Show HN: I wrote a crowd-source supported "aisle finder" - <AUTHOR>

http://cartcombine.com
I dislike floundering in grocery stores wandering around looking for things.  My goals were to get in and out of stores as quickly as possible.  I've looked into products like aisle finder but it's behind a paywall and the reviews were bad for the product.
For right now you can make searches, create products, create stores, tie them to individual stores and give them attributes.  I wanted to concentrate on making it easy to use with a clean interface.  This isn't limited to grocery stores either.  If there's an aisle with a price, it can go into this site.
I am the only developer, it took me six months to write from start to MVP and I'm really excited to show it off.
I'm hoping I can make this grow into a self-governing grocery delivery service too, but that's phase 2.  I don't want to have to wait for instacart to come to my city, and really it should be publicly supported anyway.
This is completely free except when creating shopping lists, which is more of a convenience, and swapping from store to store will update the aisles that the products are in.  That feature is $5/month, but really, I feel the amount of time you're saving using something like this will be worth it.  Also by charging money I can make phase 2 become a reality.
You can also use it to find where a product might be before driving around looking for it.  Don't set a current store and do a search for it to discover it's location and price.
The data is sparse, but that's because only I am updating it right now.  Jump on board!
Any questions please ask!  It's been a long way coming but I feel pretty accomplished, and personally I enjoy using the site myself as well. <comment><USER2> I think you're going to have problems getting this off the ground for general consumers because the data is sparse. However, I think (based on your Krimpets example) that you could usefully target immigrant communities (international and interstate) for specific things. For example, I'm from Ireland, and of course there are particular kinds of foods that are very popular in Ireland and the UK that are hard to find in the US - rather than worrying which aisle they're in, my first hurdle is to just find a store that stocks them at all! Perhaps targeting particular groups like this could help you get the early adopters you need to achieve network effects.

<comment><AUTHOR> nice. good point, thanks for the feedback. i'm making it a personal endeavor to add 5 or so items every time i go shopping to help build a list. i def don't think this is a short term victory, but probably a year or so of working at it.</comment></comment>


IBM, Microsoft & Google Eras of Computing - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.zoho.com/general/ibm-microsoft-google-eras-of-computing/

<comment><USER2> Part 1: I have been thinking about the dominance portion of this for a while, and you put it into words. Thanks!

And, adding another segment to it, in terms of market-share IBM was/is the #1 in mainframes, msft is the #1 in operating systems and google is the #1 in search (#1 in terms of market share), and none of these companies were beaten, by going head to head.

IBM's hardware was beaten by Microsoft's software, which was beaten by the Internet and google's search.

Part 2: _The dominant technology company in a generation reaches its pinnacle at about half the size of the dominant company.._

How do you define size? Is it purely a function of number of employees, in which case it would not be fair, since productivity, computing power, technology and frameworks have all grown as well.

Part 3: I like Rich Skrenta's take on this as well, the view is different and well worth a read, "Winner-Take-All: Google and the Third Age of Computing" [http://www.skrenta.com/2007/01/winnertakeall_google_and_the_...](http://www.skrenta.com/2007/01/winnertakeall_google_and_the_t.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I use number of employees - I do agree productivity has increased, in fact, that is part of my point on why the dominant company could achieve its dominance with fewer people. In the limit, may be there will be a 1 person start-up that will be the dominant company of an era in future, and it will achieve its 15 minutes of fame ;-)

Thanks for pointing to Skrenta's post. I read Skrenta regularly, but I missed that one.

<comment><USER2> _In the limit, may be there will be a 1 person start-up that will be the dominant company of an era in future, and it will achieve its 15 minutes of fame ;-)_

Am I waiting for that day or what? :-)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What would it take to create a Facebook alternative? - <AUTHOR> The concept of Facebook is awesome (social sharing, pictures, events, groups, etc) but the approach Zuckerberg and team have taken has ruined it (tracking and monetizing every little thing anyone does on the site or app). What would it take to create a similar service that wasn't intrusive or exploit privacy (i.e. the actual goal was community and not making money off people). How would we grab mindshare from a service that has 2 billion members? <comment><USER2> The concept of Facebook was always terrible. Why do we need a single platform for people to congregate socially? We have a distributed platform built with common protocols and services that we can all use.

Let the web be distributed physically, organizationally, and socially. Let people congregate for purpose and not for the sake of congregation itself.

We are here on Hacker News because of a common interest. I belong to a number of sites fulfilling a way of connecting to people who share the same niche interests. I don't want everything under one roof or in a single walled garden. AOL failed and the Internet succeeded—stop trying to bring it back because it's more profitable for those that run it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Facebook's goal was never community. Its original goal was to compare your life with your friends' lives (remember it was derived from Facemash). What you propose sounds like Nextdoor. Take the best features of Nextdoor along with the best features from other platforms (e.g. Twitter's quips and slimness, Snapchat's impermanence, Mastodon's decentralization), and provide something _new_ , not something similar.

<comment><USER4> Did anyone use AboutFace?

"The day after college graduation was a busy day for Adam Grossman, a 1993 graduate of Williams College. He was becoming an entrepreneur, founding Atlantic Media Corporation (www.facebook.com), the creator of AboutFace. AboutFace is the computerized company-wide directory that maintains names, photographs, biographies, and floor plan locations for every employee in a company. AboutFace is accessible via a LAN or intranet from any computer within the company.

The idea behind AboutFace evolved while Grossman was still in college. He developed, printed and sold a facebook his freshman year that included students' photographs, home addresses, and birthdays. By using information already available in the Williams College database, he eliminated hours of typesetting and reduced production costs."

[https://web.archive.org/web/19991007181610/http://www.aboutf...](https://web.archive.org/web/19991007181610/http://www.aboutface.com/site/company_history.htm) [https://web.archive.org/web/20071020073143/http://www.aboutf...](https://web.archive.org/web/20071020073143/http://www.aboutface.com/about.html) [https://web.archive.org/web/20171120120522/https://answers.y...](https://web.archive.org/web/20171120120522/https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081105224058AApki9Y)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> In my opinion what it would absolutely require is a 2-syllable, easy to remember, brandable, minimally SEO contested, .com domain

I realise that's not all it would take but so far I haven't seen any social network[1] without that succeed. It's some severe survivorship bias but I think it's probably a ground floor requirement

The real answer is that the person or people that have the secret sauce don't know they have the answer and are already working on it without knowing it'll be the next big social network. We'll find out in a few years if they don't give up on it

[1] The full fat social networks where you have all of your friends, not ones that target a smaller segment of the pie (e.g pictures - Instagram)

<comment><USER6> What are you thinking of besides FB? MySpace you can count. Sure Friendster came first but its popularity was pretty small compared to now. Is there any other example if you're excluding Instagram?

<comment><USER5> myspace, friendster, twitter, bebo, orkut were the ones that came to mind

Not all great successes but more success than most

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Facebook's downfall as a service won't be another social service that has the same features but is distributed/blockchain/FOSS/quantum/whatever. Facebook has an enormous amount of resources and talent that will allow them to keep their moat in the social networking space.

No, its downfall will come from a paradigm shift in technology that renders the feed-style social network obsolete. This is how most behemoth companies fall, they don't get outcompeted at their own game, the game just changes around them. Maybe it'll be VR, maybe it'll be a virtual social assistant that has no browsable UI but helps you keep in real-time contact with the people you care about, maybe it'll be a new kind of device or screen or wearable that completely changes the game. But it won't be another social networking service.

<comment><USER8> I think we are already in the middle of a paradigm chance for everyday, social networking needs to more and more capable chat clients. Like Wechat, Telegram or even things like discord or slack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would suggest that the first and most important thing to have is a business plan that does not rely on any data gathering/advertising/tracking/privacy exploits. Without that, it's going to inevitably turn into Facebook (or Google, linked in, etc).

<comment><USER10> How to make money then? It at least has to be sustainable.

<comment><USER11> It has to be an alternative to Facebook, first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Any alternative wouldn't be that different from today's Facebook because when common users looks for social media platform they will always go to the one with the higher users base, most of them at least will do. Number often win on quality in that context, especially when money can buy well crafted PR campaigns. Pay a thousand handsome guys/girls to appear there, get some popular actors/bands on board, create controversial content and channels where people can fight each other and users will flock in.

We already have the technology and part of the infrastructure to build a decentralized alternative for people wanting more, they're called Usenet and p2p. I believe the NNTP protocol could be extended to exchange data using binary only compressed and encrypted blobs for text and small binaries. Should an user upload a bigger binary, it could be automatically diverted to a p2p trackerless environment (torrent+magnet for example) and its corresponding link (magnet link) added to the post so that followers can download at their will or choose to opt out. This could be either left to the server or the client, which of course need to be modified anyway to reflect the protocol changes. NNTP clients UIs could be updated to become more modern (discussion centered) not that different from the Geary email client (plus some gfx) for example.

I'm not expert in either of these platforms, that's just an idea that came to mind some months ago. Would it be feasible to invest in a NNTP resurrection rather than starting over?

<comment><USER13> The higher user base is important that´s right. But pay them to join might not be the best way. I would say, you need to analyze Facebook and their weaknesses. Then aim to solve those weaknesses with your product and use such failures of Facebook like last weak to convince Facebook user to join your product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Would this be possible to do this on top of regular email. I mean, it would be a glorified email list manager.

What is the core "thing" a social network provides that email is missing in emails?

Another thing that just occurred to me is that, Facebook really took off because of the creepy/stalking aspect of it. Because people shared stuff with people, that they wouldn't have shared other wise, exploiting their innate drive to show off...

To answer my own question, an email list will never let that happen.

And something like that ll never take off because of that. Or may be in the light of recent events, if those ends up reaching into the physce of the society deep enough, something like that just might...

<comment><USER15> Email falls apart with just regular work communication. I'd say forums were a lot better at it.

<comment><USER14> Didn't get you. What do you mean by "Email falls apart"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Back in the day, we used a mix of IRC+forums for community. There was nothing wrong with this back then and I imagine something similar is done by medium sized communities like EVE Online groups. Services like Slack make onboarding a lot easier than IRC too.</comment>


LILO development ends next month - <AUTHOR> It is stated on its site but developer is offering adoption to anyone who wants to move forward with it. It has basic GPT and RAID (so more work there) and also needs BTRFS love. <comment><USER2> tbh I didn't know it still was under active development. Last time I used LILO must be... 15 years ago?</comment>


World Bank envisions a +4°C future - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/11/world-bank-envisions-a-4c-future/ <comment><USER2> Unless the World Bank has climatologists on staff doing original research, this boils down to "we found a paper that we're basing our planning on". It's as relevant and interesting as "Boston Symphony envisions a world with quantum cryptography". Absent researchers on staff who can add something new or display some expertise in choosing to rebroadcast the news or not, I really don't care what the Boston Symphony's opinion is.

<comment><USER3> Many posters even here, however, seem to be unaware of climate cahnge. Providing a summary of current scientific results and a discussion of how it applies to your area of specialty is a valuable goal.

<comment><USER2> > Many posters even here, however, seem to be unaware of climate cahnge.

Based on what?

I grant you that many posters - even here - think that the science is uncertain or that the economics of trying to prevent it as opposed to deal with it are other than the press suggests.

...but I find it utterly wrong to say that people are not aware of the topic.

<comment><USER4> The logic is as follows:

1\. Believe that human-caused increases in CO2 cause catastrophic climate change. 2\. Therefore, anyone who doesn't agree doesn't know about climate change.

<comment><USER3> 1) No one in this thread has mentioned even anything approaching "catastrophic climate change"--you're attributing a position to others that they, especially me, do not hold. It's a matter of mitigation, prevention, and adaption, and the correct balance of those.

2) Having read a bunch of blog posts does not mean knowing about climate change. Herbal supplement and alternative medicine believers also have a vibrant community of email newsletters and advertorial magazines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What is it about global warming links that bring a deluge of totally stupid fallacious postings on Hacker News every time? There's almost not a single good comment here that would show even rudimentary understanding of the subject. I thought this was better than Slashdot.

\- "Climate has always changed." check. \- "I live in a cold place, I welcome warming." check. \- "We can just adjust." check.

Maybe check if your insightful argument has actually already been debunked here: <http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php>

<comment><USER6> Hacker News is mostly older white men, which is a demographic associated with Republicanism and Fox News watching in the United States. Understanding global warming is not going to be easy for them.

The reality is that every set of global warming predictions so far has understated the actual amount of warning observed. Models are giving too much weight to long-term stable trends over the recent data, plus scientists don't want to be tarred as "kooks" for having the most extreme projections. So if their model says 5C increase, it's probably low to start off with and it will be lowered more before publication, and it will end up underpredicting warming.

When you read about X or Y amount of warming, it's most likely to be a minimum, not a "most likely" and certainly not a maximum.

 _Current global warming observed has exceeded the absolute maximums predicted in previous generations of warming predictions._

<comment><USER3> That's false--Hacker News is a demographic mostly of younger white coastal American men who have no particular affection for Fox News. Because they tend to be higher income, they have libertarian tendencies, one of which is denialism.

You're also getting a skewed view. Climate change posts on HN always drive out the people with the strongest opinions: an actual poll of HNers would likely have them supporting the consensus position.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Fortunately this isn't one of those "we are doomed unless you give us money" but its probably leading to one of those types of proposals.

This is a worst case scenario. It even goes as far as stating it may not be possible to prevent and simply lists possible outcomes; climate science is not exact.

So what do I take away from it? Nothing much. Its nothing we haven't seen before, most predictions are being pushed far enough out so they cannot be invalidated.

If the temperature does change as drastically as they suggest why do they think we would not be adjusting as well? A lot can happen in the span of two or three generations. New technologies can minimize if not eliminate the effects.

Look, we went through scares of overrunning the planet with people, mass starvation and disease were to be rampant but it didn't happen, we simply grew into our new existence and population numbers. We certainly can grow into most changes to the planet. Until the change is drastic enough to end life on this planet we will adjust to it. I do not think short of nuclear war we can even engineer that.

<comment><USER3> A couple things:

1) "overrunning the planet with people, mass starvation and disease were to be rampant"

These were never consensus viewpoints. Anthropogenic climate change, in the low to mid single degrees Celsius, is.

2) There's a whole lot wrapped up in the word adjusting. If it's to mean anything more than "survive" (as a species--many individuals' lives would be cut short), it has to include an active component.

We "adapted" to the ozone hole. Yes, that involved new technologies and habits like better sunscreen and norms around using it. But it also involved people getting together and banning substances that contributed to the problem. That made individual-level adaption much less costly than it would have been otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Thus far we have done precisely zilch about global warming. Nothing, nada, not a thing. Every significant target has been missed, every opportunity for increased use of fossil fuels has been taken, nuclear power is now practically-speaking off the table, and now that the Arctic ice cap is retreating, we're taking the opportunity to drill for more oil under it!

We have evolved under natural selection pressures to maximise our exploitation of the world around us - the winning apes were those that could make bigger & sharper tools, bigger fires, bigger farms. The idea that mankind has somehow veered away from the 'natural' path, that he is a 'disease' (the Matrix's Agent Smith), could not be further from the truth. _Every_ organism competing in Earth's biosphere is trying to maximise their resource usage, maximise their mastery over the environment.

Our problem is that we have succeeded! We have grown to dominate the entire planet, and (Elon Musk notwithstanding) that's a hard limit. So we have what Iain Banks calls an 'outside context problem'. The strategies our genes have evolved over eons are now insufficient: there is no more competition between Man and anyone else. Even the competition of one human tribe against another is lessening, now that the big tribes have nuclear weapons.

Solving this problem will require post-Darwinian strategies. Getting to the point where that is a realistic prospect will be highly non-trivial.

<comment><USER9> Yes us evil Eukaryotes are responsible for the demise of this planet. Why don't we all do the honourable thing and kill ourselves rather than solving the climate problems with taxation and working out how to trade carbon and leverage trade sanctions to gain more tangible but useless bits of metal and plastic...

I mean those sulphur breathing bacteria which we oxygenated out of existence are utterly pissed at us now.

For those who don't get my comment: we don't know how the planet works. Don't know what our impact is. Oh and the climate changes anyway without our intervention which may cause our demise or not - just go with the flow.

<comment><USER5> I'm not exactly sure if I understood your comment.

But we know quite a lot about how the planet works and what our impact is. We don't know everything, but we know a lot more than nothing.

It's like sending a blind person over a busy road. If you do it when the pedestrian light is red, you might not know which car might hit her at what velocity, but you know that the outcome is quite likely much much worse than if you wait for the green light.

<comment><USER9> Actually no we don't. The physical models are scrapped yearly, our predictions are incredibly inaccurate and we can't shake a stick at the to tiny amount of broken data we hold and extrapolate it. Every corporation and politician clamps onto hypothesis' if there is gain to be made, yet theories that result are impossible to challenge. That'snot science. Thatis religion.

It's more like we're arrogant blind fundamentalist religious zealots with not much data playing whack-a-mole in the dark and simultaneously fucking everyone in the process.

<comment><USER3> The fact that models are constantly refined doesn't mean they're "scrapped." The core model, of CO2 being a greenhouse gas that drives feedbacks-- particularly water vapor feedbacks, but others as well--is very well attested to.

It's true that climate is complicated and there are significant uncertainties in how they might interact. Most of those uncertainties, however, lie in the positive direction. That's part of the reason why the expected mean warming is much closer to the lower bound than the upper one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not two weeks ago I posted this: === We were told back in the late 1980s and early 1990s that huge computer models were written, that ran on supercomputers, to model and predict climate change.

The fastest Cray in 1990 could do (I think) 60 GFlops when loaded with 32 processors, which is roughly the sustained GFlops as a high end i7.

So clearly it is not a case of "just need a faster supercomputer and we will have an accurate prediction".

Reality is, from what I can tell, is that _we don't have an accurate mathematical model of all the pieces that go into global climate_ to run on a supercomputer, no matter how powerful. ===

No one challenged me and I got several upvotes and follow-on posts in agreement. link: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4761364>

Did something change in the meantime?

<comment><USER11> I don't really think that the idea that something must be perfect to be useful is correct. Trying to find a perfectly accurate model is impossible, so you must qualify your meaning of the phrase. Mathematics has a whole subject named statistics which spends quite a lot of its time dealing with the proportional incorrectness of models. If you look at the graphs or figures in the report (not just the headline of +4 degrees celcius), you will notice that almost all of them have a degree of uncertainty; figures without uncertainty values are as good as useless.

Also, if you are going to use "No one challenged me and I got several upvotes and follow-on posts in agreement" as a pseudo appeal to authority, I don't think that the readership of a Hacker News comments section really qualifies as authority on this particular issue.

Edit: Oh, apparently models have already predicted temperatures since 1900 correctly via hindcasting, along with changes in climates after significant events such as the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. And so far, they seem to be on- track with empirical data: <http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif>, though I fully understand if you want to discard that graph due to it's source; the risk of selection bias is very high when taking a shallow look at a large and deep subject.

<comment><USER10> I am not using an "appeal to authority" argument, but I figure the HN readership would have pointed out my errors. (It's certainly happened before :-) )

We do not understand even the basics. For instance, we do not fully understand how the Gulf Stream works.

The problem is that we can't just sum or multiply the uncertainty values and try to arrive at a consensus.

Perhaps an analogy can be made to trying to model the US or Europe's financial system - clearly even the largest banks, spending large amounts of money on IT systems and modeling over the past number of years, have grossly mis- calculated things. And the financial world is arguably less dynamic than Earth's climate system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _"winter months that are warmer than our current summers—sound pretty ugly"_

I know that the 4 degrees are supposed to be an average, but that statement sounds pretty unbelievable nonetheless.

<comment><USER13> Well, 4°C temperature change do not sound scaring, you have that between night and day. Usually the majority estimates consequences of climate change from their past experience. The thing is nobody ever experienced a +4°C anomaly driven by CO2 in 200 years (probably even not this planet).

So, forget about what you've learned about weather and expect the worst and multiply this by two. In other words our uncontrolled experiments with the atmosphere do not lead to a weather upgrade, it is more of a system change - introducing bugs and BSODs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not exactly the best title, induces initial feeling of `hey havn't the banks messed up enough, keep them away from the climate`.

But on a serious note, this is a worst case analysis and one area when people say rising oceans is that recently in many area's they have gone down. Oceans are like stock it seems! Now alot of these studies also do not factor in land rising and sinking and the effect that has along with even measureing the global water tables on land.

But weather is alot like finance as it is chaotic (ok less predictable over time) and with that maybe th World bank are suited to analyse such things with some authority. But also as with finance, the level of prediction you can make does not mean you can change.

So with that weather can effect finance, but finance can not effect weather. People do in part effect the weather and finance effects people. Its just a vicious circle of people, weather, finance.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra I am living in a pretty cold place and away from the shore so I don't see why I should be scared.

<comment><USER15> Here's a reason. I, like most humans, live near the coast. When my home is submerged I'm going to come and live in your neighborhood. And when I run out of food, I'm going to go to your house and steal yours.

<comment><USER16> Population density is not a problem.

Even at a relatively low population density equivalent to that of Los Angeles, you could fit the entire population of the world 3.4 times over in the contiguous United States.

Agriculture is a potential problem, but technological advances are improving the situation. If everyone switched to vastly more efficient plant-based diets, it wouldn't be a problem at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The Ars Technica article kindly submitted here is based on a World Bank press release that has prompted many news articles today. Several of the articles mention the underlying World Bank report .PDF file "Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must Be Avoided,"

[http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_...](http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf)

which was a dead link for me the first few times I tried to follow the link, but is working fine as I type this.

The World Bank report was "written by a team from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, including Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, William Hare, Olivia Serdeczny, Sophie Adams" and other co- authors. Other scientists and commentators reviewed the report, with acknowledgment from the World Bank, and the bank expressed gratitude to the organization Connect4Climate for contributions to the production of the report.

The Ars Technica article summarizes the report as estimating that even if all countries are able to meet their current emissions pledges there's still a 20 percent chance global average temperatures will rise by 4°C by the end of the century. Predicted sea level rise would be a half-meter or more.

Just last week here on HN another participant shared a speculative essay by science fiction author Charlie Stross on the world 500 years from now. Stross predicted sea-level rise of at least a meter, so I looked up sources about the effect of sea level rise. An interesting series of online maps shows projections of flooded land based on various degrees of sea level rise for places of interest such as New York City,

<http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/new-york.shtml>

San Francisco,

<http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/san-francisco.shtml>

the Netherlands and England,

<http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/netherlands.shtml>

and Chesapeake Bay.

<http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/washington.shtml>

In all cases, the maps default to showing seven meters of sea level rise and do not project any civil engineering projects to protect existing infrastructure. Having read Matt Ridley's blog post "Go Dutch"

<http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/go-dutch.aspx>

back when it was published, I wonder if the most dire predictions about the Netherlands are true, or if the Netherlands, the land of polders,

<http://static.nai.nl/polders/e/index.html>

can continue to be "living proof to climate pessimists that dwelling below sea level is no problem if you are prosperous."

The report continues with dire predictions of hot summers and changes in rainfall. "It is my hope that this report shocks us into action," is World Bank President Jim Yong Kim's statement about the report. "Even for those of us already committed to fighting climate change, I hope it causes us to work with much more urgency."

I fully agree with the premise that there will continued widespread use of fossil hydrocarbon fuels for electricity generation, transportation, and building heating. There are no effective incentives in place today, nor any likely in the next few decades, to prevent further consumption of fossil hydrocarbons, and that will surely result in a substantial increase in atmospheric concentration in CO2.

Predicting climate change is a safe prediction any time, because over 100 year and especially 500 year time scales, we have often observed climate change in historic times. Over longer time scales, but since Homo sapiens populated much of the earth, rock art in the Sahara Desert shows that the Sahara was once much less arid than it is now, and cave art in Europe shows that the climate of Europe was once much more frigid than it is now.

I live in the United States Midwest, and my mother grew up in a hotter part of the United States Midwest during the Dust Bowl era. Most of her family is still near the family farm on the windswept Great Plains. I don't expect any part of the earth to become uninhabitably hot. We have, according to the best developed models of influences on world climate, a sure prospect of a generally warmer Earth, warming currently lethally cold areas into areas that will be habitable. My experience living in subtropical east Asia in two long stays about two decades apart suggests that we will have more warming of cold areas than turning hot areas into unbearably hot areas from global warming.

Despite the dire predictions in the World Bank report, it is not necessarily the case that port cities will be inundated even by more substantial sea level rise than is anticipated by the report. New York City is sufficiently prosperous to attract some of the world's brightest minds to live there (I know some young people who have moved there recently) and the current city administration actively encourages making New York City a technology hub. New York will thrive, whatever the climate.

[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/11/new-york- can-...](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/11/new-york-can-be-a- vibrant-venice-as-sea-level-now-rises-say-engineers/)

Venice and New Orleans have been in long-term decline for quite a while, from bad governance, and will surely suffer further relative decline, regardless of sea levels. There will still be a great port at the mouth of the Mississippi- Missouri river system, and it will be a thriving and cosmopolitan city, but it may well be in a different place along the river delta from the current location of New Orleans. Venice may basically vanish, but current ports that matter for the world economy will gain the infrastructure investment to build up protection against the sea faster than the sea will rise.

There is much more interesting content in the long World Bank report referenced in the submitted article, but allow me to explain why I think the high end of global warming predictions (and thus the high end of sea level rise and climate pattern change predictions) is unlikely. We already have a known model for induced global cooling from the "natural experiment" of volcanos erupting and ejecting much dust high into the atmosphere. If the climate change we now experience produces more pain than gain (where I live, at 800 feet above sea level in a continental dry, cold winter climate zone, global warming has so far mostly produced gain), then there will be political and economic incentives to sequester greenhouse gases, or directly shade the Earth with high-altitude dust, or to do whatever else science discovers to slow and perhaps eventually reverse global warming. The end of the century is about eighty-eight years from now, and surely our understanding of climate models and geoengineering possibilities will be stronger then than it is now. Over the time span of the report, I would expect enough of an increase in understanding of climate models to bring about workable means to moderate global warming and shape climate change in the direction of making most inhabited regions better off.

<comment><USER18> Nice try, Jonah: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4799082>

<comment><USER19> I'm assuming that you are referring to Jonah Lehrer recycling his own material. Part of tokenadult's self-assigned role here on HN is collecting relevant commentary and references for various subjects, then revising and posting it whenever those subjects come up. You'll find such tokenadult tomes posted on articles related to intelligence, for example. I think they are a useful contribution to the discussion, as they summarize previous discussions and bring newcomers up to speed on a subject.

<comment><USER18> The problem is when I think I'm reading something new then realize half way through "Wait, didn't I read this two days ago?" It's a huge waste of time because it's the comment from two days ago with a tiny new header added making it relevant to this topic instead.

Comment reposts should (must?) designate such at the top with a link back to the original comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So, who is working on a startup to help with climate change? There are many avenues: adaptation, mitigation, research.

</comment><comment><USER21> is that the same world bank that wants infinite growth to sustain itself?

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't see what's so bad about this? Temperatures will rise, sea levels will rise, what's the big deal?

Certain parts of the world that are low-lying or subject to extremely high temperatures will become uninhabitable. Too bad for those who thought it would be a good idea to settle there, they'll have to migrate.

Once all the ice has melted, sea levels will plateau. By the 22nd Century (notwithstanding a global nuclear war between now and then) we will have mastered nuclear fusion and will no longer be dependent on fossil fuels.

So what's the big deal?

<comment><USER5> The sea level will go up something like 25 meters (100 feet) if all the ice melts.

<comment><USER3> Luckily enough, no one is predicting that all the ice will even come close to entirely melting.

Unfortunately enough, levels of melting that range from likely to possible will by themselves be very expensive and difficult to deal with.</comment></comment></comment>


OKC-based company wants to keep employees' $1,200 stimulus payments - <AUTHOR> https://www.thelostogle.com/2020/03/29/imagenet-consulating-stimulus-payment/ <comment><USER2> > The company would also take half of the $500 stipend allotted for dependents > under the bill.

Oh wow. If I put morals aside, I almost see how execs rationalise keeping their employees wages, "keeping the business stable", etc.. How in the world can you justify taking the kids payments as well?

</comment><comment><USER3> Generally speaking, you have to keep in mind that in the US many employers see employees as subjects (much like slaves),especially when it comes to bluecollar work. There is no national legislation that draws a clear line.

<comment><USER4> No coincidence here that the term human resources was invented for labour. They are resources that can be exploited until they can't be further exploited.

<comment><USER3> It weirded me out big time when I first heard people talking corporate-speak saying "we need a resource for ...". Took a while to proccess , apparently they meant a person, I was thinking "hmm.. Wouldn't it be better to hirr someone, what resource can do this? ML? SaaS service?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is exactly what the problem with UBI is. Companies will know that you have an extra $X so they may be able to offer less salary (unless we are talking about a huge UBI where people won't have to work if they don't want to). However, the risk is much more realistic with landlords. Since renting is basically a bidding war, the only difference with everyone have $X extra is that the final "sale" will be $X more

<comment><USER6> So your saying that tax reductions and lowering the interest also have no economic effects because every last penny will be simultaneously be deducted from salary and go fully to increased rent/housing sales?

<comment><USER5> That is most certainly not what I am saying

<comment><AUTHOR> GP has a point though – why doesn't the same logic apply? If I am an employer, I know your pay grade. Therefore, I know how tax cuts affect you. So if there is a cut in tax rates, why not just deduct the equivalent value you would've kept as extra due to the cut from your paycheck?

If rentals are being priced purely based on "what can renters afford", then your problem is with the housing market itself, not with UBI or anything else. Obviously UBI won't ameliorate a situation where housing is priced like that – in that case you would also need to ensure there is a larger supply of housing to make the market actually competitive, but it isn't a _problem_ with UBI, it's a problem with housing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How is this legal? They are essentially robbing their employees no? They have effectively converted government actions of bailing out the citizens into bailing out just me and myself only. The authorities should hit them with a big fine.

<comment><USER8> Employment in the US is generally at-will. Unless there are contracts otherwise, employers can raise or lower pay as they like, subject to few limitations.

That said, they're quite foolish to link this to the stimulus checks. And I suspect a lot of their employees (especially the better ones) will leave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> >looks at captcha

Oh look Google has competition in free slave labor.

</comment><comment><USER10> Let me see if I have this right.

When a company cuts employees' salary by a significant amount (let's call it 25% of 75k = $18k == $1500 over 1 month, for argument's sake, but which we know will become 3 months) without knowing how employees will make it up, it's understandable and even acceptable -- just poor luck. But when another company cuts employee's salary by a fixed amount defined by what they are getting from another, guaranteed source -- thus making them whole -- they are monstrous?

ok, got it.

i, for one, would much rather face this than furlough or layoffs.

<comment><USER11> They're both bad.

<comment><USER10> They're not. Corporations are not places where friends socialize, or where families support each other. They are workplaces and corporations have to look out for themselves. Doing what they need to do, not prioritizing individuals, is what they do and should be doing and employees should _never_ mistake them as some kind of social support system.

They are both amoral corporate acts, neither bad nor good.

The difference, though, one form of an equivalent act raises pitchforks. And you wonder why executives care about "optics"? This wasn't a bad move by Image Consulting, but it was a dumb one.

<comment><USER12> To be willfully ignorant of the human cost of business decisions is intellectually dishonest and perpetuates the immoral and downright evil corporate cultures.

Business decisions cannot be amoral unless you pretend they don't impact other human beings. That in and of itself is immoral.

And regardless of what you think the purpose of a company is, they are places where friends socialize and families look out for each other. They're social collectives, and people will do social things where those form. Profit motive or not. They are also a social support system, that's what your salary and health insurance are.

And to that point, "doing what they need to do" is synonymous with hurting people for the benefit of others. Removing pay benefits across the board is not prioritizing individuals, but actively harming the people who can tolerate it the least as a group.

The reason this is bad optics is because rational and moral people look at these decisions and see them not as amoral acts like you pretend, but evil ones.

<comment><USER10> > And regardless of what you think the purpose of a company is, they are > places where friends socialize and families look out for each other

You are mistaken about how companies actually work, and how they should work. The only rational way to treat a company is in an amoral, unfriendly (wouldn't go so far as to say adversarial) way. Because when push comes to shove, that's how they are going to treat you.

Your personal relationships with coworkers are completely different thing than your relationship with the company. I may have misspoke when I said "corporations are not places where ...". Of course those things happen at corporations; after all you are spending the majority of your waking hours there. All of my best friends come from previous jobs. But the corporation itself is not there to facilitate that and support that, not even as a "side purpose".

ISTM that you do not understand capitalism.

> The reason this is bad optics is because rational and moral people look at > these decisions and see them not as amoral acts like you pretend, but evil > ones.

Really? It's _evil_ to cut pay by the exact amount the government is giving out, thereby maintaining worker's salary, at a time when it's clear there's not really work for them to do, rather than cutting by an arbitrarily large amount? Or furloughing workers entirely?

<comment><USER12> All respect friend, but I feel you're the one who are gravely mistaken about what a company is or how it should work.

We're not talking about capitalism, but corporatism, and corporations are social organizations and to understand them is not to understand supply and demand but humans and how we gather.

The decision to cut pay or lay off employees is never amoral. It's an example of the trolley problem. It is wholly irrational to think a business decision that impacts other human beings and their livelihood as amoral. If it were amoral, managers wouldn't lose sleep at night when they look at the org chart and make hard decisions when push comes to shove.

I don't think that this particular decision was evil. I think the attitude you express about how companies "should" or "do" operate is both wrong and at the heart of evil and immoral companies.

It's fine if you think I don't understand capitalism, because what I'm talking about is empathy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The premise is true, but I flagged because low quality journalism. If rather see a rational discussion about the topic and less sensationalism.</comment>


1000Memories in 60 seconds (video, YC S10) - <AUTHOR> http://1000memories.com/blog/39-1000memories-in-60-seconds

<comment><USER2> The value add for me would be if I felt the content was really going to last "forever", but after navigating the site, I'm not offered any evidence that would increase my confidence in this happening. How can you make sure that the content will survive my (the surviving friend) lifetime?

</comment><comment><USER3> Absolutely beautiful, and done in the most tasteful way. This is how you communicate your product, especially for a potentially sensitive cultural issue such as death.

</comment><comment><USER4> Nicely done. The tone seems just right for this kind of service: a combination of celebration and reverence.

<comment><USER5> Thanks, we spent a lot of time working on getting the tone right. There are multiple elements - voice over, music, color, illustration, script - so the trickiest part was bringing them all together in a way that felt genuine and honest.

<comment><USER6> Did you do the production in-house, or hire someone? Definitely well done, and a good tone.

<comment><USER5> We started by writing (and re-writing) the script in-house. Then we hired a very talented friend in Portland to do the illustration and he recommended we hire a local animation house that he liked and had worked with previously. The voice over was chosen after auditioning/recording 5 of our friends and my brother composed the sound design. It was a very collaborative process with a great group of people. We built slowly, allowing for feedback and brainstorming at each phase of the process. It really helps to work with people you like and whose tastes you trust.

<comment><USER7> That was a great effort...how long did it take to put everything in place

<comment><USER5> We started writing the script mid-December. Launched today. So about 5-6 weeks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Nice video. How do they/will they make money? Printed versions of their pages?

<comment><USER9> This answer was unsatisfactory: [http://1000memories.com/forum/22-how-do-you- pay-for-the-site...](http://1000memories.com/forum/22-how-do-you-pay-for-the- site-is-there-advertising)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The only thing better than the video was the fact that they are using OLARK for customer support. I've seen that YC-funded company popping up in a lot of websites, and every time it continues to amaze me. So far I've only written people to complement them on something, but this truly seems to be a powerful tool that will companies the upper edge against competitors. I'm really looking forward to see how successful 1000Memories, along with OLARK, will become to be.

</comment><comment><USER11> Man, just looking at that site makes me think. I'm not scared of dying; I'm scared of other people dying.

</comment><comment><USER12> How do people know to look for an obituary?

<comment><USER13> They don't -- that's why my grandmother looks at every one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This has to have one of the highest production values of a YC video I've seen. Well done.

</comment><comment><USER14> Best product video I've seen, short and sweet yet tells exactly what you do in a very life is celebratory way (the humor with the newspaper bit is brilliant).

Is the voice over a founder, and can you share more about behind the scenes?

<comment><USER5> The voice over is a former colleague. We love his voice because a) he sounds like Jeff Bridges and b) he has a slight lisp that is really endearing. We tried younger voices but they just didn't feel as right. We felt it needed an older, wiser narrator.

<comment><USER15> Did you go down the route of hiring pros first and then just decided to go with friends for the voice talent?

<comment><USER5> We never thought about hiring VO talent. We just thought about people we know that might have the right tone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> So will you sell memory related products to those who lost a loved one?

Edit: It appears you'll be taking donations for good causes. Maybe the culture in America is different, but I don't see this work for anything except helping to pay for the funeral. Most funerals are a moment of self-reflection on one's own happiness, not so much the world's.

</comment><comment><USER17> That video was 72 seconds.

<comment><USER18> Yes, the title just didn't have the same ring to it

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Great job of communicating what the service is in an easy enough fashion that my mother would understand.

Fortunately, I don't have a use for the service right now, but I will definitely keep it in mind for the future.

</comment><comment><USER20> This is a pretty amazing video. I like the tone it gives. It's respectful, yet informative. There's so many subtle things that makes it just perfect for the service. Huge props, you guys rock.

</comment><comment><USER21> Looks great! Classy feel to the video. Is this something you plan on making money with or just something to help people remember their loved ones (or both)?

</comment><comment><USER22> That was really, really good. I hope you guys run this on TV at some point (in some shortened fashion - there are 60 second slots, though)

</comment><comment><USER23> Well done, guys!</comment>


FBI seizes entire data center, won't say why - <AUTHOR> http://sites.google.com/site/mnsclec/index

<comment><USER2> I wonder if this is true. The 15 police cars and a SWAT team thing and the lines attributed to the FBI commander seem a bit over the top.

If this is true, this strikes me as wrong on many levels. The overall expense and damage to unconnected organizations when a simple phone call would probably have achieved the same result is saddening.

Edit: This hosting company seems to not have a website. Most of the Google references are to this incident. There was one link which suggests there actually is a business by that name though.

<comment><USER3> It completely reminds me of Cryptonomicon. Anyone have an EMP-gun?

<comment><USER4> Sure I do, but it's a bit old and I'm not sure it's still working .. hang on, let me just te

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Report Shows Alleged Fraud Against AT&T, Verizon [<http://cbs11tv.com/technology/Core.IP.Networks.2.975776.html>]

<comment><USER6> The gist of the article is this: "Documents say AT&T and Verizon told investigators they believe they were being defrauded out of $6 million in a three to four month period by a group of investors working together, including Faulkner, Simpson, and three others.

The documents say those individuals profited more than $1 million."

$6 million in fraud .... now that's a reason for raiding a data center that makes sense. As much as people may despise the RIAA and MPAA, the leak of the X-Men movie is not a reason to take down a data center.

<comment><USER7> I wonder where the other $5M went?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> patrickg-zill I wonder if the ECPA, Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, is still in force. If so the FBI may well be in violation of it.

Also reminds me of the Steve Jackson Games case: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._Un...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service)

</comment><comment><USER8> I may have missed it, but why do you think this has to do with the Xmen movie?

<comment><USER9> [http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Is-Wolverine-Leak- Investi...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Is-Wolverine-Leak- Investigation-Causing-Collateral-Damage-101709)

This was linked off of the Dallas Observer blog here: [http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/04/so_what_l...](http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/04/so_what_led_fbi_agents_to_raid.php)

How legit this is, or how credible Dallas Observer is, I have no idea.

<comment><USER10> The Dallas Observer is part of Village Voice Media (<http://www.villagevoicemedia.com>), which includes similar local weekly newspapers in other cities. They aren't exactly incompetent rabble-rousers, but they tend to do more investigative journalism and "what-if" scenarios than your average major daily newspaper. I doubt they have any real direct experience with this particular corner of the IT industry, though, because it's incredibly unlikely that pirated movies prompted the takedown.

I've worked at various hosting companies around Dallas for 5 years, and have worked or observed quite a few abuse cases involving the federal government. This sort of heavy-handed action (killing an entire company's operations for a single client) has NEVER happened in my experience, and definitely not for something as innocuous as copyright infringement. That's what the DMCA is for. The feds don't get involved unless it's some seriously nasty stuff going on, like child porn, suspected terrorist communication, fraud, malware distribution, etc.

In the event that the government gets involved, they will have a field agent demand access to individual systems under a subpoena, but only to the systems actually involved (maybe some switches/routers as well). Unless Core IP has been proven to be complicit in some kind of ultra-illegal activity, e.g. the CTO is the kingpin of some hardcore piracy network, I have a hard time believing that this has anything to do with a leaked movie. I'd think that the Secret Service (US Treasury) would be involved in such a case, rather than the FBI.

This really is completely ridiculous, though. Makes you want to go read the common carrier laws cover-to-cover :)

edit: I guess this piracy thing has been confirmed as a rumor for some time... but hopefully this sheds some light about how the process works :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Well, here's an interesting tidbit: Mike Faulkner's side of the story.

<http://www.uwwwb.com/>

And some BBB-style fraud reports, fairly recent (July 08):

[http://voip.yuku.com/reply/421/t/Re-premiervoice-net-aka- pvo...](http://voip.yuku.com/reply/421/t/Re-premiervoice-net-aka-pvoip-net- FRAUD.html)

I don't mean to cast aspersions or commit libel, but it looks like Mr. Faulkner might have a bit of a spotty history, and according to these reports, has used multiple names in the past. This might get interesting :)

<comment><USER11> Drama is an understatement. There is a lot of yelling and hand-waving in that post. He even goes so far as to start impeaching the FBI informant by showing his picture and labeling he and his wife "drug addict" and "mrs. drug addict"

I'm thinking he's looking for slander charges on top of what he already has? Not sure though -- and quite frankly its not worth my time to investigate.

If -- and its a big if -- the FBI is screwing him over accidentally, then this will make a great case study for law enforcement on how not to do this. The truth will out. If, on the other hand, somebody has been playing in the cookie jar, no amount of yelling "gestapo" and "police state" is going to help him. The best it will do is play to the mindset of folks who are already paranoid to begin with.

This is a brave man. He should sit down and shut up. That's always the best criminal defense publicity strategy at first. The only thing you're going to do, innocent or not, is provide facts which can be discredited later on. You're also providing testimony in your future court case. Trying to make it a political case by personally appealing to the net? That's whacked. That's really whacked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> New to-do list for setting up data centers:

      - Raised Floors
      - Sufficient Power
      - Sufficient Cooling
      - Defensive Perimeters
      - Tripwires and Claymores
      - Attack Dogs

<comment><USER13> Do you actually think your datacenter employees are going to (illegally, mind you) risk life, limb, and imprisonment to fight the FBI in enforcing a warrant, granted in a court of law by a judge?

There are datacenters that have bullet-resistant riot glass, guards armed with submachine guns, guard dogs, and so on, but they would hand your servers over to law enforcement in an instant, as long as they had the appropriate paperwork.

If you're truly concerned about the data, encrypt it. You can still be compelled to reveal the key by a court ruling, but that's more work than a warrant, and something your personal lawyer can fight, or at least stall, much more easily.

For downtime, have multiple datacenters, and spread them across national boundaries. It's not that hard to get a few boxes in Canada or Ireland, or Sweden, and it's a much bigger pain in the ass for the police to coordinate internationally to shut you down. Taiwan is probably a better bet, as they have no treaties regarding this sort of thing with the US (to my knowledge).

<comment><USER12> I see that sarcasm is lost on some people...

I was also going to suggest a moat, drawbridge and surface to air missiles, but that was perhaps being too obvious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> From Simpson's information, it is fair to assume the raid was indeed not in relation to the X-Men leak. A search and seizure as illustrated would at the very least require a standard search warrant, of which, would specify the nature of the search. Now according to Simpson, the FBI refused presentment of such, a prerequisite to the search, unless there was reasonable evidence data would have been destroyed. Either way, at some point, some one would have been served, unless, of which is a reasonable assumption, is in regard to suspect terrorist involvement or another of the various other scrupulous 9/11 subsequent clauses.

</comment><comment><USER15> that google sites link is down... see google's cached version (do you also think that that doesn't make a whole lot of sense?)

[http://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:vxqYQFKjExEJ:sites.goog...](http://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:vxqYQFKjExEJ:sites.google.com/site/mnsclec/index+http://sites.google.com/site/mnsclec/index&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox-a)

<comment><USER16> FWIW: The Google Sites link says that it's down because it "exceeded its Pageview limit" If he's cleared of any involvement, this suggests Simpson may revive his business through the publicity. ( The "just spell my name right" approach to marketing. )

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If there's a warrant, the warrant has to explain what the search was for. Somehow in this post the author fails to mention the details of the warrant, instead going off on a tirade about the loss of freedom.

In general, nobody is coming into your data center and seizing anything unless its part of a criminal investigation. As such, a judge has to sign the warrant and the petitioner has to explicitly describe what is being searched for.

I can understand the writer being upset about his datacenter, but either he is not fully aware of the situation or is being purposefully misleading. My opinion is that he wrote this before he became fully aware of all of the facts.

<comment><USER17> Very good points, although it's worth pointing out that the system can be rigged. Meaning -- just speculating -- a guy like Rupert Murdoch can use his influence with a judge to get a warrant. It's also worth mentioning that the author claims to have been in Phoenix while the raid was in Dallas, so he had no direct access to the warrant. And no one is forcing the FBI to obey the law these days -- read the news.

<comment><USER18> There are a lot of businesses that could be brought down through the seizure of their datacenter, if even only for a few days. It could be something like an IP address in some log, connected with a kiddie porn. The authorities could easily concoct such a thing _after_ they seize the center, then backtrack, later saying that the log entry turned out to be faked by the real criminals hiding their tracks. In the meantime, the business has been completely inoperative, it's websites utterly gone.

I could envision a corrupt branch of the FBI doing this on the behalf of an organized crime group.

There should be guidelines for the seizure of a datacenter, as this constitutes the ability to destroy a business, especially in cases where high availability is critical. (Often the entire center doesn't have to be seized, only access granted to forensic specialists while access by employees is severely restricted.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The only way they can do this (legally) without presenting a warrant involves a "National Security Letter", but even those need to go up before a secret court.

Another win for redundancy in your hosting! Especially across jurisdictional boundaries. Hopefully the affected customers and service provider will be able to recover damages from business continuity insurance.

(Shooting it out with federal agents who have arrived to perform and illegal search/seizure is a bad idea...)

<comment><USER20> Correct. "It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various record and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter>

Anyone who wants to watch a documentary largely about these letters should watch _Spying On The Homefront_ by PBS Frontline (you can watch it online):

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Please, can a moderator change the headline?

<comment><USER22> (Previously, the headline implied that the raid was part of an investigation into the leaking of the X-men movie.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Yeah there is no way to tell if this is due to the leaked movie that 20th Century Fox leaked themselves. A month to go and it's the movie that everyone talking about from their target audience to grandmas(they may not be talking about but now they know about the movie).

Ok the above maybe inaccurate but the leak if not a pr stunt is a pro for this movie.

</comment><comment><USER24> Whatever else you can say about the original post, WHEN will people putting things up on the web realize that "Today at 6:00am," becomes ambiguous real fast on the web, when nowhere else on the page is there a date? I see this constantly, even on news sites. Gag.

</comment><comment><USER25> So AT&T and Verizon can call up the Feds and get them to collect their debts for them? Nice.

</comment><comment><USER26> what happens when the FBI or some other agency decides to shut down an aws or gae data center? How many of the toys we play with everyday just stop working. Our apps migrate to a backup datacenter, right? Maybe. And if they do, that means data is replicating in realtime all over the world. So in that regard it's better to work with the datacenter owners and shut stuff down systematically. Unless the datacenter operator isn't cooperating or is the subject of the investigation. Brave new world of cloud computing we will all be living in to greater degrees in the not so distant future.

<comment><USER27> Not 100% sure about gae but aws has multiple datacenters and is designed to distribute your S3 data across them so if one goes down your data is still available at others.

And you can always store a copy of your data/server images in US/Euro/Japan(some continent your regular data/servers are not) S3 as hot standby to launch when your local government raids datacenters.

AWS and probably GAE are in fact good defenses against this type of outage.

The real problem is not keeping your servers connected its avoiding being shot by the SWAT team assaulting your house.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"The only data that I have received thus far is that the FBI is investigating a company that has purchased services from Core IP in the past. This company does not even colocate with us anywhere, much less 2323 Bryan Street Datacenter."_

For that extra little touch of incompetence, I'm sure this mysterious company's CTO is right now sitting in his back yard, scrubbing down the hard disk platters from all his servers with sulphuric acid and steel wool.

</comment><comment><USER28> fodder

</comment><comment><USER29> Wow, just wow.</comment>


ListBuilder by LeadFuze - <AUTHOR> http://listbuilder.leadfuze.com

<comment><AUTHOR> ListBuilder by LeadFuze helps you find your targeted prospects. You use our browser extension to add them all to your list and then our software goes out and finds emails and social media profiles for you!</comment>


Editorial: Copy 'protection' only hurts people who actually buy your product - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/25/editorial-for-the-umpteenth-time-copy-protection-only-hurts/

<comment><USER2> I'm largely sympathetic, but it's not an entirely black-and-white issue. Some DRM systems help content creators and users. For example, Steam and hardware DRM on game consoles combat the piracy that is otherwise endemic to games and helped drive traditional PC game developers away from single-player games.

HDCP is an example of the opposite extreme. It punishes paying customers, while providing no benefit to content owners unless all other, easier forms of piracy were eradicated. It's pointless to worry about someone cracking hdmi when every available Bluray has already been cracked.

The key is that good DRM systems should invisible to paying users. Circumventing them should be just difficult enough that users are motivated to pay.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's so tragically true. I made a rule during my iOS development adventures: I'll only write code that benefits my paying customers. No piracy detection, no DRM validation horseshit. I could sink a lot of time into those activities and you know who it would benefit?

No one. Not my customers, not me.

Piracy, in the end, is a marketing expense. The percentage of my potential users who are technically capable enough to pirate my stuff may as well be a rounding error. And even if it were north of 10%, having more people using my code and showing their friends cool things my apps can do more than makes up for any loss.

I build things because it's fun to get _the high_ from seeing something start to work. I build them because I like to see people use my stuff to make their lives just a bit easier.

When you invest any amount of time on making your stuff harder to steal instead of more worthwhile to buy, you're a shortsighted dickass who needs to get out of the business of making things.

edit: Though, on the other hand, I'm not down with piracy enablers making money instead of me, so the piracy sites like RapidShare always get DMCA notices when I catch them. RS, at least, is great about honoring these.

<comment><USER4> I am trying to launch my web application while remaining open source. It's a bit crazy, and my gut feeling say it is absolutely crazy.

Nonetheless, I am interested in seeing how can I work with my site being open source and how to make money.

I put my hypothesis is that people don't care much or don't want to set up a web application when they can sign up for a web service that is of low enough barrier. So I am planning to charge 5 bucks a month just to see what happen.

I do not see DRM and anti-piracy technologies as a solution to my problem. If people respect copyright, they would all be running to free products like GIMP instead of purchasing photoshop.

I also have no ethical issue with piracy and pirating. However, let it be clear that contractual copyright is something I absolutely support. _However_ , if there are no expressed agreement between two parties, than it is absolutely ethical to "pirate". If third parties get their hand on copyrighted material that the initial party agree not to distribute, than the third party has not done anything wrong because he didn't agree to anything.

But contractual copyright, like current copyright are not alway or maybe never _solutions_. If you're going to use copyright, make sure you don't fall into "It ain't fair for people to pirated from me" mindset. That's a dangerous trap and path to your doom on the free market.

I consider copyright truth to be important to the survival of business. An accurate model of the benefit and cost of copyright will make or break an entire industries, corporations, and individuals. Don't assume anything.

<comment><USER5> This model seems to have worked well for RT and Best Practical Solutions. RT is GPL, but they sell support for it and seem to make enough money to have employees and buy e-book readers :)

Slashdot is similar. Open source code, but people still click the ads and pay for subscriptions.

Given the choice to use a closed web service versus one with all the code available, I'd pay more every time to use the open one.

<comment><USER4> _Given the choice to use a closed web service versus one with all the code available, I'd pay more every time to use the open one._

With some good luck and hard pushing, I should have a terrible web application for hacker news people to critique and ripped to shred. It would also be a chance for you to try my service and see if you're going to pay for it.

We'll see, we'll see...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That _is_ the point of DRM. If you already paid for it once, you are likely to pay again.

</comment><comment><USER7> It also gives you a better experience - I can go and buy a DVD in which case I have to find some place to put it, I have to switch the disc when I want to watch another (and I have to actually find it) and I can't easily bring a bunch with me.

</comment><comment><USER8> Third party apps can and do use the VGA out; VLC doesn't yet, but it wouldn't be difficult to add.</comment>


NumbaPro CUDA Python speeds up a Monte Carlo pricer 14x - <AUTHOR> http://continuum.io/blog/monte-carlo-pricer

<comment><USER2> We've been using CUDA to speed up Monte Carlo pricing for years now. :) Writing in Python does make it more accessible to more programmers. I'm curious how much overhead is added.

[http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/it- infrastructure/bloomberg...](http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/it- infrastructure/bloomberg-uses-gpus-to-speed-up-bond-pri/220200055)

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be more interesting to see a visualization of throughput vs. problem size. That would almost certainly give a better sense of how good this approach is, and it would let us compare to other CUDA monte carlo implementations, like the one Nvidia has had on their CUDA site for years:

[http://developer.download.nvidia.com/compute/cuda/2_2/sdk/we...](http://developer.download.nvidia.com/compute/cuda/2_2/sdk/website/projects/MonteCarlo/doc/MonteCarlo.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> This particular problem is so embarrassingly parallel, I am surprised the speedup is only 14x.

<comment><USER5> Second that one. On these sort of problems it's not uncommon to see 100x+ speedups. My general experience is that just re-writing this in C++ instead of Numpy you'd see a >14x speedup, so I'm pretty unimpressed at this point.

<comment><USER6> I'm be surprised if there was that large of a speedup going from a well- written numpy implementation to C/C++ (assuming a non-parallel implementation in both)...

In my experience, it's usually more like 2x-5x for a straight translation of the algorithm from numpy to C. (Though I have to confess that I often write rather naive C...)

Numpy performs quite well if you avoid a few common pitfalls. It certainly can be beat, but it's often faster than people think it is.

<comment><USER7> That matches my experience as well. I've never gotten more than a 3x speed up by doing a straight numpy->C rewrite on actual real world code (actually doing one right now, and I've gotten a 2x speed up after my first pass).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if there's any good way to select random indexes from a bitmap using CUDA. If yes, this could be very nice for monte-carlo poker hand scoring.

<comment><USER9> That's something the demoscene loves to do. There's a few ways to do it, but what's usually done is to have a large bitmap filled with random values that's accessed by a function of threadID and current pixel (or whatever other info you have handy). Essentially, the large bitmap acts as a precalculated PRNG.

<comment><USER10> >There's a few ways to do it, but what's usually done is to have a large bitmap filled with random values that's accessed by a function of threadID and current pixel (or whatever other info you have handy).

Do you have any good links that elaborate on this kind of technique? I had an idea that sounds a lot like this once, but being fairly ignorant about the topic I had no idea what to call it or how to implement it.

Thanks.

<comment><USER9> This is probably the simplest article about the subject: [http://www.reedbeta.com/blog/2013/01/12/quick-and-easy- gpu-r...](http://www.reedbeta.com/blog/2013/01/12/quick-and-easy-gpu-random- numbers-in-d3d11/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anyone outside of Continuum who can share their experiences with Numba and/or NumbaPro?</comment>


Ed Lee scolds Ron Conway for supporting CIA torture - <AUTHOR> http://sfist.com/2014/12/10/after_torture_report_ron_conway_twe.php

<comment><AUTHOR> Would any start-up founder refuse investment from Ron Conway because of his personal beliefs? Ultimately, do you care about the source of funds?

For those who are more discerning, can you recommend any investors? How many Michael Dearings are there?

[http://www.harrisonmetal.com/nsa-corrosion-of-silicon- valley...](http://www.harrisonmetal.com/nsa-corrosion-of-silicon-valley/)

<comment><USER2> _Would any start-up founder refuse investment from Ron Conway because of his personal beliefs?_

Yes. I would refuse to take his money, based on his support for the CIA and torture.</comment></comment>


We're Engaged (And how Facebook's News Feed is Strangely Relevant) - <AUTHOR> http://ryanspoon.com/blog/2008/07/06/were-engaged-and-how-facebooks-news-feed-is-strangely-relevant/

<comment><USER2> I too am also amazed at how often Facebook is used to convey this sort of information. I guess changing a status is easier than describing the event to multiple people, particularly if it's a crappy change...

</comment><comment><USER3> she's kinda spicy</comment>


PhysicsJS: A modular, extendable, and easy-to-use physics engine for javascript - <AUTHOR> http://wellcaffeinated.net/PhysicsJS/

<comment><USER2> This looks awesome at first glance. I might try it out for my next JS game.</comment>


VAServ 'hacked' - all web sites and hosted VMs down - <AUTHOR> http://184.108.40.206/~vaservc/

<comment><USER2> Status message via their main web address:

At approx 7pm GMT VASERV HyperVM was hacked and it appears that all nodes have some level of damage. We are currently working on the situation and will be putting updates here.

Currently we have no ETA on this

23:18 GMT. We are going to bring the support desk back online shortly so we can start getting a track of where customers are.

Per DC

LA FSCKVPS - People are onsite working on the system

WireSix Atlanta - People are working onsite

TMS - Expecting someone onsite within 1 hour

UK - We have 4 people onsite and gauging status

Overall it looks like /boot on the nodes has been removed. Some nodes are definitly missing /vz data and others have it intact. We will be going node by node to get things going ASAP.

Our HyperVM db's are intact so this means we can link everyone to their VPS

23:56 GMT: We now have a rolling action plain in place for all nodes and are starting checks/restores. Please note we are expecting at least 24-48 hours to get things even remotly stable

00:32 GMT: We have so far done some test rebuilds on 5 boxes and results look semi promsing for the root VPS data (/vz). /etc/ was removed meaning config files need rebuilding however this is easy enough to do from HyperVM database. As it stands we will NOT be giving public access to HyperVM for the forseable future. We may/may not still use it internally via some very strong firewall controls. For rebuilds etc we will be asking people to do support tickets etc

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I can hardly believe what I'm reading here ('ISSUE #24' is the most impressive):

<http://securityreason.com/wlb_show/WLB-2009060016>

"Kloxo (Previously Lxadmin) The most flexible software on this planet. From Kloxo HostInaBox, World's lightest and the most efficient webhosting platform, to Kloxo Enterprise, which can manage 100s of thousands of domains on hundreds of servers."

It's 'flexible' a euphemism for 'full of holes'?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I was looking for the change-log for 'HyperVM' and found this thread on their own user forum, where some users are requesting a change-log!

[http://forum.lxlabs.com/index.php?t=msg&th=3605](http://forum.lxlabs.com/index.php?t=msg&th=3605)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Can you say 'oops'?

[http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6221034&pos...](http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6221034&postcount=5)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Lots more chat here: <http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=867100>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hmm... I can't seem to edit the main URL and the status page seems to have moved here:

<http://www.vaserv.com/>

Can anyone edit the URL for me?</comment>


SML On Stilts - <AUTHOR> http://stilts.j4cbo.com/ <comment><USER2> Ruby on Rails (<http://rubyonrails.org/>)

ColdFusion on Wheels (<http://cfwheels.org/>)

DOS on Dope (<http://www.secretgeek.net/dod_intro.asp>)

Haskell on a Horse (<http://haskell.on-a-horse.org/> \-- site seems to be down)

Cobol on Cogs (<http://www.coboloncogs.org/> \-- not actually real)

The $LANGUAGE on $NOUN naming convention amuses me. Any others I'm missing?

<comment><USER3> PHP on Trax (<http://www.phpontrax.com/>)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Python on Planes - someone please do it

<comment><USER5> Isn't "Pylons" basically a reference to that?</comment></comment>


The Chinese scientist who claims he made CRISPR babies is under investigation - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612466/the-chinese-scientist-who-claims-he-made-crispr-babies-has-been-suspended-without-pay/ <comment><USER2> "He says his goal was not to cure or prevent an inherited disease but to disable a gene, called CCR5, that forms a protein doorway that allows HIV to infect a cell. People who inherit this trait naturally resist HIV infection."</comment>


The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security - <AUTHOR> http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/ <comment><USER2> I sort of feel that whoever made this site should have read an article somewhere entitled The Six Dumbest Ideas in Web Design.

Also, amusing quip 'if "Penetrate and Patch" was effective, we would have run out of security bugs in Internet Explorer by now.' although I guess the real case would be the less pithy if "Penetrate and Patch" was effective, we would have run out of security bugs in Internet Explorer 6 by now.'

also if Penetrate and Patch could be replaced by someone just writing a browser that was not hackable because it was not supposed to be hackable which browser is that?

I mean I understand that a system hardened by trial and error is not as enticing as a system made hard from the start, without holes, but I guess there is very few of these to be found and probably what is best is a system that has been tried to be made as hard as the programmers could from the beginning and then tested for holes after that.

I mean listing penetrate and patch as a dumb idea sounds like one of those jokes - The only thing stupider than using Penetrate and Patch to fix security holes is not using it at all. Probably I exaggerate there but (given the number of companies that don't even do that) I don't think I exaggerate by much.

On Edit: I mean I sure use the phrase I mean a lot. Sorry about that, have some long running conflicts at work that are boiling over right now. Probably shouldn't comment on articles, but I do it to take my mind off things.

<comment><USER3> Chrome was designed to be harder to exploit by having a content sandbox from day 1, so that even if you exploited a bug in chrome, you'd have to exploit another bug to get out of the sandbox. It also came with auto updates you couldn't disable so that you couldn't just hack people when they fell behind.

That was close to a decade ago.

This hasn't stopped nation states who are perfectly ok rolling out windows kernel exploits, but we dont really see chrome exploits in typical exploit kits, so that seems like a win for most users.

I hope Rust/Servo become our next leap forward. If they manage to make it productive enough that browser devs accept Rust we'll be in a really good place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The author states that learning how to compromise a system is wasteful and stupid. On the level of learning to use a particular exploit that's hot this week, that's true. Learning how a class of exploits takes advantage of a class of security bugs is a good way to spot where those bugs are in your code and to evaluate how well you're avoiding them.

</comment><comment><USER5> This point sounds like it wasn't thought out very well:

"In fact, if I were to simply track the 30 pieces of Goodness on my machine, and allow nothing else to run, I would have simultaneously solved the following problems:"

Well, yes. If you're like your mum, dad or granparents and barely install new software at all it could work fine.

Not so much if you're a web developer that regularly installs new software to make your dev environment easier to use or you like playing computer games (even less those available through digital services/on sale/made by amateurs or fans).

Cause in cases like those, I can see any 'good apps' list rivalling the virus ones in the anti virus programs he mentions.

<comment><USER6> > Not so much if you're a web developer that regularly installs new software > to make your dev environment easier to use

If you are a web developer you can run all untrustworthy tools in containers/virtual machines that doesn't have access to your system, it would be an implementation of these principle.

Not all developer tools can be run that way, but pretty much of them can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm tempted to use Marcus' words against him. With much love, of course. ;)

If tallying up the six dumbest ideas in computer security was a good way to fix the problem, then the industry would have solved this issue years ago.

But man, did I always love the idea of a Network Flight Recorder.

<comment><USER8> Has anyone actually tried to implement Ranums ideas?

<comment><USER9> Yeah, that's key. If the ideas were implemented, and then didn't work, we could say that "it's a dumb idea" (because it didn't work). Except, things are pretty much the same, or even worse if one considers his point on perception of hacking: "hacker culture" has become even "cooler", and strangely synonymous with "freedom".

<comment><USER10> > and strangely synonymous with "freedom".

That's because this synonymousity (is that a word?) was co-opted from a different definition of "hacker" (i.e. in the "Jargon File" sense of "someone who demonstrates creative ingenuity"); in that sense, having the freedom to tinker with things is strongly desirable to someone possessing the "hacker ethic".

'Tis one of the side-effects of the term "hacker" having multiple meanings, for better or (in my opinion) worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's often a lot less resource intensive to enumerate and filter out the first hundred thousand kinds of badness you encounter on a daily basis leaving you with a smaller pool of stuff that requires more than a cursory check. There's no need do more than a simple analysis on plain text emails, without attachments where all senders/recipients are in the organization.

You actually need to do the whole penetrate and patch thing as a part of your entire security system. It can't be relied upon to tell you everything but not doing it at all is similarly dumb.

</comment><comment><USER12> >> "hacking is a social problem"

There a lot of social problems in the world, but hacking in the true sense is more like a social cure than problem.</comment>