No TV for children under 2, urge doctors - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/health/19babies.html <comment><USER2> My son is 21 months and we have never sat him down in front of a TV with the express purpose being education (so no Baby Einstein DVDs...what a joke) nor babysitting (passive viewing of a cartoon). He has been exposed to my iPad, my wife's iTouch and both of our phones, and Cablevision provides a 'Kids Music Channel' which plays a variety of kid-friendly music while cycling through a dozen or so static images including ballons, a rubber duck in water, and a car.

The only line in that article that I take issue with is the following: Even so-called educational videos do not benefit children under 2 because they are too young to be able to understand the images on the screen, the doctors' group said.

Maybe it's because we read to my son daily and have incorporated teaching him sign language from the time he was 4 months, but he most definitely can recognize the images on the screen and frequently both speaks and signs the correct image on the screen (balloon, duck, dog, car). If we had never done any of these activities with him then I highly doubt he would be able to recognize the images on the TV, and there might be a distinction between understanding and recognizing that I am not making, but he most definitely is displaying some sort of connection between the images on the TV and the books/drawings/in person experiences he has.

I think the key take away from this, or other studies of its kind, is that passive media should not be the influential experience that a child so young should be exposed to.

<comment><USER3> > incorporated teaching him sign language from the time he was 4 months

If you don't mind elaborating on this, why did you teach him sign language?

<comment><USER4> Having it so your baby can ask for milk long before they get upset or too hungry is great, having them tell you that they're finished eating is much better than having them just throw food on the ground ;) Babies are cognitively capable of communicating they just haven't developed the skills for speech yet.

<comment><USER5> This! We started baby sign and could communicate these basics with our daughter before she was a year old. It might not sound like much to start communicating 6 months earlier, but I can only describe it thusly: awesome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My wife and I chose to adopt a "no screen time" policy for our child, who is presently 7 months old. Here are my observations so far:

1\. At a restaurant with TVs, we've observed our child go from laughing and socially engaged, to completed zoned out and unaware of people in mere seconds, just because the television appeared in his field of view. :-(

2\. At less than three months of age, he had a fit when pulled away from the television, under the watch of in-laws.

3\. Both parents have iPhones, Macbooks, and have a tendency to flop in front of the TV (Roku, Hulu, Daily Show) in the evening. Our no screen time policy prevents us from gazing into our own screens without paying attention to the needs of our son.

4\. Finally, most advertising is obnoxious and has no place in my home. Why expose our infant to it? He'll have the rest of his life to be accosted by ads.

<comment><USER7> > _"Finally, most advertising is obnoxious and has no place in my home. Why > expose our infant to it? He'll have the rest of his life to be accosted by > ads."_

Advertising for products used by children has changed dramatically over the past few decades. Juliet Schor's book _Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture_ documents the change and the strategies used.

It is one of the most influential books about raising children I read.

[[http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684870568/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684870568/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo- top- stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=068487055X&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1FCC8HT1YW7EJW8KQF9T)]

<comment><USER8> I have older kids. When we switched from regular TV to DVR, Netflix and iTunes (eg when we stopped watching commercials), their desire for inane stuff dropped significantly.

That alone makes paying for a series on iTunes worth it for me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think that if you're ignoring your kid and watching a lot of TV the problem is that you're ignoring your kid.

If you're watching more than about an hour of TV per day as a new parent then you either have a staff of people caring for your kid or you're slacking off.

If you don't converse with the child's other parent or others in the household b/c the TV is the center of everyone's attention, then you have a relationship problem or dysfunctional family situation.

This anti-TV meme is mostly luddite fearmongering intended to get joe and jane sixpack to stop vegging out in front of the TV and start being engaged as parents.

Sure, having disengaged parents or parents that don't interact verbally will create an impoverished environment for a kid, but it's not the fault of the glowing box anymore than it would be the fault of the chess board if the parents gazed silently at the board for hours at a time and ignored the little one.

<comment><USER10> _This anti-TV meme is mostly luddite fearmongering intended to get joe and jane sixpack to stop vegging out in front of the TV and start being engaged as parents._

That is not what the Academy of Pediatrics is actually saying. They specifically say that you as the parent is not required to engage with your child the whole time - however if you are NOT engaged with them, you are still better having the TV off, because children gain valuable skills from solitary play.

In other words, it's not a simplistic case of "Parents better than TV"; it really is a case of "no TV better than TV".

Obviously with all these things, quantity does matter.

I should add the other benefit of no screen time before two: when you finally do introduce programming, at least in my experience, kids are far more highly engaged with it, so when you expose them to it later it seems to "take" better. Anecdotally, the kids who are exposed to it as babies seem to also not to focus attentively on it when they are older, so if you do want to take advantage of the screen's great educational potential (not talking about the Baby Einstein crap), you do seem to be better off holding off for the first couple of years.

<comment><USER9> But couldn't some programming be beneficial and some harmful?

It just seems like quite an oversimplification to say that all TV is neutral or harmful to development.

My kid is 15 months and we occasionally play "signing time" sign language training DVDs. She's learned a lot of spoken vocabulary from it, and appears to be in the 99th percentile for language development. She doesn't typically sign anything (except for milk) but the other day I asked her what the sign is for a few things and she actually seems to know them.

There is no way to tell for certain, but I credit the signing time videos with giving her a very clear sense of core (verbal and signed) language symbolism. The repetition of words, signs, and pictures has always seemed quite interesting to her, with the less familiar, more abstract words/concepts initially seeming a bit less interesting and subsequently gaining significance as her overall awareness improved.

I have noticed on the few occasions when we've had a movie or show on the TV when she's been around that she'll initially pay close attention to it and then after a minute or two begin to stare blankly at it... this is quite the opposite reaction she has to the signing time videos.

So to summarize I'm skeptical that it makes sense to generalize too much about the specific age ranges when kids are "ready" for various stimuli. I think that metaphor is stretched too far. Instead, a child will find certain stimuli intensely interesting (including some stuff that may be on a TV). To the extent that the child can conceptualize the structure of the stimulus enough to provoke learning, the stimulus can be considered "good" or beneficial to learning. But the developing brain will also get overwhelmed, so after a certain point even a good stimulus becomes noise and can only lead the child to exert effort to tune it out, which would use up cognitive effort for something without any learning benefit.

<comment><USER11> ok you have your anecdote, they have their big study. i know where my bets are.

<comment><USER9> Hah not trying to argue for anything based on the anecdote, just using it to suggest that the premises of the study might not be all that realistic. It's easy to get caught up in the result of an official sounding study which may actually be ill-conceived.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My wife use to be a social worker.

It is incredibly sad how many children are put in front of a TV all day. And not Sesame Street or even cartoons - but Soap Operas, Jerry Springer, Cops, Fox News etc. Picture a dirty trailer home, behind on rent, no job, fast food for every meal and a rented 52-inch rear-projection TV that is on all. the. time.

When health care professionals make statements like this, the bad parents are who they are picturing in their head. They know the good parents (like the ones that read HN) can make informed decisions for themselves. But the bad parents have to be told "absolutely no TV" because there is no concept of moderation.

<comment><USER13> _the good parents (like the ones that read HN)_

I greatly respect the people I've interacted with on HN, but I would stop far short of assuming that intelligence and competence in something like hacking automagically transfers over to an orthogonal skill like parenting. This is partly because of my own anecdotal experience raising children while working in software development, and partly because of what I've observed which is that nearly every successful professional class assumes that they are good parents and clearly superior to people who are financially unsuccessful.

Often times, they are. Some people have poor life skills that translate directly into poor parenting skills. Some people have good life skills that seem to cross over directly into good parenting skills. But some poor people are great parents, and some successful people do not practice good parenting... Yet.

One of the attributes of being a good parent is to recognize when you could be even better. Thus, I guess my real message is that regardless of how we view our parenting skills, we ought to be open to the possibility that advice like this may apply to us even if we aren't living in a trailer.

(Disclosure: I live in an extremely modest cottage that is Toronto's equivalent to a trailer home).

<comment><USER12> Slightly facetious with the HN == good parenting comment. But in general, if you are the type of person that likes to learn, problem solves and strives to improve, you'll do fine at parenting. "Approach parenting like a startup" isn't such bad advice. In general.

Dwelling type, of course, is immaterial. I was illustrating a group of people who have extremely poor judgement, children being only one of them (i.e. you shouldn't be renting a giant TV if you can't pay rent or provide for your children).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If it hadn't been for watching Sesame Street and Reading Rainbow at that age (c.1988), I wouldn't have been able to participate in the mind bending parlor trick wherein my father handed his two year old son a box of cereal, and I promptly sounded out Maltodextrin (or whatever else).

(And if I hadn't been that two year old, it's unlikely I'd be the voracious reader and passionate lexidweeb I am now. In fact, it's unlikely I'd even have the same brain, so to speak.)

Now, my parents reading to me most every night (apparently even when I was in the womb) also had a tremendous effect, but when I was a kid my dad traveled for work upwards of 300 days a year. And my mom had to take care of everything else. So there wasn't always someone available to read to me, but Big Bird and Geordi LaForge were there _every morning_.

Just sayin'.

(If the point of that article wasn't "no TV under 2" but "no bullshit TV under 2," I agree, but I would ammend the statement to "no bullshit TV under 200," or simply "no bullshit.")

<comment><USER15> You're misreading the headline or misinterpreting your parents. When you were reading as a "two year old", they mean you were between your second and third birthday[1].

When the study says "No TV for infants under 2" they mean babies between birth and their second birthday. And the recommendation isn't about "bullshit" TV, it's about the fact that kids watching a screen aren't interacting with a human being and learning how to communiate. The studies correlating TV watching with delayed speech are very well supported.

[1] Obviously it's likely you were closer to three. And knowing now how parental memories can, heh, embellish things, I strongly suspect that most of your most memorable reading tricks happened when you were, in fact, three.

<comment><USER16> "it's about the fact that kids watching a screen aren't ... learning how to communiate (sic)"

Does sign language count as communication? Because my son learns signs from occasional DVD watching and then applies them in the proper contexts - sometimes without any reinforcement from his parents or anyone else.

Pretty sure that qualifies as learning how to communicate.

<comment><USER15> Clearly I'm no expert, nor do I know if studies have been done on the effect of TV watching on ASL acquisition.

I'll bet good money, however, that however many signs your <2yo son learns from watching a DVD, he would learn _more_ from signing with you instead of passively watching the device. Which, for verbal speech, is exactly what the studies show.

<comment><USER16> Maybe, but now you've changed your argument. Previously it was that they weren't learning at all, now they aren't learning as well. Even so, there are points in response:

1\. I'm really not equipped to show him the multiple images of a coat or someone putting on a coat, or other children doing signs of coat. The video is. I don't know if this matters or not. It's certainly possible it doesn't.

2\. I have to make dinner for us all at some point. As much as I'd love for my 15 month old to patiently engage in conversation with me while remaining a safe distance from the stovetop, it just doesn't happen. There are times when a parent's attention just cannot be 100%, or even 75% on their child. So yes, maybe he would learn EVERYTHING better if I were there to teach it to him, but the fact is that even the best parents can't be.

<comment><USER15> I've reread my posts, and don't see where I said children weren't learning. The science shows kids who watch TV speak later, period. Anecdotes (your kid learning some signs from a DVD, the earlier poster learning to read from TV) don't change that. Sorry, but they don't.

As for point 2, I don't disagree at all. Everything is a tradeoff, no parent can be perfect. Most kids turn out fine anyway. If you have to give your kids TV (my 3 year old gets about two hours a week, for instance) then do so and don't feel guilty. But don't try to justify it as educational; the science disagrees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Announcement: <http://www.aap.org/pressroom/mediaunder2.pdf>

Study: [http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/10/...](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/10/12/peds.2011-1753.abstract)

</comment><comment><USER18> Maybe I read this too quickly, but it seems like they're extrapolating from a fairly obvious "Don't let your one year old watch TV ten hours a day" to "Don't let your one year old watch any media at all", without any actual research evidence cited to back up that leap.

Or to put it another way, I'm really seriously doubting I measurably harmed our boy by letting him watch 15 minutes of traditional music videos a day when he was a toddler. (Mostly Liz Carroll, Peter Horan, and Daniel Payne, as I recall.)

<comment><USER19> The study also refers to heavy use but does not define what heavy means.

<comment><USER20>
        Heavy media use in a household is defined as one in which the television is on all or most of the time.

<comment><USER21> What the heck is "all or most of the time"? Which time?

What if everyone including the child is regularly out of the house for all but a few waking hours per day?

"the television" -- which one? Does the one in the teenager's bedroom count? How do computers factor in?

Please tell me they used stricter and more thorough criteria than that for "heavy media use".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm not here to promote the idea of children under 2 should watch TV, but statements like this largely invalidate studies such as this:

"The pediatrics group's guidelines point out that research to date suggests a "correlation between television viewing and developmental problems, but they cannot show causality.""

<comment><USER23> That doesn't invalidate the study at all. A correlation is still a very real statistical thing. It doesn't automatically imply causation, but it doesn't rule it out either. In fact, it's usually pretty good evidence in favor of causality. If this correlation shows up in enough studies without any alternative explanations, causality would become the prevailing theory. Dealing with human subjects and long term effects is difficult; controlled experiments are rarely an option.

<comment><USER24> "A correlation is still a very real statistical thing. It doesn't automatically imply causation, but it doesn't rule it out either. In fact, it's usually pretty good evidence in favor of causality."

If A and B are correlated, it might mean that A -> B, or that B -> A, or that there's a C that leads to both A and B. Without further data, there is no way to distinguish between these possibilities. And often the actual causation is different from what you'd guess based on intuition alone.

<comment><USER15> You're overextending the logic here. Yes, that's a correct explanation of the difference between correlation and causation. But just because the B->A case matches logic doesn't mean that it works as a hypothesis. (In this case, I guess it would mean that children with speech delays are able to induce their parents to let them watch more TV -- that's absurd to the point of being nonsensical).

In fact, where there is a clear and sane hypothesis in play (e.g. "time spent watching TV is time not spent learning to talk") it _almost always_ works out that further science shows the causation that you expect. That's true across fields, and it really shouldn't surprise anyone.

It's just that the experiments required to show that are harder. Simple demographic studies are a lot easier and cheaper. So you do those first, then work up the hard stuff when you know where to look.

Taking your point literally, it would _never_ be useful to do demographics like this because you can't "prove" the causation. But of course that's ridiculous; these studies are immensely useful and improve all our lives.

<comment><USER24> "In fact, where there is a clear and sane hypothesis in play (e.g. "time spent watching TV is time not spent learning to talk") it almost always works out that further science shows the causation that you expect."

There can be more than one clear and sane hypothesis, even if it doesn't occur to you immediately. For example, Wilduck below suggests poor parenting as an underlying cause for both these effects.

Here's another example. It is well-known that there is a correlation between the global temperature and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (from looking at historical data). It is widely believed that higher CO2 levels lead to higher temperatures. On this basis governments have capped CO2 emissions, with real economic implications. This seems reasonable, doesn't it?

But some scientists who are working on this suggest an alternative explanation; here's the gist of it. There is a lot of CO2 trapped in ice, due to some historical reason that escapes me at the moment (it's not my field). As temperatures rise, ice melts and CO2 is released, leading to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. If this is the correct explanation, following your advice and putting caps on CO2 emissions certainly did not "improve all our lives".

"it almost always works out that further science shows the causation that you expect."

Evidence?

"Taking your point literally, it would never be useful to do demographics like this because you can't "prove" the causation. But of course that's ridiculous; these studies are immensely useful and improve all our lives."

Not at all. Sometimes correlation is enough. For example, if an insurance company finds a correlation between having red hair and being involved in more car accidents, they can use this information to their advantage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> My one and a half year old learned the alphabet by watching a cartoon several times. I think there is a healthy balance to be found somewhere between 24/7 and zero.

<comment><USER26> The point of the study isn't that kids can't learn from the TV-- of course they can-- but that they'll be _better_ at learning when it's you talking to them, or reading them a book, or playing, or something that's more interactive.

We have a four year old who we've tried to limit watching TV, because you can see a noticeable difference in demeanor and attitude when the TV is on versus when playing by themselves or with us. Of course there's going to be some TV time, but for a kid under 2, I would tend to agree with the study, with the addition that even something like an iPad can be much more of a learning tool.

<comment><USER27> why does there have to be some TV time?

<comment><USER28> I don't know if you have kids, but looking after them (some kids more than others) can be an utterly exhausting task that starts at dawn and doesn't end until 8:00pm. Television turns out to be something that can occupy some of the most hyperactive kids with minimal supervision.

If you asked any worker "why does there have to be a lunch break" they'd look at you like you were insane. I think the same applies here.

<comment><USER29> If you think looking after kids ends at 8pm, I'd question whether or not YOU have any either ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I agree that limiting screen time is important, and my wife and I are careful to limit our son's screen time and not expose him to "second hand TV." That said, I take issue with the following passage from the article:

"Even so-called educational videos do not benefit children under 2 because they are too young to be able to understand the images on the screen, the doctors' group said."

My son watches a DVD from the "Baby Signing Time" series 2-3 times per week. At 15 months, he sports a 30 to 40 word signing vocabulary. While my wife and I work to reinforce many of the more useful signs (more, milk, eat, etc), there are a number that he has picked up straight from the video (banana, coat, cat, etc). As much as I'd like to believe that he's a genius, I think its much more likely that the doctors' group is just wrong about what children can understand on screen.

In the article one frustrated-sounding doctor says no one is listening to the message. Maybe that's because they're preaching zero tolerance rather than moderation. Perhaps that's because they're worried that parents will take moderation too far and they think zero-tolerance is safer. Either way, to say children under two can't learn from a screen is simply wrong. I see the evidence every singe day and the doctors are welcome to see it for themselves.

<comment><USER30> My two and a half year old has a number of favorite videos, and when watching them, he will frequently turn to us and tell us to watch and then go on to launch into lengthy verbal explanations of what has happened or what will happen up to about 5 minutes ahead in the video. He's done this for months.

Of course "under two's" versus 30 months is a big gap, but it's not like he just suddenly started telling us these things either - a lot of the words and phrases he's picked up over the last year comes straight from things he's seen on TV or DVD's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> > Even so-called educational videos do not benefit children under 2 because > they are too young to be able to understand the images on the screen, the > doctors' group said.

So, we have been watching TV with my 20-month old daughter since she was around 9 months old. We watch kids shows and talk about it while we watch it together. And she knows exactly what is going on in the show and has for a long time. I'm sure she doesn't understand 100% of it, but it is obvious that she is picking up things.

* She knows the characters by name as soon as they are shown

* She talks about things she sees in the background

* Since last month she sometimes laughs when they do something that is meant to be funny

* She counts out loud to 10 with the characters on TV when they start counting

My feeling is that a constant TV in the background is a distraction for anyone, including babies. But having kids shows AND (here is the key part) watching them together and talking about it, re-enforcing the points of education, talking about the background, and asking questions about what is going on does in fact help with their development.

</comment><comment><USER32> Perhaps the most useful way of looking at this, is to think about whether a child who isn't exposed to TV until two years old would gain benefit, over children who are.

I agree with the premise that, being able to respond to feedback, and alter and hone their responses over time is a central part of any child's development. TV isn't as passive as some commentators make out - but the mechanisms required to process the sound and images we see in an interactive way require a degree of development that a very young child isn't likely to possess.

There's one thing that I am certain of; I think advertising aimed towards children should be banned. If there's any evil that could (and should) be stopped it's the drastic effect that commercial advertising can have on impressionable minds.

<comment><USER33> Well there's TV networks like PBS and I think Qubo that have limited advertising. Also, why stop at banning advertising to children when even a large percentage of adults have impressionable minds :).

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> While I don't necessarily disagree with the notion of minimizing television exposure this is starting to develop a smell of dogma.

The one thing we know about young kids is that in spite of our tendency to treat them like delicate petals they are actually incredibly robust and the idea that 30 minutes of well chosen television in a day can be so harmful that it outweighs the benefit of the tremendous relief it may give a parent to have this small amount of time to do other tasks - or god forbid, relax for a few minutes - seems crazy to me.

<comment><USER34> And also, why just TV?

There are an awful lot of things in a modern house that are TV-like (big bright screen, moving images, sound) so is watching moving video on a computer or tablet screen better or worse than the same amount of TV?

Do the negative effects end the moment you can interact with what's on screen? How much do you have to interact with what's on screen, is there a threshold?

The way it's getting I could imagine people getting all cargo-cult with this thinking, eschewing their TV's & plonking their kids in front of the computer (to watch the same content) instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> For those who can't read this behind the paywall:

[http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/infant-tv- guidelin...](http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/infant-tv-guidelines/)

<comment><USER36> Or, you could just delete your cookies. The NYTimes "pay wall" is not very sophisticated (probably on purpose).

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> So, interacting with your children is better than letting a TV babysit them. I think the same thing can be said for adults.

</comment><comment><USER38> My kids were on tv-diet for about 5 years and it was overall very positive experience. There're several things here:

a. TV (and other one-way information sources) is really bad for babies/toddlers who need two-way interaction with the world.

b. for older kids(~4y+) replacing regular TV channels with dedicated documentary/learning videos in reasonable quantities is beneficial.

I'm quite curious on how virtual interactions(ipad/etc) affect child development, any research links?

</comment><comment><USER39> The article doesn't mention radio. Is Car Talk is going to harm my child or just make him laugh at his own jokes?

<comment><USER40> Anecdotal evidence. I listened to NPR a lot with my first child, and other than a faint liberal bias, he has turned out just fine.

<comment><USER41> I'm acting to limit my daughter's exposure to TV, and this is a topic I'd like to make a more substantial post on, but until that happy moment, I'd just like to note that: "The real World often has a slight liberal bias..."

edit: just sneaking a few minutes on HN while she watches Nihongo Quick Lesson on NHK (via Roku). Only a few shows actually really engage her, but this is one of them... She shouts and dances with the Mime guy for example.

I think as with most things, the key is moderation, and a couple of hours of TV seems unlikely to do substantive harm in the context of a day that involves lots of play in the nursery, lots of reading with daddy and mummy, running about in the yard for an hour etc.

<comment><USER41> It'd be really interesting to know who would mod this post down, and why?

<comment><USER40> Note, I didn't mod you down, but it was probably just the naked politics of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> My 1.5 and 2.5 year old kids are both well acquainted with "Sprout" Channel, a preschool channel, and have been for over a year.

Not only do they know what they are seeing on the TV, regularly talking about various stars of the channel, such as Nina and Star, but the 1.5 y/o can even ask for the channel by name "I want sprout", and the 2.5 y/o can additionally even work the remote to get it, and say the numbers "1","1","9" as he's pushing them. Finally, my 1.5 y/o is already addicted to books and will page through them when there is a commercial or something she's not interested in.

They both learn a ton watching sprout. My 1.5y/o does dances and things that she sees, as well as says things I know she never learned from us.

We also have a large selection of YouTube playlists of childrens songs, age appropriate cartoons, and slightly non-age appropriate cartoons like 1940's vintage Micky Mouse cartoons. Again, they both ask for the playlist they want "I want Micky", "I want Dragon", "I want Caillou", etc.

Kids learn by observing the world around them. When I was a kid, I was watching my parents work a cattle ranch. My kids are often stuck in the house for five or six hours at a time, because I don't have a cattle ranch. They've explored every room, cabinet, jar, and canister that they have access too, and their huge collection of books hold no mysteries for them. You can only sit and try to read for so long, before you're sick of it for awhile, and they know all the pictures and can correctly tell you every animal, vegetable, vehicle, and geographical feature those books contain. What they see on the TV and computer supplements their learning opportunities.

Based on my experiences, I have to call bullshit on this politically correct article, and those like it.

</comment><comment><USER43> Some statistics and information from the 2008 book Parenting, Inc.:

"A nationally representative study from the 1990s found that only 17 percent of children under one were watching television and fewer than half of children between the ages of one and two watched. In a 2006 study of 1,009 parents, 40 percent of babies were watching TV or DVDs/videos by three months; the average baby started watching videos at six months and regular television at ten months." Source: Parenting, Inc., p. 142

"Knowing that television viewing by children under the age of three is associated with reduced reading scores on tests that measure reading recognition, reading comprehension, and memory makes these statistics all the more alarming. Surveys show that children six and under spend three times more time in front of a TV, computer, or video game each day than they do reading." (p. 143)

Today [2008], a Baby Einstein DVD retails for $19.99, and those aimed at children under two account for $1 billion in sales." (p. 120)

"In a 2004 survey by the nonprofit Zero to Three, 82 percent of parents were comfortable or very comfortable with children under two watching television, and 89 percent were satisfied with the quality of available videos. By the age of twenty-four months, 90 percent of babies are regularly watching TV, DVDs, and videos for an average of an hour and a half per day. When asked in a nationwide study why they exposed their babies to media under the age of two, despite explicit warnings against it from the medical profession, parents said 'education.'" (p. 126)

"A 2005 study of 1,000 children published in Archives of Pediatrics found that children who watch TV before age three have lower cognitive scores at age seven." (p. 131) "For each additional hour of daily TV viewing before age three, the chances of having attentional problems increased 10 percent; a child who watched two hours a day on average was 20 percent more likely to have attention problems." (p. 131)

"Studies show that high levels of television viewing before age three are associated with subsequent bullying, and impaired reading and mathematical proficiency. A 2006 study in Pediatrics found that the more television children under five watch, the less likely they are to engage in creative play." (p. 130)

"According to Dimitri Christakis, the director of the Child Health Institute at the University of Washington, overstimulation is damaging to the developing mind. The brain's orienting reflex, first described by Ivan Pavlov (of the famous dog), is triggered when a baby hears a strange sight or sound: He can't help but focus. Rapidly changing colors, sounds, and motions force a baby's brain to stay at attention. Each time her gaze might wander, action rivets her mind back to the screen. [...] Parents say, 'My child can't stop looking at it! She Loves it!' Christakis said. 'Well, true, she can't stop looking at it, but that does not mean she loves it.'"

"A 2007 study by Christakis, Meltzoff, and their colleague Frederick Zimmerman found that for every hour per day spent watching baby DVDs and videos, infants understand an average of six to eight fewer words than infants who did not watch them. Not surprisingly, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no television viewing before age two-- a fact of which only 6 percent of parents are aware, even though the warning was established in 1999." (p. 132)

"While certain types of media exposure can be beneficial to three- and four- year-olds--the best example is Sesame Street, which has been shown in reliable studies to help some preschoolers with learning skills--there is no evidence that exposure before that age is a good idea and plenty to suggest that it's harmful. In fact, watching even Sesame Street before age two is associated with delayed language..." (p. 133)

"In an experiment conducted by a Georgetown University researcher, parents were explicitly told that videos were to be shown to their babies in order to determine whether or not babies could learn from TV and videos. Many of the parents then told the researcher that they had already read research supporter the videos' educational value. But they couldn't possibly have done so--no such research exists. Parents have clearly absorbed the advertising and marketing messages implying educational value and assumed there was proof behind the promises. One thirty-three-year-old stay-at-home mom told me she tried to get her son to watch educational television, but he just didn't seem interested, and she would try out Baby Einstein DVDs instead if they weren't so expensive. 'I Personally think it helps them with speech, learning to say words, and the alphabet,' she said." (p. 134)

"Patricia Kuhl, who studies language acquisition at the University of Washington, conducted an experiment in which a native Mandarin speaker played with a group of babies for an hour a day while speaking Chinese. Through laboratory testing, she found that babies were subsequently able to recognize Mandarin sounds. But not one of the three control groups-- a set of babies who saw the Chinese speaker play with babies on a video, another group who listened to an audio recording of the Chinese woman playing, and a third group who had no exposure to the Chinese speaker-- were able to distinguish Mandarin sounds from English ones. It turns out that in order for a baby to learn a foreign language, a foreign-language-speaking human being needs to be present." (p. 122)

"In one study of two-and-a-half-year-olds, it took six viewings of a video to accomplish what a single live demonstration could do with simple-step operations like removing a mitten or playing with a puppet, a gap that has come to be known as the video deficit. Research has also suggested that while children can learn new words from watching TV, videos are less effective than live experiences, particularly for viewers under two." (p. 131)

"A 2005 study in American Behavioral Scientist concluded, 'Although the experimental studies are still few, they are remarkably consistent in indicating a video deficit for children 24 months and younger. Although there is some learning indicated by some of the studies, the learning is dramatically less than found for equivalent live displays.'" (p. 124)

<comment><USER44> In school we studied research that correlated how many of hours of TV a day a person watched, and life expectancy. As many people thought the more tv you watched your life expectancy fell.

When you first hear that it sounds like TV can reduce your years on earth.

When they took a close look though they found a confounding variable; health care.

Those who watched more TV tended to be poorer, and thus had less healthcare. It's possible that the same thing is happening in this group of research as well.

<comment><USER43> "It's possible that the same thing is happening in this group of research as well."

In this case we already know that the most important mediating variables for predicting outcomes on the relevant measures are parent-child talk and self- directed play, so it's very easy to see how each hour of watching TV causes increasing damage. I'm sure some of the gap is because of mere correlation, but it's also clear that TV watching itself is a huge part of the problem if only because it prevents the child from getting the types of interactions they need for their brains to develop properly. (whether or not the TV itself fries their dopamine system or whatever directly is still an open question.)

<comment><USER44> I think that is a good argument. Isn't the main premise of your argument that parents should spend more time with their kids talking.

Like it seems as if TV is being specially berated when it could really be anything that takes time away from interacting with your child that is bad.

<comment><USER43> It's not just that you're not interacting with them, it's that it's preventing them from engaging in self-directed play, which is necessary for developing executive function among other things.

The reason TV is being singled out specifically is because it's basically causing permanent brain damage in 90+% of kids. Sure, there are other ways of fucking up your kids as well, but in terms of what people are actually doing TV is at or near the top of the list.

All these people who think it's ok to let their kids watch 'just an hour' of TV per day are probably why ADHD now effects over 9% of kids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> No TV is so 1990. Really, today 'No TV' would be easy to achieve while still overdosing on Youtube, netflix and so on.

Computers screens are more often than not the delivery vector for your daily dose of passive consumption. And it's not just the desktop machines either, it's the iPads and the phones that happily join in.

Even not having a TV no longer means that you are immunized against this, and being without internet access is far worse than not having cable.

For one the internet is far more addictive in many ways (think minecraft, the various role playing games and social websites) and besides that it has so many legitimate uses that one could easily burn up a whole day without ever leaving the comfy chair in front of the big tft in consumptive mode without so much as a glance at the television.

<comment><USER43> By TV they mean video content, it's still TV even if you're watching it on your computer.

<comment> jim-greer Actually a lot of it is specific to TV, because some families just leave it on in the background all the time:

"I like to call it secondhand TV," said Dr. Brown... Studies cited in the guidelines say that parents interact less with children when the television is on, and that a young child at play will glance at the TV — if it is on, even in the background — three times a minute.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I don't think that watching TV is _categorically_ bad, i.e. the content and the amount is important. I think when pediatricians make this recommendation they mean "a totally attentive parent vs. regular TV programming", which, of course is not always the case. Watching an educational program, e.g. Barney or Sesame Street, etc. may be much better than sitting in a room with an inattentive (e.g. reading the paper) parent (or worse one who's on edge).

For me, TV refers to the device itself, not to programming. My son only watches content from Netflix and PBS Kids (the latter does have brief sponsor messages).

<comment><USER43> "I don't think that watching TV is categorically bad, i.e. the content and the amount is important."

That's just plain false. The content does matter between ages 3 and 5, but before age two the content is irrelevant because of the video deficit.

<comment><USER46> Well, what I meant was content in the sense that grown-up material and commercials. I don't think watching news on TV with your one year old will have the same effect as watching Barney.

<comment><USER43> "I don't think watching news on TV with your one year old will have the same effect as watching Barney."

The only thing that might make a difference is how many times the camera angle changes per minute, but other than that there shouldn't be any difference between content made for adults and content made for kids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47>
      "As always, the children who are most at risk are exactly
      the very many children in our society who have the fewest
      resources," Alison Gopnik, a psychologist at the
      University of California, said in an e-mail.

Indeed. And such "at-risk" children often inherit genes predisposing them to exactly the kinds of issues the studies uncover (and blame on watching too much TV). The problem is that most of these studies don't control for genes; there's no way to tell if TV-watching is the source of the problems or if it's the genes of the parents who let their babies watch lots of TV. Until the studies are re-done while controlling for genes, the conclusions (and the corresponding recommendations) are useless.

Parents who read a lot to their children have children who grow up to be more verbal. But parents who read a lot to their children also tend to pass on genes for verbal fluency. Studies that adequately control for genes show that reading to children does virtually nothing for their verbal ability—it's all in the genes, and in random events over which the parents have no control. See [http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_b...](http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate.html) and [http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial- Nature/dp/01...](http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial- Nature/dp/0142003344/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318992847&sr=8-1) for more.

</comment><comment><USER48> Awesome! I laughed at the "secondhand TV" part. Good article that reminds me of another I recently read talking about getting away from being distracted (like this article) and spending time letting your brain work: [http://www.fastcompany.com/1700298/what-happened-to- downtime...](http://www.fastcompany.com/1700298/what-happened-to-downtime-the- extinction-of-deep-thinking-and-sacred-space)

</comment><comment><USER49> I can relate to this. My son was watching TV when he was 2 or so (stupid Baby Einstein - we were thinking we were doing a good things). But, then he started having problem with speaking. Went to speech therapists and things: but the thing which helped the most is: no more TV.

Apparently, at that age the biggest problem is that kids can't pick up language and speech by watching videos.

</comment><comment><USER50> When I was a student, I definitely let my son watch too much television (now he has ADHD - not sure if they're related - but from studies it sounds like they're connected). It was a babysitting tool and I couldn't afford daycare in the evening as well when I had to study. Now, we have a nanny and our kids hardly watch tv at all. Our baby seems to be drawn to the iPad and iPhones and we're keeping these away from her. We're smarter and definitely not student 'poor' anymore and this has definitely affected how much tv our other kids watch.

</comment><comment><USER51> So many comments seem to gloss over the fact that kids are very different and what works for you is cool and all, but not necessarily going to work for others.

Going with no TV is noble, good for you. But going from heavy use to no use is not necessarily the reason your child is doing so good. There is a balance is that balance is unique to each child.

<comment><USER52> From the article: "Watching television or videos is discouraged for babies younger than 2 because studies suggest it could harm their development, a pediatricians' group said Tuesday."

But you say: "There is a balance is that balance is unique to each child."

How do you know that there "is a balance unique to each child"? Do you have studies to backup your assertion similar to those cited in the article?

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm glad the study excluded interactive educational games, which I think can be very beneficial when used in moderation along with reading and creative play.

</comment><comment><USER54> I will not make my kids watch TV until they are old enough for school. Why would I?

</comment><comment><USER55> I find it somewhat strange that video games are OK (it's on a screen but interactive) and I guess live theater is OK (it's passive but not on a screen), but the combination of passively watching something on a screen is not OK.

<comment><USER56> Video games allow the user to interact with the media and cause reactions to input. It allows us to explore causality at a very personal level, even though the systems and entities invovled are entirely virtual.

Live theater allows the user to control what to focus on during each scene. If there is a conversation, we can choose who the "camera" is pointing at. We are also looking at real human beings interacting with each other. The experience is mildly interactive.

Passive screen-based media gives us neither set of choices.

<comment><USER55> How is looking at an image of live human beings "worse" than looking at live human beings (which is ultimately an image too)? If the child is given a remote control, does that count as interactivity since he can choose what to look at while exploring causality?

By the way, I'm not arguing that TV is good for kids. I'm just trying to analyze the argument in favor of preventing infants from watching passive screen media.

<comment><USER57> If you try going to see some live theatre in person, I think you'll understand the difference between it and television.

<comment><USER55> I understand that they are different. I wanted to know why one is worse for child development.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> People should not do studies into parenting. Parents should use their damn common sense. Everything in moderation.

<comment><USER59> There is no such thing as 'common sense'. Everyone learnt what they know. Genetics alone gives you a series of reflexes, some body changes and a few basic urges. Everything else was learnt somewhere, somehow and at some time. The only 'common' part is where you learn something or experience something in much the same way as someone else. We do not all share the same collective experiences.</comment></comment>


Ideas Are Cheap, Building is Hard: Daniel Burka - <AUTHOR> http://sprouter.com/blog/ideas-are-cheap-building-is-hard/ <comment><USER2> And selling/monetizing stuff is even harder.</comment>


Google OpenSocial: Common APIs For Building Social Apps - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/30/details-revealed-google-opensocial-to-be-common-apis-for-building-social-apps/#respond <comment><USER2> I wonder if this will track parts of the OpenID movement? Many have registering more than once and everyone doesn't want to have to type too much stuff in to get what they need, while advertisers want to know more about you. OpenID doesn't provide that just yet, but perhaps it will.

</comment><comment><USER3> This begs the question if all of these social networks share the same information why use one over the other?

</comment><comment><USER4> social web is far beyond one platform or the next, fb may be winning vs. myspace, but they are leaps and bounds from nearing google.

this is big news for startups - there are a lot of great bits to use from this.</comment>


Design patterns in modern JavaScript development - <AUTHOR> https://levelup.gitconnected.com/design-patterns-in-modern-javascript-development-ec84d8be06ca <comment><USER2> From skimming this post, it seems a very short retelling of the classic gang of 4 patterns for very junior developers without any details specific for JS. I was really hoping to read the new JS patterns that have emerged out of new and shiny features of JS, like classes - last time I was seriously working with that language, "The Good Parts" was the best source of information and prototype inheritance was all the rage.

<comment><USER3> Also just skimmed it and concur; article barely delivers on its title, if at all.

Currently working with modern JS myself in context of Node (after a long hiatus that largely predates ES6), and the trend with frameworks in that space seems to be minimalism combined with composability. Guessing this is due in part to the whole microservices phenomenon in past years, or more probably developers just being fed up with monolithic frameworks in general.

Personally I think strict adherence to and/or overuse of most design patterns is itself an anti-pattern, though there are notable exceptions (namely observables, which constitute a cornerstone of event and reactive architectures).</comment></comment>


Is advanced metrics the final nail in gamification's coffin? - <AUTHOR> http://www.information-age.com/industry/software/123458327/advanced-metrics-final-nail-gamifications-coffin

<comment><USER2> Anyone read the actual MIT report (registration required)? It's unclear from the linked article whether these comments reflect editorial vision, or data from the surveyed enterprises:

"... Knowing when the cutthroat, culture-killing loudmouth everyone in the office hates is making more cold calls provides limited benefit to sales reps. Bare-bones productivity metrics do not give sales managers the information they need to do the most important part of their job: offering strategic direction.

... A harsh reality is that many sales departments are a bureaucratic nightmare where employees feel they are not just disempowered, but also lost as to how to get better.

... Used properly, advanced metrics are another form of efficient coaching. When they communicate clearly and directly to the employee, they empower the employee to grow on his or her own, and they give the big picture of performance."</comment>


Modeling the Human Trajectory - <AUTHOR> https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/modeling-human-trajectory <comment><USER2> Angus Maddison's estimates of historical GDP are outdated now. I'd look at works like Broadberry's China, Europe and the Great Divergence: A Study in Historical National Accounting, 980-1850 [1].

[1][https://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/oxford-economic-and-social- hi...](https://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/oxford-economic-and-social-history- working-papers/china-europe-and-the-great-divergence-a-study-in-historical- national-accounting-980-1850)

</comment><comment><USER3> > The human economy has grown super-exponentially. The bigger it has gotten, > the faster it has doubled, on average. The global economy churned out $74 > trillion in goods and services in 2019, twice as much as in 2000.

Let's ban ads already.</comment>


Microsoft Hit With Another Multimillion Patent Loss in Texas - <AUTHOR> http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202446412310&Microsoft_Hit_With_Another_MultimillionDollar_Loss_in_Texas

<comment><USER2> The plaintiff is "a 12-man operation that gets most of its revenue from licensing its intellectual property".

So they sue people who use stuff they've patented but don't actually use themselves.

Patent law badly needs to change.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, VirnetX look like a "non-practicing entity". Their website talks about "products" but it's clear their whole business relies on "intellectual property", whatever that is.

<comment><USER4> NPEs are not bad per se. Imagine I have invented (as in done the physics and made sure it's correct) energy generation process that requires a billion dollar device to be built. NPEs can invent things they can't really build.

The problem is not in NPEs. It's in bad patents. Ideas and processes should not be patentable. Period.

<comment><USER5> The flaw in your argument defending NPEs is that even if the physics is correct there will be countless engineering challenges to overcome between the theoretical invention and the actual working billion dollar device. I put forth that the form of the invention _after_ it has gone through that process of building a real protype will be qualitatively different than the theoretical one the NPE designed. So, the patent for the theoretical device will be next to worthless to society because it doesn't represent the form of something that will actually work. Yet, under current patent law the NPE would be able to extort money from the company that did build the actual working form.

One problem IS that NPEs should not be allowed. There should be several requirements for a patent: 1. You must produce an actual, working prototype. 2. If some period of time (say, 2 years) elapses during which you're not physically producing copies of the device for sale, you should lose the patent right and it becomes public domain. Trademarks have to be defended to be kept; patents should have to be backed with _production_ to be kept. 3. Patents should be non-transferable. Companies should not be allowed to own patents, only inventors; the inventor can give license to a company to make his invention.

<comment><USER6> So an R&D firm shouldn't be able to get patents, only someone who does R&D plus manufacturing?

I ask that because the startup where I work part-time does R&D for scientific equipment and we then license the technology to companies that are interested in possible manufacturing. Many companies would rather license a patent, and be the exclusive manufacturer than have to invest in the R&D themselves.

And by the way, many (hardware) technologies require a significant amount of time to bring from the conceptual stage to manufacturing stage, especially when you have limited, such as a startup might.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Patent trolls are such a problem because the usual economics that protect a company from suit (eg. being countersued) don't apply since the patent troll doesn't actually produce anything that could infringe. This is a great example of exactly that.

</comment><comment><USER8> From the sounds of this report, cases hinge on how personable the main lawyer seems to be.

<comment><USER4> That could be a geo-social problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's interesting though because Microsoft would have to lose probably hundreds of these cases before they would be in support of removing software patents given the amount that they have.

<comment><USER10> I think Microsoft would abolish the patent system in a heartbeat if they could. What part of their operation depends on the successful prosecution of their patents?

<comment><USER11> There's a lot of speculation that patents are Microsoft's next big money earner. They hired the guy responsible for generating 2 Billion a year in patent fees for IBM.

He's written a book, called _Burning the Ships: Intellectual Property and the Transformation of Microsoft_ which makes for interesting reading:

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10215905-16.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >> NPEs should not be allowed.

If so, then the industrial revolution of the 19th century and much of our nown technological progress more recently would never have happened. Research conducted by B. Zorina Khan and Kenneth Sokoloff found that 2/3 of the 400 "Great Inventors" of the 19th century (including Thomas Blanchard and Thomas Edison) were NPEs.

In fact, what was hisorically unique about the American patent systemn was that it was the first in the world aimed agt encouraging ordinary workers, farmers and artisans to participate in inventive activity. So even though most such inventors didn't have the capital to manufacture their products and inventions themselves, they licensed their discoveries to large firms who could.

The trend continues today. In fact, that's why people like Roger Hoffman, perhaps the most prolific patentee of new environmental and anti-pollution technologies, are able to keep inventing -- i.e., by licensing their discoveries to larger firms.

</comment><comment> tomh- I wonder why all those tech companies don't team up and hire a bunch of lobbyist to get rid of this system as soon as possible. Is this because they lose the ability to sue their own competitors when things get though?

Thank god we don't have these lawsuits in Europe.

<comment><USER13> The tech sector is only one sector of the economy. Even if they did want to change there may be other industries that would push against it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't disagree with burning patent trolls at the stake... but why does it always seem that if something happens in Texas, it has to be called out specifically as if we don't have enough misinformed stigmas hanging over our head? Maybe it's my own personal bias taking offense but it just seems way to common considering the size and diversity of the state.

Sorry to sidetrack, just annoys me. Living in Austin I'm seeing a flight of out-of-state workers looking for economic refuge from so many of the other bankrupt and poorly managed states. Texas has pretty sound economic policies and infrastructure if I don't say so myself.

<comment><USER15> The Eastern District of Texas is particularly notorious for being very favorable to plaintiffs in patent lawsuits (it's even specifically called out in the Wikipedia article on patent trolls), so it's notable that this happened in Texas both because a disproportionately large number of such cases happen there and because Microsoft had previously lost a patent suit in this exact same courtroom.

Perhaps Texas gets unfairly attacked in other areas, but when it comes to patent lawsuits there really is a pretty serious problem there.

<comment><USER16> EDT is not particularly favorable to plaintiffs. Defendants, especially in the last couple of years, have been doing quite well.

The main reason plaintiffs choose EDT is that its a "rocket docket". A rocket docket is a district where civil trials are speedy. There are a couple reasons for EDT currently being a patent rocket docket.

First, it has handled many patent cases, so it has judges who know how to handle patent cases. That came about because one particular judge, I believe Judge Ward, worked on a big patent case just before becoming a judge. He enjoyed the intellectual challenge (patent cases are among the most complicated), and so after becoming a judge, he jumped on any patent cases that showed up in his district, which in turn started attracting patent cases. Some of those would get assigned to the other judges, and so they developed expertise at handling patent cases. Hello, feedback loop.

Second, EDT doesn't have much crime. Criminal cases have higher priority than civil cases (because of the right to a speedy trial in criminal cases). In districts where there is a lot of crime, the courts are so backlogged with criminal cases (thanks, stupid "War on Drugs") that a civil case can take years to even get to preliminary hearings.

Whether you are a plaintiff or a defendant in a patent case, one thing you want is for it to be over as fast as possible. I've been involved in such a case, and even though I loath traveling, given the choice between going 2000 miles to Texas and having the thing over in a year, versus having it in the local district, and having it take five years, I'd pick Texas.

From a programmer's point of view, here's what its like when your employer is involved in a patent suit (on either side). First, you have to be careful in all recorded communications, because those are subject to discovery requests-- so if you want to talk to another programmer about something even remotely related to the patented technology, you need to go actually talk in person, or over the phone--no email.

Second, there are discovery requests. You'll be required to produce everything relevant you have, and the lawyers expect you to be thorough. You have no idea how many places old code can hide until you've had to respond to a discovery request. (And its not just code--they want all documents relevant to the patented technology).

As your lawyers prepare their case, they will have questions. You'll get calls at 9 PM (in the timezone of the court that the suit is filed in, not your time zone) asking questions about source code. The lawyers need the answer to file a motion that is due in three hours. The code is 10 year old code that you haven't looked at in 9 years, and you weren't even the main developer. But you'd better be able to answer the question, 'cause a lot of money is riding on it.

Oh, and there are depositions. That's where the other side gets to have a couple days to ask you questions about that 10 year old source code, and also ask you about all kinds of emails and other things they received in discovery. Try this, check all your email for a week about your current projects, and ask yourself "is there any way a hostile lawyer could use this email to make me look bad?". For most, the answer is "yes". Some joking reference to a competitor that was funny at the time, say, is not at all funny when you are sitting in a room full of lawyers, being video taped as they ask you questions about it.

This is all very disruptive. It's barely tolerable for a year. Five years...ugh!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Microsoft must love these cases. Sure, they lose some money each time. Much more important is that ambitious small competitors will be discouraged from entering the software industry at all. What could be better for the monopolist?

Aren't Microsoft lobbyists working hard to support bad software patents and patent trolling in Washington? The best thing for our industry would be that M'soft lose billions every year on these cases and shape up to support reform.</comment>


Celeste: A New Model for Cataloging the Universe - <AUTHOR> http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/09/09/celeste-a-new-model-for-cataloging-the-universe/ <comment><USER2> Well done!</comment>


Book Idea? - <AUTHOR> Hey folks, thinking about writing a book titled 'Political Autonomy', similar to Plato's Republic where it discusses how near future tech (AI, IoT, ect.) can be applied to structure the ideal political system across each aspect (Foreign Relations, Economy, Judicial System, ect.) What are your thoughts? <comment><USER2> From my perspective, something like this might be more impactful as a sci-fi novel rather than nonfiction. I don't expect a book like this to be terribly impactful, except insofar as it shapes people's imaginations of what could be, or could have been.</comment>


Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates Join Forces to Invest in Clean Energy Technology - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/29/breakthrough-energy-coalition/ <comment><USER2> Classic TechCrunch.

* Watch the Washington Post feed, notice the article trending in tech "Obama, Bill Gates to lead major effort to spur spending on climate research"

* Change to a more tech-friendly, less politicized title "Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates Join Forces To Invest in Clean Energy Technology"

* Include a broken link ("[http://mission-innovation.net/"](http://mission-innovation.net/")) to first of the two organizations noted, Mission Innovation.

* Don't bother linking to the organization's actual website [http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/](http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/)

I am bitching because I'm so protective of HN, just wish we could link to a better source.

<comment><USER3> That's really how media works. Everyone reposts the same story in their version.

Here is the headline from Indian news paper for the same: Bill Gates, Ratan Tata, Mukesh Ambani and others join hands to give push to clean energy through innovations.

Notice that Mark Zuckerberg is missing in headline and 2 Indian billionaires are added.

Source: [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-w...](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global- warming/Bill-Gates-Ratan-Tata-Mukesh-Ambani-and-others-join-hands-to-give- push-to-clean-energy-through-innovations/articleshow/49976922.cms)

Edit: If you read the timeofindia article, you would think its a initiative pushed by India. If you read the comments on the article, you would think Indian Prime Minister Modi is making it happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps i misunderstand things, but i feel like carbon-neutral solutions are not the answer in the long term struggle against climate change. The entire world contributes greenhouse gasses, but only a few nations are taking steps to mitigate these emissions. Even then, the large focus is on carbon specifically. it strikes me that greenhouse-negative technologies will be the only real answer here.

<comment><USER5> CO2 is the dominant forcing greenhouse gas, and accounting on it is fairly straightforward so it makes sense to focus on that.

I agree that it's not enough though. We need both carbon neutral technology now as well as carbon capture in the future. However it is an order of magnitude or more easier to not emit now than it is to capture in the future, so we absolutely mush transition to carbon neutral as soon as possible, then use excess intermittent renewable energy to capture co2 from the air. We also need to incentivize that with carbon credits of some sort so that there are market forces.

That's what Paris is about, and why we need to be pushing our US politicians to ask for much more than what the Obama administration is going to ask for. We need much more aggressive strategies.

<comment><USER6> To be fair to Obama, it matters little what he does or does not want. He has no hope in getting anything really meaningful approved by the Senate before his term is over. It is just not going to happen.

<comment><USER7> Senators, 'dellow felegates', in response to this direct threat to the Republic, Mesa propose that the Senate give immediately emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> WELL DONE CHAPS! Hopefully this will push governments into contributions of equivalent relative magnitude - ie many times the 20 BN that ZuckerGates are valiantly contributing.

</comment><comment><USER9> Bill Gates's intro video on the project: [https://youtu.be/YhgIY- Vghj4](https://youtu.be/YhgIY-Vghj4)

</comment><comment><USER10> "$20 billion by 2020"

The Pentagon will spend 150 times this by 2020.

It sounds like they're taking this climate change very seriously...

<comment><USER11> Source on the $3 trillion Pentagon budget?

<comment><USER12> The US is budgeted to spend $637 billion on the military in 2015. If the same is true for 2016-2019, the US will have spent $2.5 trillion. If you include 2020, then it's more than $3 trillion.

Source: [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=BUDGET-2015-TAB-5-1&packageId=BUDGET-2015-TAB&fromBrowse=true)

(Or you could just Google it...)</comment></comment></comment>


The secret U.S. stockpile meant to save us all in a bioterror attack - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/04/24/inside-the-secret-u-s-stockpile-meant-to-save-us-all-in-a-bioterror-attack/ <comment><USER2> There were stockpiles of supplies in Puerto Rico, too, but that didn't mean it was successfully distributed to the people who needed it.[1] Is there a secret plan for disbursing this stockpile to 300+ million Americans? If so, why wasn't that plan utilized in PR?

[1][https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/puerto-rico-fires- em...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/puerto-rico-fires-emergency- director-after-finding-warehouse-full-of-wasted-hurricane-maria-aid)

<comment><USER3> Who was in charge at the time delegating responsibility?

<comment><USER2> At the federal level, republicans, and at the local level, democrats. There's plenty of blame to go around without being partisan.

<comment><USER4> Aid was delivered to the island. Local officials failed to distribute it, apparently willfully. Abandoned/hidden aid is still being discovered in warehouses and other locations [1].

[1] [https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/797996503/political-unrest- in...](https://www.npr.org/2020/01/20/797996503/political-unrest-in-puerto- rico-after-discovery-of-unused-hurricane-aid)

<comment><USER5> That's insane. Do you know the reasoning for wastefully leaving supplies to rot? Is it laziness? It's one thing to keep supplies or money for yourself. But this isn't the case here.

<comment><USER4> I have heard speculation that it was to make the federal government look bad. Or perhaps the local government benefits from maintaining a crisis situation. I'm not Puerto Rican.

<comment><USER6> Probably some of both with the added bonus that the supplies could be sold slowly over time as the demand never collapsed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This story is really interesting to me.

Clearly, it's to give people a sense of security and calmness given a potential virus outbreak. But also feels like government PR to other governments, with a message of "If you're trying something, watch yourself."

Not trying to insinuate propaganda or elevate conspiracy. But anyone with a security background or who worked in disaster preparedness have any insight as to why an article like this would basically reveal a bunch about our national security? Seems to break most of my understood "Rules of Operational Security".

<comment><USER8> Everyone knows where the fire stations are. Civilian protection isn't usually secret. What's secret is the US bioweapons program.

<comment><USER9> Agree. While the government keeps citizens safe on one side, it is also actively involved in unlawful act of weaponizing pathogens. The first article in this magazine about mycoplasma gives us a briefing on this topic: [http://www.betterhealthguy.com/images/stories/PDF/PHA/2009_0...](http://www.betterhealthguy.com/images/stories/PDF/PHA/2009_07.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Note the article is from April 2018.

</comment><comment><USER11> There are lots of government emergency stockpiles around the country. Some secret. Some not.

If you go to Grand Canyon Caverns, just east of the Hualapai reservation, and take the tour, you can see the old stockpile from the 1940's. According to the tour guide, in the last five or ten years, the government has started adding to it again.

</comment><comment><USER12> Democracy dies at paywalls.

</comment><comment><USER13> Would someone please post the paywall bypass link?

Edit - [https://outline.com/KDNvtL](https://outline.com/KDNvtL)

<comment><USER14> Ublock, select block Java script, reload.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why do we still have paywalled articles on the first page?

<comment><USER2> You can open it in a private tab.

<comment><USER16> I think I'd switch to the browser that allows a per-site setting "always open in a private tab"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Color me shocked that an article that's supposed to be about some topic manages to find a way to convert itself into another "Trump Bad" story halfway through.

Is WaPo actually capable of writing an article that doesn't have a "Trump Bad" angle?

<comment><AUTHOR> The article had specific criticisms about the actions of a new administration. Do you have any specific issues with those criticisms or do you think administrations should be immune from criticism? Every new admin has it's own priorities.

<comment><USER17> The entire analysis starts from the assumption that any administration goal is inherently either a fabrication or misguided.

"efficiencies" is clearly just code word for destroying all things good, obviously, and totally not worth even considering whether there is any meaning to the idea. I mean, if Trump wants it, it must be bad amirite?

Occasionally, they quote folks, like Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University in support of Trump. But every time, they carefully treat the quote and the person as obviously either stupid or corrupted, surrounding the quote with statements like "But critics say it will allow biotech companies to lobby for more of their specialized, and often more expensive, drugs to be included[...]"

Direct quote from an expert, treated as obviously worthless, followed by a weasel-words "some critics" which is treated as the clearly superior refutation of the idea from the actual knowledgeable person.

It's almost like they started with a narrative of "Trump is trying to kill us all by destroying our disease preparedness" and then sat down to write an article that looked like journalism but actually just told that story.

<comment><AUTHOR> Trump's budget proposals always include big cuts to CDC's budget. After recent criticism of this, the administration said it is just a negotiation opening tactic.

i.e Basically, "Hey democrats, if you want more funds to fight pandemics to stop us all from dying, you gotta give us something else, like even bigger increases to the military budget and Space Force, or even more tax cuts to companies".

There used to be a pandemic specialist on the National Security Council, that position has been cut. Not to mention other positions.

[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic- team/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/)

Can you address these facts from Trump's perspective instead of just taking cheap shots at the media?

<comment><USER17> Wasting karma trying to respond to every Orange Man Bad that someone can dream up is not a particularly good use of my energy.

Go on believing he is the most evil man in all of human history of you like.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Three Laws of Robotics (for tech recruiters) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.davidtate.org/2011/11/the-three-laws-of-robotics-for-tech-recruiters/

<comment><USER2> I had a good laugh reading the post. I must say your comparison is spot on.

Thank you.</comment>


Show HN: Need1Hour.com - Please provide feedback - <AUTHOR>

The site is http://need1hour.com/.. The site was started by Len Kendall (aka the guy who proposed to his wife via buzzfeed.com) and after an initial success, 2 more of us jumped on.  Any feedback on the idea, etc would be appreciated. <comment><USER2> Clicky: <http://need1hour.com/>

Seems like a good idea and I personally think the price is decent. The design generally feels nice, but the coloured boxes ("Learn more" and on Kendall's page) somehow feel wrong; like the colours are a hue off or something.

</comment><comment><USER3> It a nice concept,and afaik original too , given the success of entrepreneurial cources a lot of people would be interested in this. Money could be a bit of issue though, 100$ for 1 hour could be a bit too much for some folks.</comment>


How Time Warner Cable Is Making Money Off of Unregistered Domains - <AUTHOR> http://blog.lawnstarter.com/post/101139554318/how-time-warner-cable-is-making-money-off-of

<comment><USER2> Advertisement is getting so much uglier nowadays. Worst part is that instead of exposing the company and give it good name, it only makes people like us disgusted at the fact that they're supporting this. Unfortunately, most people will never find out and maybe even the companies that are being advertised.

</comment><comment><USER3> What can legally be done to prevent something like this? It's worth noting that this is not nearly as bad as the kind of stuff that ISPs do in some other countries...

</comment><comment><USER4> The first time I saw this garbage, I reset my DNS to 220.127.116.11 (Google's). That way the error makes it to the browser and I can correct my typo.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's normal for squatters to put ads on the domain landing page. I don't see what the big deal is.

<comment><AUTHOR> The point is that it wasn't a squatter - it was the ISP. Squatters pay for the right to put ads on domains they owe. The ISP does not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is not limited to Time Warner. Verizon does it too.

</comment><comment><USER7> What next, ISP-provided 404 pages?

</comment><comment><USER8> this is some rather unethical stuff.</comment>


First version (1995) of the first german language online-newspaper recreated - <AUTHOR> http://derstandard.at/interaktiv/2015-01-netscape-emulator/

<comment><USER2> "Modification Date: Donnerstag, 2. Februar 1995"

Wikipedia says that "Spiegel Online" was slightly earlier with a release date of October 25th 1994. Even the first with some conditions "the first online presence of an established news magazine, one day before the Time site". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_Online](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_Online)

<comment><AUTHOR> the slight difference is that "der standard" is a daily newspaper. "der spiegel" is a weekly magazine.

<comment><USER3> The other being that Der Standard is Austrian, Der Spiegel is German, so you could say this is the first Austrian daily news site on the web? It's what their page says, too:

>Als erste österreichische Tageszeitung im World Wide Web (WWW) bietet Ihnen der STANDARD aktuelle Nachrichten und Kommentare

As the first Austrian daily newspaper in the WWW the STANDARD offers you current news and comments

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> YO DAWG [https://imgflip.com/i/gvgkj](https://imgflip.com/i/gvgkj)</comment>


Magento CE 1.7 forked on github by the community - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mageplus/mageplus

<comment><AUTHOR> There's an additional blog post discussing the why of this fork on [http://blog.mayflower.de/archives/868-Magento- CE-1.7-forked-...](http://blog.mayflower.de/archives/868-Magento- CE-1.7-forked-on-GitHub.html)</comment>


Ask HN: HN for DIY'ers? Is there such a thing? - <AUTHOR>

I was wondering if anyone here knew of a "feed" type site like HN that was for DIY-related topics.
I love building stuff and learning about building stuff. Would be cool to see something like this platform, but all about fun DIY projects.
The Instructables home page is pretty cool, but not quite what I was looking for. <comment><USER2> [http://reddit.com/r/DIY](http://reddit.com/r/DIY)

</comment><comment><USER3> As someone who has recently gotten super interested in soldering and other DIY matters, I would too love to have a central hub for news and relevant stuff in this subject… :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds like a project in the making.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem is that places like HN perverted the term "Hacker" by making it a synonym of developer/coder, which in previous meanings covered what you call "DIY'ers".

Everybody around here calls himself a hacker, when in the past it was more an achievement than just a job you can choose.

<comment><AUTHOR> True story, haha.

I also remember used to be that "Hacker" in the programming context was looked down upon. Meaning, you had no idea what you were doing (you were a "hack") or you were up to no good (black hat).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Some fraction of HN users are professionals in the primary fields it covers. By definition DIY'ers are not professionals.

</comment><comment><USER6> You might want to check out hometalk.com - thousands of DIY ideas and projects, with lots of community interaction.

</comment><comment><USER7> hackaday.com (not exactly the same because you can't submit links yourself but lively comments threads and forums)</comment>


Ask HN: Ways to transfer money among users? - <AUTHOR>

I'm building a web app that will (hopefully) include a feature that allows users to send money to each other.  I'd like User A to be able to enter his credit card info and charge money that User B would receive in the form of a check or direct deposit.
My initial research indicates that I can't just get a merchant account, accept payments, and then write the checks myself.  Based on Tipjoy's experience, I'd need money transfer agent licenses for this.  Is that correct?
Assuming it is, anyone know any good alternatives?  Amazon FPS is the obvious choice, but it has two major downsides: (1) it's relatively expensive and (2) users have to login to their Amazon account to make the payment, which adds another step to the process and looks unprofessional.
Anyone know any alternatives to Amazon FPS for this situation?  There are sites like Eimburse (http://www.eimburse.com/) that seem to pull this off without all the licenses, but I have no idea how they do it. <comment><AUTHOR> As a follow-up, Buxfer uses Amazon FPS. It's interesting because "Financial Intermediaries and Money Service Businesses" are prohibited from using FPS (<https://payments.amazon.com/sdui/sdui/about?acceptableuse>), and Buxfer would seem to fall under this category. But apparently they haven't run into any trouble yet.</comment>