I suspect the outcome will be significantly more costly, like life-altering. The data on distracted driving is incontrovertible. If you can't bear to be without your g-glass, take the bus...

</comment><comment><USER69> I love that the law in question has a specific exemption for satellite radio devices. Maybe instead of someone like the EFF getting involved, Google should just get with Sirius and ask to borrow their lobbying team/firm for a few hours.

</comment><comment><USER70> There should be some level of distraction while driving wearing such device. It's not like a dedicated pilot's helmet, where the UI facilitates control over the plane. Here it's the opposite - it hinders it (to some degree).

</comment><comment><USER71> Glass could (perhaps should) be built so that its motion sensor system shuts it down or forced into GPS-only mode when operating at high speeds.

Would be tricky for use on trains and airplanes, though (but is that an important use case?)

<comment><USER72> Uh, WTF? What makes you think only the driver of a vehicle would ever be using Glass? And how are hours spent on transportation not an important use case for portable electronics?

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Am I the only one who is against litigation? On the off chance that we lost it would be annoying to be legally forbidden from using these devices while driving. I would just pay the ticket (which I assume is ~90$).

<comment><USER74> As long as you agree to make hitting someone while wearing glass == 2nd degree murder.

<comment><USER32> You would have to prove that glass was the cause which I believe you would find hard.

While inactive they're no more distracting than a pair of regular glasses and while using them for navigation they're significantly less distracting than using a traditional GPS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Someone should pay for Jennifer Granick on this one, since she started her career defending vehicle things like DUIs, and also has the expertise in tech, which is probably a rare combination.

</comment><comment><USER76> She's Uruguayan, she had been demonstrating Google Glass here, so media is all over the thing :)

She says they were not on while she was driving.

</comment><comment><USER77> Your cellphone usage should be automatically linked to your car's GPS data and automatically bill you every time you use it while driving ? this is not that hard, I am sure the NSA already has all that data

<comment><USER27> Have you ever heard of this new thing called "passengers"? They're all the rage these days.

<comment><USER77> sorry I was a little sarcastic... but for passengers, they can always contest their tickets later... just like they have to do with red-light camera tickets.</comment></comment></comment>


How to visualize data with Highcharter in R - <AUTHOR> https://www.r-exercises.com/2018/04/02/hot-to-visualize-data-with-highcharter/ <comment><USER2> Weird that a visualization blog post has code, but not the visualizations it produces.</comment>


Australian privacy laws - <AUTHOR> https://fastmail.blog/2018/09/10/access-and-assistance-bill/ <comment><USER2> I didn't know Fastmail was Australian. I really hope this bill gets thrown out so good companies like this don't lose business just because the government of the country they are in is untrustworthy with private data.</comment>


Most GDPR emails unnecessary and some illegal, say experts - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/21/gdpr-emails-mostly-unnecessary-and-in-some-cases-illegal-say-experts <comment><USER2> [https://www.phd-insights.com/learn-user-research/ux-guide- to...](https://www.phd-insights.com/learn-user-research/ux-guide-to-gdpr- examples)

Interesting perspective on how UX needs to change in light of GDPR, specifically as it relates to email collection / signups.</comment>


Walmart plans to be an online juggernaut - <AUTHOR> http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/07/23/wal-mart-plans-to-be-an-online-juggernaut/?iid=HP_River

<comment><USER2> I wouldn't bet on it, Wal-Mart. How many traditional companies managed to catch up with the new kids on the block? Think Barnes & Noble, Microsoft, Blockbuster, Kodak, and Nokia.</comment>


Dept. of Labor's report on Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights has been taken down - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/JayFranzone/status/822495562138316801 <comment><USER2> Is anyone surprised? His vp and cabinet is full of homophobes.</comment>