'Five Second Rule' for Food on Floor Is Untrue, Study Finds - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/science/five-second-rule.html <comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure the "5 second rule" is just something people (like myself) use to justify doing something gross, such as eating something that was dropped; and at least in my case, I never believed for a minute that it was "sanitary" if it spent less than 5 seconds on the floor.

It's more a mental thing ... if it's only been there for 5 seconds, it's cool. If it is longer than 5 seconds, well, then you're eating food that's been _sitting_ on the floor. Now that I'm typing it, it makes even less sense -- but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop doing it. I've made it 30+ years without side-effect ... ha

<comment><USER4> Yeah, many of the comments talk about bacteria, evolution, our immune systems being able to deal with bacteria, and that is all fine and good.

But what about chemicals and cleaning supplies? Eg the floors in a restaurant (and tables, too) get cleaned with some strong chemical products. That's definitely not food grade and no amount of evolving is going to help you deal with that. I see people put their forks, etc, on directly on table surfaces that were previously wiped with a cleaning cloth and I think that's careless. The floor would be even worse.

Eating from your dog is fine and probably has health benefits. Eating from a (chemically cleaned) floor is still not.

<comment><USER5> "I see people put their forks, etc, on tables"

What? If you can't put your forks on the table where can you put them?

I always put my fork on the table, that's what the tables for.

How do you lay your table?!

<comment><USER6> Forks are often wrapped or placed on a napkin you can then lean them against the plate whilst you're eating.

A posh restaurant would have a table cloth that would be cleaned daily with less harmful chemicals.

<comment><USER7> Wouldn't the napkin be touchin the table then? Or do you ask for a fresh napkin so you don't have to use the one from the table? And ask about the storage of the napkins and silverware, in comparison to any cleaning solutions or other chemicals?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Of course it picks up bacteria. Bacteria are numerous and everywhere. But we've lived with them so long that we can deal with unsterile environments for the most part. Most people for most of history were not germaphobes, and didn't even know bacteria existed. If eating something off the floor had a high chance of killing you, the human race would not have survived this long.

Only bacteria that have evolved to infect humans really scare me. So in a public place I probably would not pick something off the ground. But in my own house, I know no one there had tuberculosis. In my life I've eaten tons of berries and stuff that grow outside or even on the ground, and have never had a problem.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't understand how someone can think this is true. Like, what, you drop your toast with jam on the floor, pick it up in a second, the jam is full of hairs/dust/debris and you figure it's fine?

<comment><USER10> No, no one thinks that way with regards to any kind of food item with stickiness and the 5 second rule.

The thought revolves around dry foods and the (mistaken) impression they're unlikely to accumulate any kind of debris and dust. Peanuts, pretzels, etc.

<comment><USER11> That's my impression too. You explain the rule to children, so they can pick up peanuts they drop on the floor, but don't go eating peanuts they find dropped by other people a long time ago.

<comment><USER12> Your logic has many bugs.

What's wrong with just explaining that they shouldn't eat stuff from the ground. Period?

<comment><USER13> > _What 's wrong with just explaining that they shouldn't eat stuff from the > ground. Period?_

Wasting food for no good reason. And making them paranoid about germs.

<comment><USER12> That makes sense(especially about the germs paranoia).

<comment><USER13> The way I see it, if they're too small, you need to watch them anyway, or else they will put everything on their mouth, not just dropped food.

If they are over that, they're smart enough to understand that they don't eat jelly sandwitch off of the floor, or something they dropped in a public street. But for a casual hard food stuff they dropped on the kitchen floor or living room etc, they can sweep it and eat it -- and get some germ resistance too.

E.g.:

 _Just as a baby 's brain needs stimulation, input, and interaction to develop normally, the young immune system is strengthened by exposure to everyday germs so that it can learn, adapt, and regulate itself, notes Thom McDade, PhD, associate professor and director of the Laboratory for Human Biology Research at Northwestern University.

Exactly which germs seem to do the trick hasn't yet been confirmed. But new research offers clues.

In a recent study, McDade's team found that children who were exposed to more animal feces and had more cases of diarrhea before age 2 had less incidence of inflammation in the body as they grew into adulthood.

Inflammation has been linked to many chronic adulthood illnesses, such as heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimer's.

"We're moving beyond this idea that the immune system is just involved in allergies, autoimmune diseases, and asthma to think about its role in inflammation and other degenerative diseases," McDade says. "Microbial exposures early in life may be important… to keep inflammation in check in adulthood."_ (WebMD)

or:

[http://news.ubc.ca/2016/08/10/why-your-kids-should-play- in-t...](http://news.ubc.ca/2016/08/10/why-your-kids-should-play-in-the-dirt/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I thought it was the 5 minute rule. Or the "if you see food on the floor, and it wasn't there yesterday, it's good" rule.

<comment><USER15> Okay food that wasn't there yesterday is pushing the limits of comfort :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Psssshhhh Mythbusters busted that years ago:

[http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five- se...](http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/five-second-rule- minimyth/)

<comment><USER17> Some people won't believe it unless a professor says so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My philosophy is that I just don't waste food. Has nothing to do with "five second" rules. If I just spent time making an amazing sandwich, and it drops on the kitchen floor mostly intact. I'm sure as shit eating it. Obviously gloppy sauces, and subway tunnels, I'm not going to scrape off the ground. For the rest, that's why we have immune systems.

</comment><comment><USER19> It's a social convention not a piece of 'folk physics'. You know it's dirty but you don't have to explicitly say that you don't care.

</comment><comment><USER20> I wasn't aware that anyone took the "Five Second Rule" seriously. I thought everyone knew it was a sarcastic joke.

</comment><comment><USER21> Before we had kids, if a bite of the most delectable piece of grilled steak touched the surface of our kitchen table, I would not eat that piece of steak. In my mind, it was contaminated and a great risk to eat.

Now that we've got kids, I will eat that same piece of steak even if it falls on the floor. There's just so much good food on our floor now. Goldfish, Cheez-Its, bananas, etc.

Perhaps marginally related, our kids are the healthiest in their classes.

<comment><USER22> > "Now that we've got kids, I will eat that same piece of steak even if it > falls on the floor"

... after the kids have taken a couple of bites of it and the dog sniffed at it. At least in my world. But I draw the line at the dog actually taking a bite from it.

<comment> tmp-20150107 On that note, a friend of mine (unknowingly) used water he thought was clean, but that came from a glass my cat had been drinking from, to dissolve heroin for injecting. The resulting infection nearly caused him to lose his leg - <USER2> lab analysis of the wound revealed the infection was caused by cat-saliva bacteria.

Anyway, just saying there are dangers from pets and allowing them to share your environment. Although, I let my cat take bites out of my food sometimes, and that seems OK so far.

<comment><USER23> > On that note, a friend of mine (unknowingly) used water he thought was > clean, but that came from a glass my cat had been drinking from, to dissolve > heroin for injecting. The resulting infection nearly caused him to lose his > leg - the lab analysis of the wound revealed the infection was caused by > cat-saliva bacteria.

> Anyway, just saying there are dangers from pets and allowing them to share > your environment.

While that's true, the _particular_ dangers from injecting cat saliva are usually pretty minor (not low harm, just low probability: you mostly run into them if you get bitten by a cat so that it draws blood, and you deal with them by treating that -- rare -- event as an emergency requiring immediate attention.)

The real danger revealed by the incident you describe is using poor cleanliness standards when injecting drugs (in this case, recreational, but that's irrelevant to the hazard, though its probably a lot more common with recreational drug use than otherwise). You don't use water that you merely "think" is clean for any purpose associated with injection, whether its cleaning anything used in the process or, worse, actually injecting.

> Although, I let my cat take bites out of my food sometimes, and that seems > OK so far.

You probably shouldn't, though ingesting material contaminated with cat saliva its still probably much safer than injecting it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Next up: "Stepping on Cracks Not Injurious to Mothers' Spines."

</comment><comment><USER25> I was under the impression that this was common knowledge? I knew it as the 3-second rule.

<comment><USER26> Varies depending on the floor type, I believe.

<comment><USER27> On speed of pet dog. In Y seconds either the dog has determined it to be edible and its gone, or its inedible and should be tossed in the trash.

<comment><USER28> Or speed of toddler. We have cascading rules in our house: anything that hits the floor is his within three seconds or else it defaults to daddy, who has the remaining two seconds before the dog makes his move.

Dinner-time incidents can turn violent quite quickly...

<comment><USER27> LOL DnD style roll for initiative, sorry, Spot, your D20 rolled a 7 and the toddler got a natural 20 so ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I have strong anecdotal evidence that 'Five Second Rule' does not work on cat hair.

<comment><USER30> It's important to always rinse cat hair before consuming it.

<comment><USER31> I generally try to avoid consuming cat hair if I can... but at the point i'm consuming cat hair, I'm not sure rinsed is better.

But on second read, I'm guessing you meant to rinse _off_ the cat hair?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Well today I just dropped my cigarette to the street floor. I hesitated to pick it up but hey, it can't be worse than smoking itself.

</comment><comment><USER33> The question is not whether or not the food picks up bacteria, but how likely the bacteria is to endanger our health (and how likely a deficiency of bacterial exposure caused by being too careful is to endanger our health).

</comment><comment><USER34> I always thought this was only a joke. I guess we've reached peak science.

</comment><comment><USER35> I either heard about this article or read this article a few days ago... Which got me to thinking, did people actually think the 5 second rule was a real thing?

</comment><comment><USER36> Common knowledge is: if food falls on the floor and survives the impact you pick it up quickly, wash it, it's ok. If you find it after hours you trash it.

</comment><comment><USER37> so while gummy bears are least likely to gather germs, how about hard candy? also, what are the differences compared to your hands? what about a communal candy jar or shared food space?

while I understand the five second rule is just some silly fun I am still not convinced that much else is better. unless your using a completely sanitary environment with sterilized equipment you will always get some bacteria

</comment><comment><USER38> This study has been done a million times before, at the jr high and high school level and I thought everyone just kind of knew this already.

</comment><comment><USER39> The article did not provided much useful information about food born illness. Watermelon picks up more bacteria than a gummy bear when dropped on the floor. That is obvious. A couple of things that would be much more helpful to point out: 1) your kitchen floor is much less likely to be coated with salmonella if you avoid bringing raw chicken carcasses into your house, and 2) a major factor in the severity of food born illness is dose. It is much safer, for example, to pick up a piece of watermelon from the kitchen floor ant eat it immediately than it is to pick it up and toss it in a salad that you are taking to a picnic, giving any bacteria that was picked up hours to multiply at moderate temperatures before being eaten.

</comment><comment><USER40> Sad that someone had to do a study to find out something that people should know through common sense.

On a related note, who cares? Kids eat mud and it doesn't kill them; a bit of food that fell on the floor that might have a speck of dust on it is unlikely to kill us.

</comment><comment><USER41> I wonder how human beings from centuries ago (and actual animals) have been able to survive without our clean like a lab environment?

Would it be possible that we overstate quite a bit the danger of everything?

I prefer my beer, cheeses non pasteurised and I prefer raw milk (after being boiled). And I think the food coming from puritans victorian inspired countries taste blend like the catholic religion.

Most unhealthy illegal (by brits laws) traditional french cooking I have eaten from Québec was tasting like real fucking good FOOD.

Hail to the artisinal food! fear not the propaganda from industrial food processors (unilever, procter&gamble, lactalis, nestlé ....)

Be curious, fear not (except if you are pregnant) and resist the messages of fear.

<comment><USER42> Short answer: They didn't survive. IIRC a significant portion of all humans born in past centuries simply died as infants/children, usually from things that are trivially preventable today with basic hygiene, good nutrition and antibiotics/vaccines.

Humanity as a species obviously survived because people simply had _a lot_ of children to compensate the high mortality rates.

<comment><USER41> well, I beg to differ, and quite a lot.

I am a mover educated with a master in physics.

My father is a physician.

a Physician - physicist talk looks like this :

Dad, medical studies are not science ; for instance fat are goods, then bad then good again.

Son, Newton laws have been proven wrong by Einstein

Dear dad, Newton laws are still valid in the right domain, something proven wrong may be proven wrong at the edge but not in its core, if medecine was science, fat would always be good most of the time, except when ...

Yes, but we medics invented meta analysis that made the science better

You are mainly comparing apple and potatoes without blinking, and you are surprised the results of your studies are hardly reproducible.

Long story short; hygienists are leading medical science based on their religious believes (like Pasteur with alcohol) and believes are hardly a good way of leading studies, and I am used to live every day with a tenant of as soft science as psychology/philosophy/history that has a diabete type II for believing in the BS of his fellow «scientific» colleagues, and I do not know if I am angry or laughing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> They need a study to figure this one out?

</comment><comment><USER44> The two second rule still applies though.

</comment><comment><USER45> I refuse to read the article. It can't be true someone believed that to a point a study had to be made.

</comment><comment><USER46> See also: [http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21945313](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21945313)

</comment><comment><USER47> Its absolutely true. I've already decided and I'm teaching my grandkids that, regardless of what Nana says.

</comment><comment><USER48> Interestingly, I have never heard about such a rule (being from Europe; is it probably a US-thing?)

</comment><comment><USER49> Guess I'm gonna be eating stuff that's been on the floor for longer now... ;-)

</comment><comment><USER50> OMFG, there's a study for that....

</comment><comment><USER51> lol, do people really believe that bugs are going "hold up! wait 5 seconds before attacking!?"

<comment><USER18> I think the idea here is that a significant enough number to get you sick, haven't had a chance to set up shop. We eat germs all day, it's when we get too much at once that there is an issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Also in breaking news:

Stepping on Sidewalk Cracks Does _Not_ Break Your Mother's Back

<comment> nommm-nommm Nor is the floor lava.

<comment><USER53> Better safe than sorry! I'm not touching that! _leaps from chair to chair_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Er... Please tell me tax money wasn't wasted on this study. We all joke about it, but come on, are you really telling me someone wasted money studying this? We all know germ transfer is fairly immediate. My whole family spends much of our time filthy from living on and operating a farm, and I n your average shoes off household, you're less likely to get sick eating something that just fell on the floor than you are to get sick. That's not to say you won't get sick, it's also not to say that what you catch won't be fatal, but really... we all laugh and joke and yell "5 second rule!" before knowingly taking our lives in our own hands and guess what? So far, we're still all here and so far we spend a lot less time sick than many people we know.

We know the 5 second rule is bullshit, we don't need a study to tell us that, we're not idiots. Some people are into adrenaline sports and driving wrecklessly, we play 5 second rule Russian roulette. It's good for your immune system, until it kills you.

<comment><USER54> > We know the 5 second rule is bullshit, we don't need a study to tell us > that, we're not idiots.

We may not be idiots... but there are plenty of idiots out there who believe this.

<comment><USER15> Plenty enough for me to get down voted for that comment :D</comment></comment></comment>


Why I Don't Like Phone Calls - <AUTHOR> http://www.dkeithrobinson.com/entry/why_i_dont_like_phone_calls/ <comment><USER2> It is true that you can express yourself better through email than in phone. The benefit of having something documented helps a lot in the future. I think its okay to tell people that your preferred method of communication is email.

</comment><comment><USER3> For me, it depends on what I'm trying to accomplish with the communications hit, as both methods have their pluses and minuses.

I find email is much better if I have a complex/multi-step idea that I'm trying to convey. The act of writing it out allows me more time to concentrate on a clear way to get the point across, gives me time to revise the communication to make sure I got it right, and allowed the receiver to re-read parts to make sure they have understood the idea properly. It also (obviously) makes it possible to include charts, numbers, maps, pictures - really any multimedia product that helps explain your point.

Email is also clearly better for CYA purposes/situations where you need to have an unambiguous and easily-transferable record of who made what decision. Sure, you could record and then save the phone conversation - but that's pretty awkward.

Phone conversations, on the other hand, I find are much better for information acquisition. They allow you to try and establish a rapport/make small talk with the person you're talking to, which often leads to information you wouldn't get otherwise. I can't count the number of times that a digression or a little small-talk on the phone has given me some information that I wouldn't have gotten if I'd simply sent an email listing the facts I needed to know. The small "relationship" that you can build through a few phone calls also tends to come in handy later if and when you meet the person in-the-flesh, moreso I find than n email conversation can.

Yes, note-taking sucks - but I've gotten into the routine of speaking to someone on the phone, and then while on the phone with them asking for things to be emailed to me (generally the type of things I'm after they have on their computer anyways).

The other issue, of course, is timing. Even when you're in a situation where you know the people you're communicating with are at their computers, I find it's almost always faster to call someone to get an answer to a question, as opposed to emailing them. This, in turn, influences the way I communicate with them. If the issue isn't that pressing, I'll often email - it allows the recipient to deal with it at their leisure, which I respect as much as I can. If I need the information reasonably soon, I'll send a follow-up email as a reminder, to bring the issue back to the top of their mental/actual inbox and remind them that I'm waiting for this. But if it's urgent, I'm going to end up ignoring the scheduling-habits of the person I'm dealing with and will pick up the phone. I may be interrupting whomever I'm calling, but they'll have had plenty of time to respond at their leisure by that point, and their time is up.

Bottom line, for me, is that it depends. What's the interaction for? Who's it with? What's our relationship? And when do I need that information?</comment>


Why HTTPS Everywhere isn't on addons.mozilla.org - <AUTHOR> https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/https-everywhere/2014-April/002050.html <comment><USER2> "main reason I haven't put it in AMO _yet_ is because AMO offers _less_ security to users than EFF self-hosting it"

Another pointless crusade. Aren't there many ways you could make it safer still? Wouldn't some of those be really dumb because they would prevent many people from accessing the add on?

How many people are you making more secure? Close to no one because 98% of Firefox https everywhere users have some other add on from AMO. Weigh that against the many thousands more that might be experiencing the benefits of your add on if it were hosted where 99% of add ons people use are hosted.

<comment><USER3> It's almost as if their priorities aren't the same as yours.

<comment><USER2> My priorities are completly irrelevant here, I've been a happy user of https everywhere since idk since I heard of it (years? idk). My criticism is that their own stated priority is being crippled by a self-imposed and arbitrary rule.

<comment><USER4> It looks to me like they're trying to use not being in AMO as leverage to get Mozilla to implement additional security features. If they said "we'd like these features, but we're ok being in AMO in the mean time" Mozilla would probably mostly ignore them, and these are generally useful features that should help others if developed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > AMO doesn't do any code signing for extensions, so they're only protected by > HTTPS. As we saw with Heartbleed, SSL private keys can be compromised.

I find it quite ironic that HTTPS Everywhere is arguing HTTPS is not safe enough to offer them a reasonable guarantee of integrity.

<comment><USER6> HTTPS is a lower bound of reasonable security, not an upper one. The argument for HTTPS _everywhere_ is that it's the smallest possible thing you can do to make yourself slightly secure.

Would you find it ironic that someone selling combination locks for gym lockers wants a better lock on their storefront?

<comment><USER7> > Would you find it ironic that someone selling combination locks for gym > lockers wants a better lock on their storefront?

More like he wants to add additional security measures because the lock isn't secure enough. I wouldn't buy a lock then.

<comment><USER8> It's called layering.

Nothing is 100% secure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Old... but interesting, I guess.

From the bug report:

> We don't require update.rdf files to be signed when they're served over > HTTPS, since HTTPS provides the same level of verification as an updateKey, > and we don't see significant benefit to the additional level of > verification.

I'm kind of confused by that comment - Mozilla are saying that signing the software itself is somehow the same as serving it over HTTPS? Think about other software repositories. That's like saying serving Fedora packages over HTTPS is the same as signing the RPM's... it's not, and it's kind of an absurd thing to suggest.

You can independently verify the signature of the RPM itself, offline, outside of the browser. I can't see how that could be considered anything but a significant benefit.

<comment><USER10> I think the idea is that you don't need the extra security of signing, because if the file was served over HTTPS then you can be secure in the knowledge that it has not been modified.

The reason you sign packages is to ensure that the file you want and the file you get are actually the same. If you have a secure connection to the trusted host of said file, you don't need to worry about that.

<comment><USER11> The difference is that signed code lets you keep the signing key offline, and therefore it can be much more secure.

For a concrete example, consider the case where the server is compromised and an attacker wants to insert malware. HTTPS does nothing at all to help, here. The attacker has control over the server and can make it serve whatever it wants, and since the server still has its normal certificate and key, the attacker's malware-infested code will show up just like legitimate stuff would. If the code was signed using a key that isn't kept on the server (normally a code signing key will be kept on a developer's computer, and often protected by a password so it rarely exists in memory unencrypted) then the attacker can't force the server to serve malware that will be accepted by downloaders.

<comment><USER12> > If the code was signed using a key that isn't kept on the server (normally a > code signing key will be kept on a developer's computer, and often protected > by a password so it rarely exists in memory unencrypted)

And to take this even further, you have the option of keeping the key on a machine that is completely disconnected from any network. In addition, this machine could use a Hardware Security Module to further increase the security of the signing key.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> HTTPS is a good idea but it really doesn't work for me. I am one of those paranoid people who want full end-to-end SSL without exceptions. HTTPS Everywhere doesn't fill the bill.

This is why the company I work for created PanicMode ([https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/panic- mode/lamdafc...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/panic- mode/lamdafciglhnjofdfejeepoemldmblkb)).

PanicMode is ridiculously simple extension. Once activated, it will swap HTTP for HTTPS without leaking even a single packet. Not even pre-flight requests are spared.

PanicMode is not good for general purpose browsing mainly because 99% of the site break badly, i.e. they do not support SSL at all. That is very telling and sad reality. The way I use it is with profiles. I have a bunch of chrome profiles that I use for different purpose. One of my profiles is just for social browsing - facebook etc. I have another one for company stuff. Those profile have panic mode installed and activated. Because I care about security in those profiles I don't mind if I click on a facebook link and it doesn't open up because at least I know that I am protected against side-channel attacks.

It is a very simple mechanism but works well when used effectively.

<comment><USER14> > PanicMode is ridiculously simple extension. Once activated, it will swap > HTTP for HTTPS without leaking even a single packet. Not even pre-flight > requests are spared.

Sounds pretty cool and useful to me. As it tends to happen, though, all promises of additional security a Google Chrome extension makes are invalidated by a single notice—

> Panic Mode can read and change all your data on the websites you visit

As a side note, I noticed that lately my sensitivity to these kinds of threats has come down significantly due to multitude of useful extensions and apps requiring ridiculous permissions. Seems like a dangerous trend: not knowing that an app is going to do sneakily collect your data is one thing; knowingly and willingly grant every little extension wildcard access time after time is quite another. I was very happy to ditch Android because of that. Perhaps I'm too paranoid, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Im all for signing stuff but:

\- amo wasnt affected by heartbleed

\- signatures arent foolproof either

\- HTTPS everywhere.. is supposed to advocate for TLS being safe ?

So the criticism seems quite misguided in this case.

<comment><USER16>
      - amo wasnt affected by heartbleed

If you only address issues that have already happened, you will never provide adequate _protection_. The point is to ensure sane behavior when AMO _is_ affected by some exploit.

      - signatures arent foolproof either

Yeah, and actually, why bother with HTTPS at all: it's not foolproof, is it?

      - HTTPS everywhere.. is supposed to advocate for TLS being
        safe ?

No, it advocates for TLS being safe _if used with HTTPS everywhere_. So _before_ you have HTTPS everywhere enabled, you need an additional measure.

<comment><USER15> you contradicted yourself here - or voluntarily misunderstood the point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Once public key pinning lands in Firefox (supposedly scheduled to happen > this summer)

Since this was from April, I wonder what has happened since then? Has Firefox added public key pinning or the other option presented?

<comment><USER18> Yes, Firefox has supported public key pinning for a while now.

You can check the latest status at [https://wiki.mozilla.org/SecurityEngineering/Public_Key_Pinn...](https://wiki.mozilla.org/SecurityEngineering/Public_Key_Pinning)

<comment><USER17> Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> and yet: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privacy- badge...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privacy-badger- firefox/?src=search)

Given the inconsistency of EFF and Mozilla's "policy" on this issue, plausible context to what's written might include something like an inability to upstream HTTPSEverywhere into Firefox by default due to political pushback from large advertising sponsors of Mozilla. EFF certainly resolved these issues for PrivacyBadger, which nevertheless has problems of its own.

Similarly, working with Mozilla to make AMO more secure for everyone by default seems like a pretty straightforward and desirable option for EFF. it's unclear why that hasn't happened here..and perhaps having useful code upstreamed into a larger project doesn't earn people enough credit and recognition. maybe we'll see a BetterAMOEverywhere extension that would enable EFF to integrate HTTPSEverywhere into AMO. ;-)

Yet here we are in 2014 with HTTPSEverywhere not baked into Firefox by default default and a world in which non-techies can't even find what should be browser-integrated functionality in the same place they find most other extensions. Awesome.

The effect for most users is not unlike the the sort of bikeshedding over GPL vs. BSD licenses that has kept so much of the internet in plaintext [0].

[0] as mentioned in phk's 'operation orchestra' talk

<comment><USER20> _...working with Mozilla to make AMO more secure for everyone by default seems like a pretty straightforward and desirable option for EFF. it 's unclear why that hasn't happened here._

The bug report [1] was closed as WONTFIX. Essentially, AMO is more worried about malicious updates by extension authors than hijacking of legitimate extensions:

 _The "hijacking" we worry about is from the addon authors themselves: we review and OK a benign add-on and then it self-updates into malware or adware. This is not a hypothetical worry. The EFF isn't going to do that, obviously, but the number of entities we trust to that extent who cannot simply host on AMO is so small that we can't spare the coding resources to create an exception mechanism._

[1] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=999014](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=999014)

<comment><USER19> to me, WONTFIX is just a signal that personal conversations with Mozilla devs as humans--or at least a more subtle understanding of why Mozilla's not budging--are that much more important as next steps.

and i don't necessarily disagree with the technical merits of EFF's position, either. but what does it say about EFF if they don't feel the same way about PrivacyBadger being available through AMO? seems inconsistent, if we're to take the given rationale at face value.

and more broadly, it seems clear that if EFF's goal is to maximize the number of people using HTTPSEverywhere, the status quo for providing access to their code is not optimal.

i hope Mozilla/EFF will be able to work out a solution that increases the availability of HTTPSEverywhere's functionality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Would addons.mozilla.org really have to store the private keys of the developers as the discussion on bugzilla [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=999014](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=999014) (closed as 'invalid' 4 month ago) implies? How does the Chrome store do it?

<comment><USER22> Only if that service intended to do some signing on the developers' behalf, which could make sense for cases like this in which app data would be updated more often than app code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What a great way to make sure no one uses their add on.

\-- an HTTPS everywhere user

</comment><comment><USER24> HTTPS Everywhere is security theater. Encrypting everything creates pressure to cache encrypted content, using "caching services" such as Cloudflare. If it goes through Cloudflare, it's decrypted at Cloudflare. Cloudflare is a man-in- the-middle.

HTTPS Everywhere means MITM Everywhere. It makes interception _easier_.

</comment><comment><USER25> You should be using the hsts policy list in firefox anyway.

HTTPS everywhere has way too much overhead.

There should be a built-in hsts editor.

</comment><comment><USER26> > Why wasn't HTTPS Everywhere affected by Heartbleed? Because we sign updates > with an offline signing key that EFF keeps on a dedicated airgapped machine. > So even if SSL is totally broken, the integrity of updates is guaranteed. > Yay!

WHY IN THE WORLD AREN'T YOU USING AN HSM!?!?! If you're at the point where you feel the need for a dedicated airgapped machine to hold the signing key, then you are at the point where you need an HSM.

</comment><comment><USER27> Even better, why HTTPS everywhere is not a default, in all browsers?</comment>


Raganwald Weighs In on Architecture Astronauts - <AUTHOR> http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/05/i-have-truly-marvellous-title-of-this.html

<comment><USER2> Blatant linkjacking: the quoted text outweighs the author's own commentary by a large margin. Suggest he get a job with infoq.com.

</comment><comment><USER3> Raganwald weighs in? Or Raganwald approvingly quotes Jamie Zawinski and Joel Spolsky?</comment>


Best Essential Rules to Follow When Designing a Logo - <AUTHOR> http://guidesigner.net/art-directing/best-essential-rules-to-follow-when-designing-a-logo/ <comment><USER2> Pretty basic. Anyone who could benefit from a tip such as "don't use Comic Sans" has no business designing a logo.</comment>


Freelance trends for 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://zigtheapp.com/6-freelance-trends/ <comment><AUTHOR> Would love some feedback. What are the challenges and opportunities for the coming year? How is the landscape changing?

<comment><USER2> What are the sources for these claims? Your own personal opinion?

<comment><AUTHOR> Some is from research into freelancer issues (like [https://dievolkswirtschaft.ch/content/uploads/2017/03/16_Giu...](https://dievolkswirtschaft.ch/content/uploads/2017/03/16_Giudici_Lepori_Marazzi_DE.pdf)), some from participation in freelancer groups in Vancouver and online. Anecdotal. That's part of the curiosity. As more people go solo a lot of traditional support, from social to emotional to financial, is eroding.

To me these are still the highlights, and the best places for solutions, but I'm curious where other people see the trends.

Back in the day a lot of these problems were solved with the guild system. People were brought into a network, trained, connected to opportunities and support. That doesn't really exist for a lot of freelancers.

I'm curious about people personal take and what that says about freelancing in general.</comment></comment></comment>


ISS astronaut finds NASA floppy disks in space - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/iss-astronaut-finds-nasa-floppy-disks-in-space/ <comment><USER2> I thought that we were still at the point where NASA knew every single object on the ISS because they analyse and test[1] everything? So surely they knew this was there - why didn't they send it back down when they changed laptops?

[1] [https://www.nasa.gov/centers/wstf/testing_and_analysis/mater...](https://www.nasa.gov/centers/wstf/testing_and_analysis/materials_flight_acceptance/odor_evaluation.html)

<comment><USER3> There is so much stuff packed inside the space station and there's such a high likelihood of things getting lost (you can't just set something down on a table and expect it to be there when you come back) that it's not surprising that things like this show up occasionally. This may have been on a lost items list for long enough that it was assumed to have been trashed at some point. Or perhaps it was still on a lost items list. Every item is tracked, and the inventory managers do a great job tracking it, but some items slip through the cracks... particularly items from 20 years ago.

<comment><USER4> > some items slip through the cracks

For reference, go to eBay and type in the word "flown".

<comment><USER5> This is fascinating. I almost made an impulse purchase.

Didn't know I could own fragments of Kapton tape from Apollo-11 or a part of the tail fin from the first successful Falcon 9 landing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wonder how much boosting that mass has cost in the intervening years.

<comment><USER7> Not as much as running Windows 95

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> 1\. Wouldn't they need to be shielded in some way to protect against the increased radiation.

2\. Were US export controls still in force for encryption software etc. Did this require special dispensation for 'export'?

<comment><USER9> 1) I wondered about this too. Floppy disks used magnetism to store data, so I wonder what the impact on such a device at such altitude.

2) According to wikipedia, encryption export laws were lessened starting in 2000, so it's possible that the encryption on this disk was no longer controlled?

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why would they need Norton Utilities up there ?!

<comment><USER11> Probably a NASA/government requirement that all computers have some sort of antivirus and that's what they used at the time. The computers up there are networked with the ground so it's not that weird of a requirement.

<comment><USER12> Norton Utilities was not an anti-virus though, it was an utility package for things like data rescue.

Back then, the stuff from Norton was widely considered best-in-class software... so very much unlike today. Sad how that brand name was ruined.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps it was in case there was a disk failure? I'd like to think they had storage redundancy up there (and they probably do), and NASA likes to have contingency plans for contingency plans for contingency plans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> norton for windows 95/98 :') classic

</comment><comment><USER14> Neat tale of Computer archeology in space.

</comment><comment><USER15> Calling Jason Scott

<comment><USER15> Come on. You all know he wants the NASA ones.

Happy thanksgiving HN.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Watch us blow $500k launching our media startup: The Hustle - <AUTHOR> http://thehustle.co/watch-our-startup-blow-through-500000

<comment><AUTHOR> And if you don't feel like clicking on a site you don't know, here's a YouTube video describing errthang: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxewIXvHO4s&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxewIXvHO4s&feature=youtu.be)

</comment><comment><USER2> I don't know, is this non-technical version of a brogrammer?

<comment><AUTHOR> Kinda</comment></comment>


Escape Tools - <AUTHOR> http://www.marcsteinmetz.com/pages/fluchtstuecke/efluchtstuecke_minis.html

<comment><AUTHOR> The site is a bit slow.

"Inmates have got lots of time on their hands. What better way to make use of this resource than doing handicrafts? Creativity pays, especially when it facilitates escape. These examples bear witness to man's love of freedom."</comment>


Elon Musk doesn't think the government should bail out the American people - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1286997124048019456 <comment><USER2> By itself, his statement seems accurate to me. It might be hypocritical, but that doesn't make it false.

</comment><comment><USER3> So he is against bailing out business too? After all they are classified as people in the US.

<comment><USER4> he is against the big bailouts that go to all the large corporations. he said he'd rather the money go to individuals</comment></comment>


Yelping for Dollars (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2006/tc20061207_915943.htm

<comment><USER2> oh boy, shameless plug time! yelp is a great desktop experience, but if you've got an iphone give graffiti a shot: <http://www.graffitigeo.com>. it's a bit more fun to use than urbanspoon and goodrec with the mobs and badges. no registration or anything like that needed. you can see my profile here as an example: <http://graffitigeo.com/jared>

p.s. we do not pay anyone to write comments or create the walls.

</comment><comment><USER3> this is from 2006

<comment><USER4> the "netscape.com's Jason Calacanis" was kind of a giveaway.</comment></comment>


Why there's no money: the imaginary part of financial systems - <AUTHOR> http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/other/why-theres-no-money-the-imaginary-part-of-financial-systems-3235 <comment><USER2> As a piece of rhetoric, it's not bad. I'm certainly sympathetic to the author's viewpoint. As a piece that gives any insight into the nature of money, it leaves a lot to be desired. It is true that money is inextricably intertwined (gotta love that phrase, heh) with the political, social, and legal constructs that support it. And the notion that money is somehow encoded in a "web of obligation" rings true. But I guess I'm not really appalled by this, just like I'm not appalled by the fact that gravity doesn't let me fly, and certainly the idea that millionaires' wealth is not fluid because of peer pressure sounds like pure hogwash.

A discussion I'd like to see on HN revolves around a simple scenario. You live in a village, people only barter with each other. The village grows, and someone comes up with the idea that money would make it possible to avoid complex and difficult trades involving real goods. Money is essentially a convenience. But how do you do it? Even assuming that you have a completely trustworthy producer of currency, how, exactly, do you introduce money into the system? It is my belief that a great deal of ignorance is laid bare when you start thinking through the problems of rolling out a new currency like this.

Indeed, if and when we can see through this problem, we can evolve our little society further and faster, and understand how the various types of institutions we have evolved. Think of it as "economic embryology" - and just like real embryology yields some incredible insights into the adult organism, I think the economic embryology gedanken experiment can generate real insights into a mature economy.

<comment><USER3> > how do you do it?

In Capital volume 1, Marx paints the following logical progression. Whether it carries any historical truth, I don't know. (Note: there are many more nuances to it, and you perhaps need to wrestle the original source to get it all)

To establish a single unit of measurement:

a. The simple, isolated, or accidental form of value: Commodities are exchangeable with other commodities, e.g. 20 yards of linen = 1 coat.

b. The Total or Expanded Form of Value: a commodity is exchangeable with any other commodity, e.g. 20 yards of linen = 1 coat or = 10 lb tea or = 40 lb coffee or = 1 quarter of corn or = 2 ounces of gold or = etc.

c. The general form of value: Any of said quantities of commodities are exchangeable with the original commodity, e.g. 1 coat, 10 lb tea, 40 lb coffee, 1 quarter of corn, and 2 ounces of gold, are worth 20 yards of linen.

d. The money form: One, or a few, commodities become either the de factor or the legal "universal equivalent" commodity in which exchange-value is measured. This universal requires some properties (I'm sure I have forgotten several):

* It must be uniform. Not all horses are equal, so horses are no good.

* It must be divisible and capable of quantitative differentiation. Half a work horse is less worth than half of a whole, and two halves of work horses does not equal one. Horses are not good for a second reason.

* As trade expands geographically, the value of the universal equivalent needs to be universally recognized. Horses for seamen? More inconvenient than it should be.

* The universal equivalent should not deteriorate. Horses die. They really are no good for this.

Instead, precious metals fulfill these qualities. And just as we use dollars and cents, gold and silver can be used to differentiate between different magnitudes of value. (Note: gold and silver still has values as commodities, which determine the amount of stuff you get for them. See the initial points.)

Still, they do have some problems. They require measurements and tools to divide. It's not really convenient to go into Starbucks with a lump of silver to carve the price for a coffee.

So coins are minted, containing the proper amount of each metal. New problems arise. Cheaters carve metals from the coins to melt and create new. Wear and tear cheapens the coins. So bills and coins are created as symbols of silver and gold, but backed by them. The actual precious metal reside elsewhere, and the bill is just a proof of ownership.

Now, those countries and owners who control precious metals get significant power. They can withhold or flood the marked at their whim. No good, says the other countries. So when currency is sufficiently recognized as a means of payment, one can remove the actual backing and keep the bills and coins only. And while we're on it, why bother with the bills at all? A balance in a computer is just as good, right?

<comment><USER4> This is a pretty good summary, except that there is quite a lot of doubt by anthropologists that the historical succession ever happened like this. Apparently, various forms of money came into being out of debt, without the detour via precious metals.

The reasoning is roughly this: When you trade, it is extremely rare for a "double coincidence of wants" to actually happen with real goods at a fixed point in space and time. So people extend credit and remember who owes what to whom. Money then grows out of the increasing formalization of this process. Coins are then created by a state that wants to make lots of uniform payments (i.e. payment to soldiers, hence the name soldi for certain Roman coins).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was prepared to be moved to some novel point of view on the nature of money, but the article doesn't ring true.

We _do_ get to choose how to spend our money, and rich Americans who accrue millions or billions of dollars of personal wealth especially do.

What do people choose to do with their money?

* Often they invest it, so that their net worth goes up rather than down, while perhaps supporting a company or cause they believe in. It's true that when you put your money into something, it's no longer liquid. If you inherit a few million dollars and immediately buy a few houses as an investment, you don't have the money, you just have the houses.

* They set up philanthropic foundations. This involves allocating money to ongoing aid. Yes, the money is earmarked, because you (the foundation) earmarked it.

* If you want more money going to innovation, that's great, but it is not an axiom that money, where it exists, should be used to fund particular innovative projects that will transform society. For one thing, people disagree on how important it is to spend money on innovation versus other things. If you want to see a manned mission to Jupiter, say, you can either fund it yourself or convince other people it's a good idea and work out where the money will come from. You can't just complain it's not happening, despite all the money everywhere.

* When wealthy individuals decide how to spend/blow/invest/donate a million dollars (say), I don't think they are ruled by social pressure, their hands tied by the ever-present danger of being shamed into oblivion -- so they decide it is safer to just buy a yacht. This sounds like an externalization of the feeling of self-consciousness some people may have.

Now, one thing I'll say is that money is not necessarily being spent on big projects in a way that reflects what people want to see. Kickstarter is helping change this (see [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the- veronica-m...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/559914737/the-veronica- mars-movie-project)) -- by tapping into discretionary money!

<comment><USER6> _We do get to choose how to spend our money, and rich Americans who accrue millions or billions of dollars of personal wealth especially do._

No. Capital is power[0]. Not just power to choose, but power to shape the choices of others (through marketing, propaganda, laws, etc.). Not power for the greater good, but power merely for its own sake -- because those in power fear losing their power. So they tend to use the power (capital, money) they have in order to consolidate and amplify their power base, which includes reforming the choices of others (meaning you and me) to their own advantage. In this way society is "creordered" to serve and benefit those at the top of the power pyramid.

0\. <http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/05/capital-as-power/>

<comment><USER5> You seem to be introducing a new point rather than agreeing or disagreeing with me or the article. Actually, I think you are agreeing with me. Contrary to the article, large amounts of money are at the complete disposal of individuals, corporations, and organizations, who simply don't choose to spend it in ways we agree with sometimes. For example, they earmark it for Africa instead of flying cars. We don't know what Apple will do with its $XX billion piggybank, but I'm pretty happy with what they've done so far. Buffett pledged most of his billions to philanthropy. I believe these decisions are theirs to make.

"Capital is power" is a metaphor. Capital certainly grants _purchasing_ power. Some things (and people) can be bought and some can't. Laws shouldn't be as purchasable as they are, of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Developing OP's points to their natural conclusions and ignoring the awful math analogy:_ the point would be to _liquify_ / _unfreeze_ as much of the available wealth as possible, to have it flow to things that could make the world a better place or solve the "big problems", right? So a strong middle class with lots of well spread discretionary income, capable to crowd-fund tons of interesting work would be the solution. Evrika! But NO... there is no reason for the liquified money to flow in the "right" directions, maybe they's all be spend on entertainment and we'll have a "brave new world" type dystopia instead, so maybe it's better to have it "frozen", because at least this way there is some control over it. _...a more interesting problem imho would be to see how money actually relates to power/control and to have an information theoretical way to quantify this power/control - this could really bring new ways to look at economy, instead of this silly economic mythology with fluid/solid money, (anti)fragile entities, enigmatic black swans floating around and other mystical creatures and forces that our analogy loving minds keep creating._

</comment><comment><USER8> _Most of the money is made, at root, in one of two ways: oppressing other people, or destroying the natural world. The political, legal and social frameworks which enable these acts to be performed are then encoded into the structures which govern the wealth so-created, and that wealth can no more flow to constructive ends than water can flow up hill._

</comment><comment><USER9> while it is true we have come up with ingenious ways to "obligate" money, these constructs have arisen from a want from consumers...a person in the US chooses to sign up for a 30 year mortgage because he/she values owning a home. Venture Capitalists choose to obligate their money in risky startups in order to breath life into fringe ideas that may strike it big. Remembering that money is a proxy for wealth measurement the reality is that money simply is a median of exchanging wealth which people are choosing to use.

</comment><comment><USER10> Hm. Wish I'd seen this when it went by, I'm the original author. I think Graeber's Debt is probably pretty important in grounding any discussion about money at this point - given how much of our "money" is complex chains of debt, rather than cash!

</comment><comment><USER11> Great article. Also recommended is Positive Money <http://www.positivemoney.org/> who aim to highlight this and change the banking system.</comment>


List of scientific papers found in OpenJDK source code - <AUTHOR> http://lowlevelbits.org/java-papers/ <comment><USER2> Here's a google bigquery that lists the most common PDFs referenced in the github sample dataset, and the top 100 results: [https://gist.github.com/llimllib/3f1877eab06208958060f491cf3...](https://gist.github.com/llimllib/3f1877eab06208958060f491cf3c48cb)

It's possible to run this query against the full github dataset but I couldn't figure out how to pay for it, so if somebody wants to do that it would be excellent.

<comment><USER2> just a note: it's bizarre that I absolutely cannot find a way to determine a) how much it would cost to run or b) how I would pay for it if I wanted to run it

<comment><USER3> I changed it to query from [bigquery-public-data:github_repos.contents] instead, and before I execute the query it says "Valid: This query will process 1.68 TB when run.".

Queries are $5/TB [0].

So a bit less than 10 bucks. :)

Edit: brb, that's totally worth it.

[0]: [https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/pricing](https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/pricing)

<comment><USER3> [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zjJLsCS5d3Mv22D5k0Ap...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zjJLsCS5d3Mv22D5k0ApetJUq4p-uRk0D7Z8g7EY8TM/edit?usp=sharing)

Free trial money is great. :D

<comment><USER4> > 3896 [http://www.pdf](http://www.pdf)

Hmm...

<comment><USER2> Yeah I didn't care to make the regexp perfect. The most common site is www.pdfsharp.com, then www.pdfparser.org, then www.pdflib.com, etc etc

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Since the Java source is open, its all there to be peer-reviewed. If a paper its based on isn't the best you can make some noise about it. This is a good situation for Java.

</comment><comment><USER6> Some more found by a quick grep for "et al.", "Proceedings", "Proc. ", "Symposium", "Conference", "Conf. ", "PPoPP" (a conference with an easy-to- grep-for name), and "acm.org":

 _hotspot /src/cpu/ppc/vm/ppc.ad:_ See J.M.Tendler et al. "Power4 system microarchitecture", IBM J. Res. & Dev., No. 1, Jan. 2002.

 _hotspot /src/cpu/x86/vm/crc32c.h:_ V. Gopal et al. / Fast CRC Computation for iSCSI Polynomial Using CRC32 Instruction April 2011 8

 _hotspot /src/share/vm/gc/shared/taskqueue.hpp:_ Le, N. M., Pop, A., Cohen A., and Nardell, F. Z.: Correct and efficient work-stealing for weak memory models Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of parallel programming (PPoPP 2013), 69-80

 _jdk /src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/Arrays.java:_ Peter McIlroy's "Optimistic Sorting and Information Theoretic Complexity", in Proceedings of the Fourth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp 467-474, January 1993

 _jdk /src/jdk.crypto.ec/share/native/libsunec/impl/mpmontg.c:_ "A Cryptogrpahic Library for the Motorola DSP56000" by Stephen R. Dusse' and Burton S. Kaliski Jr. published in "Advances in Cryptology: Proceedings of EUROCRYPT '90, LNCS volume 473, 1991, pg 230-244

 _hotspot /src/share/vm/opto/superword.hpp:_ "Exploiting SuperWord Level Parallelism with Multimedia Instruction Sets" by Samuel Larsen and Saman Amarasinghe [...] published in ACM SIGPLAN Notices, Proceedings of ACM PLDI '00, Volume 35 Issue 5

 _jdk /src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/SplittableRandom.java:_ Leiserson, Schardl, and Sukha "Deterministic Parallel Random-Number Generation for Dynamic-Multithreading Platforms", PPoPP 2012

 _jdk /src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/SplittableRandom.java:_ "Parallel random numbers: as easy as 1, 2, 3" by Salmon, Morae, Dror, and Shaw, SC 2011

 _jdk /src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java:_ "Dynamic Circular Work-Stealing Deque" by Chase and Lev, SPAA 2005

 _jdk /src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java:_ "Idempotent work stealing" by Michael, Saraswat, and Vechev, PPoPP 2009

 _jdk /src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java:_ "Leapfrogging: a portable technique for implementing efficient futures" by D.B. Wagner and B.G. Calder, PPoPP '93, [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=155354](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=155354)

 _jdk /src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/LinkedTransferQueue.java:_ Using elimination to implement scalable and lock-free FIFO queues, Moir et al, [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074013](http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1074013)

 _jdk /src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/LinkedTransferQueue.java:_ "Bounding space usage of conservative garbage collectors", HJ Boehm, [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=503272.503282](http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=503272.503282) (this is the Boehm GC paper)

 _jdk /src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/locks/StampedLock.java:_ Design, verification and applications of a new read-write lock algorithm, Shirako et al, SPAA 2012

 _hotspot /src/share/vm/opto/escape.hpp:_ Jong-Deok Shoi, Manish Gupta, Mauricio Seffano, Vugranam C. Sreedhar, Sam Midkiff: "Escape Analysis for Java", Procedings of ACM SIGPLAN OOPSLA Conference, November 1, 1999

 _hotspot /src/share/vm/runtime/os.cpp:_ Gilad Bracha and David Ungar: "Mirrors: Design Principles for Meta-level Facilities of Object-Oriented Programming Languages", in Proc. of the ACM Conf. on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages and Applications, October 2004

 _jdk /src/jdk.crypto.ec/share/native/libsunec/impl/ec_naf.c:_ D. Hankerson, J. Hernandez and A. Menezes, "Software implementation of elliptic curve cryptography over binary fields", Proc. CHES 2000

 _jdk /src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/SynchronousQueue.java:_ "Nonblocking Concurrent Objects with Condition Synchronization", by W. N. Scherer III and M. L. Scott. 18th Annual Conf. on Distributed Computing, Oct. 2004

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a lot :) Some of your findings are actually listed in the original article, but not all of them obviously.

<comment><USER6> Ah, sorry, I didn't really check for dupes---I just skipped the ones with a pdf link in the vicinity. I'm just glad that sometimes the clever things that academics churn out are actually used in practice. Far too rarely if you ask me, but I'm biased of course ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I had to cite sources while implementing an artificial immune system (real valued negative selection and clonal selection algorithms). I read through a few papers for each algorithm and cited the clearest one as a source.

</comment><comment><USER8> it would be great if it also mentioned which files the links were found in

<comment><USER9> Seconded! I really like this compilation. Very interesting to see the algorithms and data structures behind the implementation of a language, especially one of the more popular ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Please, do it for the Linux source code.

<comment><USER11> About 99% of Linux (or even more) is drivers. But indeed there should be useful references in the scheduler, locking primitives, memory management and core networking code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> To be more precise, its actually a list of scientific papers referenced in the OpenJDK source code.

<comment><USER13> ... as direct pdf links found via grep.

There might be more references without a pdf link.

<comment> nommm-nommm I'm surprised the author didn't search for DOI links.

<comment><USER14> Asking as someone not as familiar with the research community as I'd like to be, what are DOI files, what advantages do they have over PDF/PostScript, and are they common?

<comment> nommm-nommm It's not a file format, it's a digital identifier. The APA can explain it better than I can:

"A digital object identifier (DOI) is a unique alphanumeric string assigned by a registration agency (the International DOI Foundation) to identify content and provide a persistent link to its location on the Internet. The publisher assigns a DOI when your article is published and made available electronically."

So you can access a journal article by going to [http://dx.doi.org/DIO-GOES- HERE](http://dx.doi.org/DIO-GOES-HERE). doi.org doesn't host files, just resolves them to the current and correct location. For example the DOI number for the first paper in TFA is 10.1007/11427186_42 so it can be accessed at [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11427186_42](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11427186_42)

You know the DOI you know where you can find it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>