Apple Could Power the Web - <AUTHOR> http://kevinlawler.com/objective-c

<comment><USER2> [Reference counting] _No garbage collection. Objective-C could still do more with respect to reference cycles, but that is primarily a non-issue, and easily solved in future versions._

I think if you solve this, you've implemented GC.

Which is not to say that you might not want some hybrid, but ref counting has its own downsides (caching, multi-threading) which the author does not mention.

 _[I]n a comparison with any popular scripting language, Objective-C will win, since while the scripting language may have superior syntax, it is also sure to be incapable of accomplishing many things which are trivially accomplished in Objective-C._

Such as?

The article is full of assertions which it doesn't attempt to justify, even with a link.

<comment><USER3> Objective-C already has garbage collection in OS X, but it has been deprecated as of v10.8 in favour of ARC.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C#Garbage_collection>

<comment><AUTHOR> A good point. Coming from the iOS side I missed this. I mentioned Xcode's garbage collection in passing, but pointing out that garbage collection is deprecated on OS X would've made a strong argument that ARC is the better way to do things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Doubt it.

Today, Apple can't even power themselves, iCloud runs on Amazon Cloud Services and Windows Azure.

In terms of language, can't see Apple wanting to take on the additional responsibility of supporting the Objective-C runtime and foundation frameworks on Linux and Windows. They can't even keep up with RADAR bug reports from existing developers.

<comment><AUTHOR> Apple's track record on the web has been poor. Their websites are not first class. So they could have to build expertise there. I think, for backend services, networking expertise on the OS teams would go a long way.

In terms of staffing and responsibility, I don't see that as an issue, since if this does make sense for Apple, Apple is large enough that handling the workload wouldn't be a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This post has many generalizations and little technical content. The subject is interesting (for ObjC programmers mostly), but arguments are shallow.

> _it was never an issue to port correct C/C++ code_

In C/C++ there is no such thing as a portable application only applications that have been ported, even with standard compliant code. Try porting between Linux/Solaris/Windows and see by yourself.

> (paraphrased) _Backend apps should be written in Objective-C instead Java, > let's rewrite them!_

Before making such bold statements about rewriting applications, what can you tell me (if anything) about the speed of a server JVM compared with Objective-C? And this is really a broad question, since for starters, languages don't scale, architectures do. Your outdated SO link doesn't begin to answer. See this general benchmark [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programs-are- fas...](http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programs-are- fastest.php?calc=chart&gpp=on&ifc=on&gcc=on&java=on&ghc=on&csharp=on&sbcl=on&v8=on&hipe=on&vw=on&lua=on&jruby=on&php=on&yarv=on&python3=on&perl=on) and add to that Objective-C message passing. And then think how it translates to server code. Just food for thought.

> _Java API replicates the entirety of the UNIX system layer in Java-ese, > obscuring any helpful C idioms or UNIX-system knowledge in the process_

Because you think that those idioms and platform specific code won't be an issue when ported, or they will be plenty of devs familiar with that, which isn't the case. Most programmers out there use Java because they couldn't code their way out of a paper bag.

> _You cannot postpone garbage collection forever. This is a disaster for > applications that need to scale._

Nope, GC happens incrementally, and it's not a disaster for scalable Java applications that are deployed now in the real world.

> _Oracle now owns Java and is a hostile entity. Java is done. Its future as a > product is finished. Whatever your relationship is with Java now, expect it > to deteriorate._

Completely wrong. JDK 8 lambdas will be feature completed in January 2013, and if you are an Objective-C programmer, you know how much of a change it brings to the language. And we have Jigsaw, project coin, java.util.concurrent with CAS, and countless JSR. Java has better health than ever, ask around.

> _Web shops won't go for Apple servers. All the development, all the > monitoring, all the operational knowledge is based on a few varieties of > Linux._

It's the cost, not the knowledge. Also if you are a linux admin you get the same toys in Mac. An Apple desktop makes sense because it's less likely to interrupt the work of someone with a salary, but a farm of web servers based on Linux is cheap and easily replaceable. The best contribution of Google to the "open" world was to show that you can scale on Linux.

And this makes me think, given that Apple makes money selling hardware, where is the motivation to compete with Java/.Net promoting server frameworks? This is all about us buying Apple hardware people, don't forget.

> _developers who worked at Etsy when I was there, 100% either used a Mac to > develop or use a Mac to develop now. This preference is standard in the > industry._

Most devs in the planet are behind a cheap HP/DELL PC. Otherwise we would know based on StackOverflow logs and sites like that. You could say best devs use laptops, because that's at least what we see in dev conferences.

> _PHP is (or was) the dominant web scripting language by a large margin. This > happened because of performance and ease of use,_

Java couldn't compete because JVM required 128MB RAM, and one app on a shared JVM instance could bring down the rest, so Java was dangerous and cost prohibitive for small sites.

</comment><comment><USER6> I like how you say oracle is a hostile entity and then propose that Apple should charge licensing fees for using objective-c.

You state a lot of opinions as facts and give zero justification.

</comment><comment><USER7> > _If I had to run a monolingual web stack, I would choose Objective-C for the > sole language._

This article is severely undermined by its conflating internet and web. Objective-C doesn't have a significant presence in the browser, and is consequently a useless language for achieving a monolingual _web_ stack. The article demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of the frontend side of the web and assumes that iOS apps are this frontend. There is not a single mention of JavaScript, or even the word "browser".

It also seems to be overly focused on the idea of computational performance, when in many cases applications are IO-bound. The descending cost of compute power means this efficiency edge in computation is decreasing in importance. Also, no mention of things like PyPy? Overall, the article has a very narrow- minded and misguided view of the web.

</comment><comment><USER8> Some people have crazy ideas, and the world needs that. However, trading in Ruby or Python or [insert favorite scripting language] for Objective-C to write server code is a foolish idea that's divorced from reality (with some exceptions).

The vast majority of server code that is written is bit plumbing. Moreover, it's written by not-so-great devs who aren't gdb experts. The performance benefits of C-like languages are completely useless for all but a handful of companies like Google and Facebook. Unless you're doing heavy number crunching server side (which most web apps don't), there's no discernable benefit to using Objectiv-C or C/C++.

There are plenty of benefits to using Java or a scripting language though. The reasons are obvious to anyone techie enough to get this far.

<comment><AUTHOR> Any dev who can write Java can write Objective-C, and there would be real benefit in switching.

> for all but a handful of companies like Google and Facebook

I think this is a mischaracterization. A lot of companies need something at Java's strength or above on the backend. It is a common problem. And organizations with those needs will account for the majority of web traffic.

> heavy number crunching

Also a mischaracterization. Even simple tasks become computationally challenging when you're doing them for a large audience.

<comment><USER9> > A lot of companies need something at Java's strength or above on the > backend. It is a common problem.

A lot of companies _believe_ they need "enterprise-class" software systems, but that doesn't mean they really do. 100 employees working with a database full of text are probably not going to overwhelm Python or Ruby on decent hardware. 100,000 might.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Isn't golang the new backend hipster? Compiled, concurrent, and google is the mommy. I would bet on golang not obj-C. As long as Apple forces people to buy apple hardware in order to make use of obj c it will not catch on.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'd love for a c/c++-based platform to overrule Java... but Objective-c isn't the right language:

\- Apple is a company that likes to take control away from people, why give them more monopolistic power? \- You require a sub-decent xcode editor that only runs on mac computers. After spending around 2 years using xcode I can testify that its a piece of shit! \- Objective-c is overly verbose, horrible syntax (i.e. gluing the method name + first parameter).

</comment><comment><USER12> What could "Grand Central Dispatch is a better way to handle threading, queues ("threading for OO")" possibly mean?

A better way than what? Erlang/Akka Actors? Java concurrent libraries? Clojure STM? Single-threaded async callback fest?

Threading for OO?

I'm not even sure what the author is comparing Obj-C for web developement to.</comment>


A Toxic Paradox - <AUTHOR> http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2009/06/21/a_toxic_paradox.html

<comment><USER2> is anyone else reading this and thinking "So Tesla and Stallman are toxic people?"

Sometimes the culture can be wrong, not the person it rejects.

<comment><USER3> yeah that's what the article mentioned at the end. did you finish it?</comment></comment>


We're Andromium. Making the Superbook, a $99 Android Laptop Shell. AMA - <AUTHOR> Hey HN!
There have been a couple HN posts that others have posted about our Kickstarter for the Superbook, our shell that turns any Android phone into a laptop for $99. We didn't see them until fairly late, so wanted to do an AMA, answering questions about the technology, its applications, our production schedule, manufacturing costs (how we can price it so low), or just anything else in general.
Also wanted to put out an open offer to stop by our offices on 5th and Mission and play with the current working prototype (bring your Android phone too!). Just email me at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andromium/the-superbook-turn-your-smartphone-into-a-laptop-f <comment><USER3> Whats your plan on competing with China copycats, who are no doubt already working on a lower cost clone of your product?

Since its such a great idea, but uses mostly off the shelf parts and doesn't require much specialization, its a perfect target for them.

Look at the patterns: They quickly cannibalize and eventually completely commoditize the market for easy-to-copy products by flooding ebay, amazon, aliexpress, etc with comparable but cheaper items, some of which are probably going to be made by your own supplier/factory in China. Eventually the best of these these get on Engadget or Gizmodo and that's it.

Examples: Android tablets, Google Cardboard, Android Phones, Phone Batteries, etc.

Certainly many will have inferior packaging and engrish manuals. But some will be good enough or better than your product... I would be terrified to base a business around this type of item.

<comment><USER4> Great question. The copycats will be agile (quick to market, quick to iterate through changes) but I imagine their software side would be lacking. Should Andromium be more afraid of Samsung/HTC/etc? Xiaomi? (in between a generic copycat and a Samsung)

With so much data being pushed off devices and onto 3rd parties, I wonder if the real competition is Apple and Google?

<comment><USER3> But they don't need software. You are doing that work for them by giving away your core platform for free. I would imagine that if you change that now your userbase would likely rebel and/or clone/fork your software. Do you plan on hardware locking Andromium?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hardware locking is an option, but to be perfectly honest, we can be a lot more creative than that: \- Freemium tier pricing \- Software licensing for enterprise (security features) \- 'Preloading' apps \- Direct app integration into desktop features

Given how critical the software experience is (and by the way how difficult building an OS experience inside of another OS is), I wouldn't be too quick to assume people jump to whatever is free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have a bunch of possibly naive questions.

I have an Android tablet (Samsung Tab Pro - the 12" beast). An experiment at replacing a laptop on some outings. I bought the A$140 Logitech keyboard / cover, which is good but not great, with some keys being a bit recalcitrant.

Some UI features are frustrating (example: alt-tab brings up the alt-tab switcher - you need to alt-tab twice to move to the most recent process, and toggling between two or three apps on the top of the stack is a common use case for me if I'm trying to do Real Work). An Android problem, I concede.

Given that context - how good is the keyboard, and how are you shipping keyboard + screen at less than a Logitech keyboard - I know, retail, scale, brand mark-up, two years later, etc ... but nonetheless?

Does the app smooth out some of the frustrations (f.e. the alt-tab problem) of working with Android with a keyboard & mouse as though it's a real grown-up DE? Is the app going to offer an increasingly customisable experience, or does it defer to the phone's native Android (and skins) features?

How does it _feel_ \- I know you're biased, but have you tried some phones that it just doesn't work on, and/or have some benchmarks or recommendations? I'm on an original Nexus 5 - which still performs adequately, but with low expectations on a phone interface - how well would it drive the Superbook?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea totally - trust me when I first started on this, I had a lot of the same question.

Keyboard: Think of the keyboard of your standard Chromebook. That's the keyboard. We have to use off the shelf, component parts that are fairly common in order to keep costs low.

Screen: Basic screen is a TN 768p. It's not fantastic, but at a 11.6" screen size, it's fine. For an extra $30, you can get the IPS 1080p upgrade. They're pretty solid.

Keyboard / Mouse / Alt-Tab frustration: Yep. Our software mainly spends a lot of time making the experience of using keyboard and mouse decent. We do take on a number of the phone's native features, but desktop experience optimization is why we built our app - it's the missing software link. For those of you with tablets and usb mouse / keyboard that want to give it a try, test out the beta: play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.andromium.os&hl=en

Phones that don't work: Yea, definitely lower end phones, phones with <2GB RAM run a little rough. There are still a bunch of software features to add / fix / optimize. It still has a bit to go before we hit full desktop parity. We see this as a software problem that we just need to spend a bunch of time on.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm serious about the offer to visit our office. We know Kickstarters have a bad rap for vaporware that takes forever to deliver. You can visit and play with our working prototype. You can try our software beta on your Android phone. And if you're in Shenzhen next week, you and I can kick it at one of the CMs we're looking at (currently in Shanghai myself).

<comment><USER6> I think one of the reasons for the reputation is that in order to attract funding, the price has to be highly competitive and the features have to be remarkable and it's hard to one, let alone both with hardware [with software the price is easier because free to use is possible since revenue can come from advertising and data sales and subscriptions].

I think another reason for the reputation is that crowdfunding is often a necessity when there is a lack of sufficient capital to carry out the project to completion. For hardware, with long lead times and multi-level supply chains lack of sufficient upfront working capital. The attractiveness of crowdfunding when faced with working capital shortfalls means that projects likely to run out of money are more likely to wind up with overly optimistic pre-sales pitches on crowdfunding sites.

Which leads to my question: Since crowdfunders are investors, is there a place where prospective investors can see the full company financials including cash on hand, operating expenses, accounts payable, receivables, and all the other documents that due diligence would suggest?

<comment><AUTHOR> The basic premise here that crowdfunders are investors is wrong. They're idea backers - people that are willing to donate money to see great ideas come to life. Kickstarter says this themselves, and it's a little strange to make the jump that a backer == and investor. Wouldn't you agree?

<comment><USER6> I think the reputation stems primarily from crowdfunders ultimately receiving less than was expected earlier when the money changed hands. So I think "investor" might be overly generous for crowdfunding projects where the sales pitches that are structured like advertisements for consumer products.

That's not to say that there are not crowdfunders who are having fun funding projects while recognizing there is little or no chance of delivery. What I am saying is that the reputation comes from people without that view of the world.

All that with the caveat that my definition of 'donate' appears to have a different connotation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hi I love the superbook. However I totally feel like calling 11.6" a "Large screen" is a stretch. Is there any plan to bring an actually middle-sized screen such as 13.3"? If there was a 13.3" 1080p screen I'd buy it right now.

PS, would love that it was backlit, that is literally the only complain I have with my Asus UX305CA

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, it's marketing - can't deny that. You wouldn't believe how easy it is to fail at Kickstarter and how important preparation and good marketing is.

Yes, we've gotten a ton of good feedback that people are willing to pay for a premium version. If we hit the 2.5M stretch goal, backlit will be a possibility :). We like it, but we also did a survey of our backers that said ~50% would pay for it.

<comment><USER7> By premium you mean backlight, right? 13" is not an option so far?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're definitely considering 13" for our next version. But we want to deliver this version out first. 13" would require us to design a new shell and also source a few more components, including new packaging. Gets a lot tricker.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You mention that you can write code on the Superbook, but I've yet to find any good ide in Android. Any plans to create or partner with someone to get something like Atom running in Andromium/Android? Do you have a particular favorite that you always use right now?

<comment><AUTHOR> YES! We want to. Please reach out to us Atom guys. We're working with some friends working on a cloud IDE, but this is an area where we admit theres a gap in software. We intend to close this gap.

<comment><USER9> Have you looked into wine / crossover? They already have the Windows version of Steam and playable games running on x86 android.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh interesting, looking into WINE some more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How well does it work _without_ Andromium? For instance:

Can I enter directly to the phone with the keyboard? Does the phone screen show on the large screen without Andromium? Is the large screen a touch screen?

Even more important -- if I have a rooted/virtual machine instance of a _standard Linux distro_ running on my smartphone, can I use that? Do I have to use Andromium if I have a setup like a rooted chromebook? Turning the smartphone into a laptop it seems the biggest limitation would then be the app store. I don't want it to "feel" like a computer. I want it to be a computer -- OS and all.

One final question. What is your privacy policy, open vs closed source and permission requirements for Andromium and why?

This is a great idea, but I am raising a serious eyebrow at the Andromium aspect of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> It works fine without Andromium, but it is just a larger version of your phone screen.

The answer is Yes. As long as the device you're working on as a displaylink driver, you can use it. In fact:

Superbook + Surface tablet: [https://vimeo.com/176370847](https://vimeo.com/176370847) Superbook + Mac: [http://imgur.com/a/oZwwN](http://imgur.com/a/oZwwN) Superbook + PC Stick: [http://imgur.com/a/eTbtm](http://imgur.com/a/eTbtm)

<comment><USER11> Is it a DisplayLink 3? There doesn't seem to be an open driver for that due to hardware copy protection features.

<comment><AUTHOR> 4 series :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A few items that would make me buy two $200+ versions of this:

Video extension for multiple monitors. For example the ability to plug my phone into a dual monitor setup for coding.

A 13" primary monitor.

Touchscreen on the primary monitor for those annoying times when you forget it's not touchscreen.

USB ports on the device so I can plug in a wireless mouse and keyboard.

Standard Linux OS virtual machine or rooted a la chromebooks.

Then I would carry my phone between home and work and plug it in both places. No more need to carry a laptop. You could pick one of them up and take it with you for travel. That would be beautiful.

I currently tote my 13" laptop around and plug in an extra monitor and wireless usb mouse/keyboard at the endpoints.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Real talk on limitations: really intensive apps will be hard to run in Andromium. Also, phones with <2GB RAM will run into latency issues. Most apps will currently run in full screen mode, with only those with our SDK included having resizing / multi-window capabilities.

<comment><USER12> What about the multi-window support coming in Android Nougat, will that enable more out of the box functionality?

<comment><AUTHOR> YES! And also more apps that have tablet mode either built in or capable of being included.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is it plausible that this could work with a raspberry pi?

Or hell, even as a tty/dumb terminal for a random linux box?

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha..keep it a secret: [http://imgur.com/PViKxMD](http://imgur.com/PViKxMD)

Actually have only sneaked this to our commenters. Will do an update to everyone soon...

<comment> irq-1 Cool! Have you considered embedding a Raspberry Pi Zero so the Superbook can get on the web when there's not a phone attached? I know that's like reinventing the Chromebook, but the CPU and memory are so cheap...

<comment><AUTHOR> It is really cool, but for our vision, it is just a neat feature. We want to empower device convergence, so that Android smartphone can be leveraged as laptops for learning and productivity use :)

<comment><USER14> > It is really cool, but for our vision, it is just a neat feature.

If you release it for Raspberry Pi, you could get a lot of exposure on techy blogs, that's essentially free advertisement to reach many more core customers, I think you're underestimating what level of goodwill it might bring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A few technical questions also covered in our AMA on Reddit a couple weeks back: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/4ty163/were_androm...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/4ty163/were_andromium_making_the_superbook_a_99_android/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Also XDA did a little bit of a technical dive into our product: [http://www.xda-developers.com/andromiums-99-superbook- conver...](http://www.xda-developers.com/andromiums-99-superbook-converts- your-android-smartphone-into-a-laptop/)

Particularly relevant is the portions on the use of the DisplayLink 4xxx chipset, USB-OTG, and battery size

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Another question, how does it all work internally? Is it just an USB Hub? Would I be able, for example, to connect my main Laptop to the Superbook and use it as another screen+keyboard+mouse?

<comment><AUTHOR> USB hub + a display link chip + power circuitry. Yes you can!

Check it out:

Surface + Superbook: [https://vimeo.com/176370847/ddd187ceab](https://vimeo.com/176370847/ddd187ceab) Mac + Superbook: [http://imgur.com/a/oZwwN](http://imgur.com/a/oZwwN) PC Stick + Superbook: [http://imgur.com/a/eTbtm](http://imgur.com/a/eTbtm)

<comment><USER7> I really want to try it then in pair programming or while teaching programming to someone. Looking forward for the 13" version, thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> YES we really want that to happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What I want is to sit in my recliner at home, and put one device--that includes monitor, keyboard, speakers, and mouse--into my lap, with one shared cable--for USB, audio, video, and power--running down to a MiniITX shoebox on the floor next to my chair.

Can Superbook do that, with any combination of commodity cable adapters?

I want to turn a large self-assembled home computer into a laptop, not just my phone. That is, something with a powerful processor and dedicated high- resolution video hardware. I think you probably know what I'm getting at, here. I want to put my feet up and play 3D games with WASD+mouse, without juggling all the human interface devices in my lap or building my own custom swing-arm stand for them. Right now, I can handle a regular laptop and wireless mouse, but if the monitor is not affixed to the keyboard, it all falls apart. More specifically, the monitor falls over.

So will Superbook be able to connect with DisplayPort/HDMI in addition to connecting the human interface devices through USB? If not, extra bonus stretch goal?

</comment><comment><USER16> I remember a while back there was the similar ClamCase Clambook[1] (all manufacturer links now non-existent). It never shipped. Any relation to that project? 1 - [http://www.zdnet.com/article/clambook-turn-your- smartphone-i...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/clambook-turn-your-smartphone- into-a-laptop/)

<comment><USER17> There was also Motorola Atrix and one can get that laptop/shell for $75 on eBay. I wonder if their app works with it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha yes! But when it came out, the laptop shell was $500-$600. Unsupported hardware has a tendency to get cheap ;)

<comment><USER18> I've been using the Atrix lapdock for a while with a Raspberry Pi, and the one thing that bothered me is that keys for adjusting things on the dock itself (like screen brightness, or keyboard backlight) don't work unless the USB is connected to a device that recognizes it. Is this the same for the Superbook, or does it process its own key presses?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Already bought the Nexdock..

I would really like to see a slot for the phone, like the old Asus Tablet where you could insert a telephone in the back.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's cool! We're big fans, and Nexdock is great for Windows mobile phones. We are not compatible with Windows mobile phones at all.

The slot is interesting, but makes it hard to fit with every phone. One of the biggest challenges of Android is the fragmentation across devices, OSes, and experiences. We wanted to make this accessible to ALL Android devices, so that's why we opted for the side mount option instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does my phone needs to have MHL (Mobile High-Definition Link) to be able to connect it? or how does it work via USB?

<comment><AUTHOR> No MHL needed. We use a DisplayLink 4xxx series chip that converts video data over USB. Works with Lollipop and above.

See: [http://www.displaylink.com/downloads/android](http://www.displaylink.com/downloads/android)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's also why we can work with almost any modern android device. Only USB-OTG support is needed.

<comment><USER20> Doesn't that mean that there are serious limitations when it comes to 3d games or video watching on the bigger screen ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes totally for 3D games. We see the Superbook as more of a productivity tool. You would most likely still play your games on your phone. But for video watching, no. There's virtually no lag. See our Surface demo to get a sense of how well it works: [https://vimeo.com/176370847](https://vimeo.com/176370847)

Btw because we use DisplayLink, you can also use the Superbook as a secondary monitor / keyboard / mouse for windows tablet,s laptops, and PC sticks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Wouldn't have been possible to put a slot inside the keyboard dock where you could insert your phone and close it inside?

Not an Ubuntu touch expert, but would it be compatible? Just plugging it in and have what ubuntu want to reach? a complete linux distro on the go? If not, are you able to support it?

<comment><AUTHOR> You could, buuuut Android phones are so fragmented that it would be really really hard to do it for every phone and have it be aesthetically pleasing. That's why we opted for the universal side mount option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm curious about how the Superbook is charged. It seems you're shipping a custom charger, but also somewhere on the Kickstarter it talks about micro- USB. So, would a regular USB charger be able to charge the Superbook, or does it only work with your own charging brick?

<comment><AUTHOR> Great question. The Superbook is charged using a standard micro-b cord. A regular charger works fine. To charge the phone however is a little complex. We have a custom USB-OTG cord for that. The reason is because we need to send data one way and power the other.

<comment><USER23> Any chance that the Superbook could be charged over USB-C instead? I'm trying (with middling success) to avoid purchasing any devices with other charging ports at this point.

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally - I think we'll do this if we can, but there are some certification challenges w/Type C if you ONLY use it as a charging port. At least that's what we've heard - would welcome anyone who'd know more about this from a hardware mfg standpoint

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Okay: Will you opensource you app?

On a related note, will you have a well-defined API for other apps to have first-class support for this thing?

I think that's everything... ooh! ooh! No it isn't!

You said that the superbook would be suitable for coding. so will you provide any of:

1: A terminal emulator

2: An X Server

3: Emacs

Thank you for your time.

<comment><USER25> You can get Termux on Android and run Emacs! I even run Spacemacs.

[https://termux.com/](https://termux.com/)

I don't think Termux comes with an X server though... However, looks like X server is available on Android for a while now:

[https://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/03/06/1837245/x-server- no...](https://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/03/06/1837245/x-server-now- available-for-android)

<comment><USER24> Alright!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Have you guys heard about the Casetop? [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lividesign/casetop- ever...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lividesign/casetop-every-phone- becomes-a-laptop)

Cleaver way of docking the phone! (Especially the option to slide it in under the keyboard.) I wish you could do something similar :)

</comment><comment><USER27> Are there plans to bring the Superbook to retail later at a similar price point (or even just selling off your website)?

I'm tempted to back this but I'm in the middle of a move and some personal expenses so I'm trying to be good and conserve money right now, so it'd be nice to know that the Kickstarter won't be the only opportunity in the next year or two to get this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Please don't worry about it! We intend on having it up for pre-sale + online purchase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I read that someone mentioned it already, but didn't find a good response, so I'll ask again.

When doing web development the browser dev tools are indispensable. Is there any possibility to run a full desktop browser on an Android phone to get those tools? Or some other way to inspect elements, live edit CSS properties, debug JavaScript etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea we see developer work as a key use case for the Superbook. We have a decent desktop browser in the Superbook, but it's going to take some work to integrate a full dev environment. Something that we're keen on doing.

<comment><USER26> Ohh, you have your own browser? What other browser is it based on? Do you have any screen shots? Does it support plugins?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Clickable link: [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andromium/the- superbook...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andromium/the-superbook- turn-your-smartphone-into-a-laptop-f)

</comment><comment><USER29> On a more theoretical question:

Is a solution technically possible where the phone is connected to a normal desktop/laptop via USB, and I could extend in to the phone via a semi-full screen portal?

What limitations are there that are preventing this from happening?

<comment><USER30> In that configuration the computer is the host and the phone is the 'device'. You'd have to either install some kind of remote viewer on the phone (e.g. Chromecast), or reverse the host relationship and put something like the DisplayLink chip in the middle.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep - spot on

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I love the idea of the device, but I have doubts about international shipping costs. It's hard for me to imagine buying a product, 50% price of which is shipping costs :/

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't know if this feature is on the roadmap, but touchscreen would be cool (and probably super hard to implement) because of how much of the mobile experience is geared towards that.

<comment><AUTHOR> 100% possible and in the roadmap for v2. We couldn't add it to this version and keep it at $99, but trust me - I've touched the screen more than a few times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> How does the display work? I know my phone doesn't support MHL or Slimport so is there some sort of HDMI over USB or something?

</comment><comment><USER33> How does this compare to the user experience on Remix OS?

<comment><AUTHOR> Remix is unabashedly better of a user experience right now. It has to be. They rewrote Android to be a desktop OS - you can't get more integrated than that. However, two things: 1) they had to break Android, which means no more access to Google services, including the play store. 2) you have to install Remix OS, getting rid of your Android Os. Which wouldn't work on a phone. So you still have to stick with multiple devices.

<comment><USER33> Apparently one can still get to the google play store [1], similar to Cyanogenmod missing Play Store out of the box.

Is there inspiration or parts you can share with Remix?

[1]: [http://liliputing.com/2016/01/remix-os-for-pc-how-to- install...](http://liliputing.com/2016/01/remix-os-for-pc-how-to-install-the- google-play-store.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Totally. We will absolutely love to get as pretty and as functional as Remix, with just downloading an app. I think that's the key - it needs to live on the phone and it can't require installing a new OS.

<comment><USER33> Best wishes! It would be very neat to see how this proceeds!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I see no mention of audio on your Kickstarter page or amongst these comments. Does the Superbook have audio support or does it use my phone for that?

<comment><USER35> It's in the FAQ, a bit hidden..

\--

Here's a list of features that have been requested of us that we WON'T be considering for our Kickstarter model (but maybe in the future):

\- Audio speakers (trust us, the ones on your phone are much better than any speaker we could source affordably)

<comment><USER34> Ah, that's too bad but I guess it makes sense. Would buy a "pro" version of this if it had a built in low latency audio interface or even just a DAC. I'm not sure if the Android APIs support such a thing, however.

<comment><USER36> A Bluetooth speaker is a fine compromise.

<comment><USER34> Not for realtime audio applications, way too much latency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> How do regular apps like Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter etc. look like on the device. Are they stretched out versions of the Phone apps?

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now, landscape mode versions of the phone apps. Part of the work we need to do as a company is to build out our developer ecosystem, so companies can allow the Tablet versions of their apps to show in multi-window mode when plugged into the Superbook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Hi, with all the experiments you made on android smartphones, have you documented the performance of the smartphone over the time?

</comment><comment><USER16> Do I have to run Andromium to use it or can I also use my current setup and have it simply mirror my display with keyboard/mouse?

<comment><AUTHOR> You don't need to, but the mirror of your smartphone display sometimes ends up being a fully portrait screen - not the best experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Works well with Termux (especially with Emacs)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea it works with Termux just fine. We're working on getting a better solution for programming though :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> What marketing did you do prior to launching the Kickstarter? Did you use paid ads to build an email list?

<comment><AUTHOR> Everything we did that mattered, I actually detailed out in a piece for Startup Grind: [https://www.startupgrind.com/blog/how-we-blew-past-our- crowd...](https://www.startupgrind.com/blog/how-we-blew-past-our-crowdfunding- goal-in-the-first-10-minutes/)

<comment><USER40> Great article. Did you use an outside marketing consultant or do all this yourself?

<comment><AUTHOR> We had some great mentors who provided guidance from their on Kickstarter experience :)

We did the work ourselves. Except for the video. That was all Glass and Marker

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Hey - I'm thinking about pulling the trigger - but I have one question - <USER2> it work with Continuum?

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha don't pull the trigger! It doesn't work with Continuum. Windows mobile is hard to support -_-

<comment><USER11> Is that just the lack of a compatible DisplayLink driver? Would it be possible to support HDMI in (without HDCP)? Is that a limitation of the DL chip since there are USB monitors that support HDMI in as well.

Also, on Reddit it was mentioned that you have a headphone jack, does this involve a codec and pre-amp hardware? Does this increase the price or complexity?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep - that's exactly right.

We could at some point, but our goal isn't to support windows. Our belief is that device convergence will happen and Android phones will lead the way.

We don't have a headphone jack! Sorry if there was any misinformation / if I messed up there. Lots of chefs were in that particular AMA kitchen. This one: just me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> How really does this work? I plug in my android 5+ smartphone, and I can access my apps on it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yea. Andromium (our App) makes Android function like a familiar desktop OS, and gives apps with our SDK some additional capabilities (resizing, multitasking, etc.). Every other app simply opens up in full size mode, so you can still use all of your regular Android apps. Check out the beta: play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.andromium.os&hl=en

<comment><USER42> How is this different than airdroid?

<comment><AUTHOR> Airdroid is for your laptop to have access to Android apps. We're big proponents of device convergence, that our smartphones are so important and powerful now that we don't need to maintain multiple computing devices. Consider how often you upgrade your phone and how much of your life / data / files / apps are on it. For most people, 90% of their computing needs happen on the smartphone. The remaining 10% of the time is spent mainly on things like browsing, writing long documents etc - things that are simply made better by a larger screen and laptop form factor.

The benefit of having everything on one computer is that you don't need to sync files and constantly upgrade multiple devices. You get to stay in one computing ecosystem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Are you going to deliver, unlike most hardware Kickstarter projects?

<comment><AUTHOR> Haha I sense no underlying tone here at all.

Yea we're going to try. I mean honest to god we're like any other SF startup. If we don't deliver, we're screwed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Slightly off-topic, but is there something similar that exists for iOS? I have an old iPhone 5 in my car that I'd like to control using a much larger touch screen that is to be mounted on the dashboard somewhere.

</comment><comment><USER45> How much are you anticipating this will cost after launch?

<comment><AUTHOR> Current plan is to launch at $129 post-Kickstarter

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Love how the website in the demo is theverge.com. That pretty much convinced me it's good hardware.

<comment><USER47> all the processing happens on the phone...</comment></comment>


4 Days Left: Fire Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Heymann - <AUTHOR> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb

<comment><USER2> This petition was started the day after Swartz's suicide, when almost all public discussion was based on emotional reaction to speculation rather than sound analysis of the facts. This petition reflects that.</comment>


Chrome OS: But Will it Run Photoshop? - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2009/07/08/chrome-os-photoshop/ <comment><USER2> This article misses the point of the Google OS. It is a web-centric OS for devices that are used primarily for surfing.

Having said that, I think it is pretty clear that Google is betting on most of our applications living in the cloud in the future, and that is the trend they are banking on here.

<comment><USER3> The article is spot on in asking a critical question about exactly how capable Google's offering is in reality as an OPERATING SYSTEM. To say that Google's OS is to provide a distributed storage mechanism is to bypass the concept of what an OS actually is - the gateway to the underlying hardware so that you can perform the functionality required to complete a specific task.

If Google's goal is to provide us with a distributed storage mechanism, then a better strategy would be to provide a better interface to their web offerings on existing operating systems.

No matter how much we desire a web-centric user experience, there will always be a need for software that takes advantage of all the computing power available in as small a foot print that is right in front of you. The question is will Google's OS provide this ability equally as well as Windows or Mac OSX can in order to be considered a "complete" operating system that has additional advantages.

<comment><USER4> _what an OS actually is - the gateway to the underlying hardware so that you can perform the functionality required to complete a specific task_

This is exactly correct. But in the case of Chrome OS, the real underlying hardware is the server youre connecting too, not your local machine. So photoshop (or similar photo editing software) will run on Chrome OS, but it's going to run in a network connected piece of software using server resources.

This minimizes the need for expensive local equipment, and dramatically increases the demands of the server. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in the future Google plans on renting their server resources based on the number of CPU cycles you use!

<comment><USER5> > So photoshop (or similar photo editing software) will run on Chrome OS, but > it's going to run in a network connected piece of software using server > resources.

Like, say, Aviary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> 1\. How many netbook users run Photoshop on their netbook? I'd bet that it's an insignificant number.

2\. Aviary (<http://aviary.com/home>) will likely run fine on it. :p

<comment><USER7> And it'll have NaCl preinstalled, presumably.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Essentially asks "why isn't it everything for everyone?"

Apple's OS/hardware isn't that either, they seem to be doing very good. Why do you want creative features in a consumerist OS? It seems to be a sort of a "TV 2.0", not a UNIX workstation, even if it runs on Linux (kernel).

Let's wait to find out what they actually have in mind, and _then_ jump to conclusions.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think that the Google OS will be great even if I only boot to it occasionally. If it really only takes a few seconds to boot, it will be useful to use when on the road or when I just want to check email.

It's a little like using Chrome instead of Firefox. I use Chrome when I actually want to use the web like a normal person, but when I want to do real work and development, I use Firefox because it is so much more powerful (WebDeveloper, Firebug, TamperData, etc).

</comment><comment><USER10> I think what we're going to see is a way to hook into Chrome so that it appears like you're launching an application (rather than visiting a web site), but it runs within the Chrome engine using HTML/JS. With Native Client, even complex operations could be done within Chrome without performance worries.

</comment><comment><USER11> Hasn't Adobe already preempted the issue with Photoshop Express (<https://www.photoshop.com/express/landing.html>)?</comment>


Manjaro Linux treasurer resigns amid unjustified use of donation funds - <AUTHOR> https://forum.manjaro.org/t/change-of-treasurer-for-manjaro-community-funds/154888/13 <comment><AUTHOR> Link to Manjaro forums was also posted to Reddit, where jonathon (former treasurer) explained futher:

Just over a year ago, Phil and Bernhard incorporated Manjaro GmbH Co&KR with the intention of allowing them to be paid to work on Manjaro full-time and make commercial deals. They also registered trademarks.

This put them at odds with the existing donation funds and community project which knew nothing about the company. The company also meant them exerting ownership over the brand, IP, etc.

To avoid the issue of community funds being used to fund the company, fiscal hosting was set up with CommunityBridge and OpenCollective, with those being administered by people who were independent of the company. Phil personally still holds a large amount of community donations (more than in all of CB and OC).

Expense claims against community funds have always been rare, and mainly consisted of conference and travel expenses (notably where Manjaro was heavily promoted as a brand).

There is a definite conflict when Manjaro GmbH is, for example, making deals with a hardware company to optimise Manjaro for laptops, then claiming expenses from community funds for laptops from that company to do development for that company.

This was one factor which led to the above events.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ManjaroLinux/comments/hwo33h/change...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManjaroLinux/comments/hwo33h/change_of_treasurer_for_manjaro_community_funds/)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the summary.

If the company was created recently, how can they have brand or IP ownership over Manjaro that was pre-existing?

For example, for the Manjaro brand, to me it looks like that a trademark should not worth much as the brand was already existing and in use for this specific purpose for a long time before.

Maybe the community should just accumulate the proof of the existence of Manjaro before 2019 just in case that the company wants to limit rights on Manjaro?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > unjustified use of donation funds

There was no actual mishandling of funds, just [disagreement on procedure]([https://forum.manjaro.org/t/change-of-treasurer-for- manjaro-...](https://forum.manjaro.org/t/change-of-treasurer-for-manjaro- community-funds/154888/100)):

> To clarify, there has not been any fund misuse. There has been a > disagreement about the __process __of how the funds are allocated, but no > funds have been allocated during the conflict.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well there is a lot of she said he said in that threat, sadly it was locked.

Even the very act of locking the topic speak volumes about linux distribution.

On top of that, prior to lock one of the mods called the users children.

I lost of respect for Manjaro today. Can't wait for PR statement.

<comment><USER4> New thread, post-team announcement: [https://forum.manjaro.org/t/discussion- about-the-change-in-m...](https://forum.manjaro.org/t/discussion-about-the- change-in-manjaro-team-composition/155229)</comment></comment></comment>


Learn from Google+. Copy First, Innovate Second - <AUTHOR> http://www.gettingmoreawesome.com/2011/07/13/google-plus/

<comment><USER2> Frankly, I think g+ is one of google's more innovative projects in recent history, namely the way circles work.

But think about the "copy first, innovate second" idea.

When your product is a search engine, there already are engines out there and its a category so you have to "copy" the basic functionality of search. Those are the table stakes.

Google innovated with pagerank, but they did this first. By finding the pagerank method, they were able to produce a better search engine... but they didn't just do an inverted index and run with that for awhile and then decide to "innovate" later.

Look at what Apple does. When they did an MP3 player, yes, they met the table stakes of being able to play MP3s. But they didn't just put out a generic player, and then innovate. They figured out an innovation that made the player worth doing in the first place, then they did it. Apple doesn't just copy products, everything Apple makes they do so because there is a unique selling proposition that differentiates it from the rest of the market (at least in Apple's eyes. We may not appreciate the USP that Apple does.)

For instance the key innovation of the iPod was not the clickwheel, but the iTunes ecosystem. Even though iTunes store didn't come out until later, it was the purpose behind the iPod.

I'm not really disagreeing with this article which reviews the similiarities between g+ and facebook.

But I do want to point out that so many companies get the "copy first" part right, but never get around to the "innovate later" part. Copy first is becomming a mantra. Facebook was a copy of The Face Book, in fact. The reason facebook is what it is is that they did get around to innovating later.

The reason there's no competition for the iPod is that the competition never got around to innovating (or in MSFT's case, got around to it way too late.)

<comment><USER3> Actually, I was more taken by the combination of the clickwheel, good firmware and nice hardware design which together make an ipod an amazingly nice device to use - unlike most of their competitors who fell down on some or all of those and ended up with something that could physically hold a thousand songs but couldn't actually deal with them all.

Although, I suppose it might be that itunes forms another part of that; I've owned an ipod but never installed itunes. For a lot of people it probably is a big deal though, especially if the only alternative they'd seen was whatever awful thing Sony was packaging at the time.

I'm still not sure that any of the competition have really copied that. At least I haven't seen a replacement yet that really felt equally well done. My guess would be that too many companies think their "innovation" is going to be "it's cheaper" and compromise quality in order to get there.

<comment><USER4> Steve Jobs quoted Alan Kay with "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." I don't want to turn this into a "I hate/love Apple" discussion but I think that's what separated Apple from MSFT.

Apple had a track record of making their own hardware and software work together really really well. MSFT didn't really follow Alan Kay's hypothesis. I would say that is what the heart of Apple's success is, it's reputation for excellent software/hardware integration.

Google's copy-innovate system is going to work because they brought about good integration between their products (for the most part). That is why Google, like Apple, should generate a very good user-fan-base. Which I believe the article pointed out very well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love how we as a species can just rationalize anything. Google+ has been out for a couple of weeks. Yes, it's gaining new users rather quickly, but am I the only one who thinks it's perhaps a bit premature to write about its success and what we can all learn from it?

</comment><comment><USER6> This approach is very common. Any start-up dismissed as "a feature, not a product" has pretty much started this way: 1. take a product you like, but that is missing a feature you really want; 2. clone with added feature; 3. launch.

More often than not this approach fails either because of the high cost of migration to potential users or more likely the pet feature doesn't actually appeal to any more than a small niche.

Don't think this necessarily applies to Google in this case. But I think Google can pull together a user base of 10/20 million pretty easily. The success of Google+ will be determined by whether they can get into the 100's of millions.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm getting really tired of bull-hunky articles like this. At best it's a tenuous assertion. At worst it's just the mindless ramblings of someone who desperately wants to sound like an expert but isn't.

There's no lesson to be learned here, and anyone who thinks there is needs needs to defrag their own memory. For every article with a headline like this, you'll find just as many that preach the opposite. Both equally valid, and both equally wrong.

It's debatable wether Google copied anything at all. It is possible to approach the same problem from two different angles and reach many of the same conclusions.

Talking about your observations and theories is great and should be encouraged. Dressing them up as anything more than your own insights is cheap and tacky.

</comment><comment><USER8> I wonder if this was a conscious decision on the part of Google. It seems more likely that Google went through some sort of user-centered design process and it was just coincidence that what they needed to build didn't require that many new components.

</comment><comment><USER9> totally agree with you @rishi, you need to lower the entry barrier for mass adoption, copying is a popular choice

</comment><comment><USER10> That's the Microsoft way, not Google.</comment>


Taking the Mystery out of Scaling a Company - <AUTHOR> http://bhorowitz.com/2010/08/02/taking-the-mystery-out-of-scaling-a-company/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter <comment><USER2> Although I have not personally had the experience of scaling a company, it seems like well thought out advice from someone who has. The problems presented are the kind I wish I was experiencing!</comment>


Scientists say halting deforestation 'just as urgent' as reducing emissions - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/04/climate-change-deforestation-global-warming-report <comment><USER2> Deforestation is a great issue in developing economies. It's something which must be addressed. What's not mentioned is that human population growth is the main driver of this pressure.

Given our abilities to manage disease and such, more efforts should go into educating women in developing allowing them to become more independent and have more control over their reproduction. When people move from agrarian societies to urban, they don't need more than replacement numbers --but in many developing economies the effort to stall growth is overshadowed by other less effective efforts.

China would not be where it is without the great effort (though hamfistedly implemented) it put into controlling growth --it was only necessary to dampen growth while the country caught up economically and now natural forces are effectively resulting in pop stability (unlike India, for example).

<comment><USER3> > China would not be where it is without the great effort (though hamfistedly > implemented) it put into controlling growth

I would not advocate this authoritarian approach (I'm not saying you are). Part of the solution is what you said earlier, education. But population stabilizes on it's own as a country goes through the Demographic Transition.

See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition)

Or for something more light-hearted: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348)

<comment><USER4> The question is whether the population will naturally level out before or after the last old growth rain forests are gone.

We need to empower women in those countries and enable people to make a living in other ways than selling timber and slash-and-burn agriculture. Breeding and selling rare butterflies[1] is one option that I've heard of, but obviously that doesn't scale. I don't find it unreasonable to just pay people for not cutting down rain forests. First world countries have a responsibility here. After all we cut down all our old growth forests and now demand that developing countries don't do the same.

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya- butterflies/kenyans...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kenya- butterflies/kenyans-sell-butterflies-to-save-rainforest-idUSL0378588120070803)

<comment><USER5> People always throw these concepts around as though 'First world countries' is 4 or 5 individual people. I didn't cut down any forest, neither did my family. Perhaps my family trade was training birds in those forests, so I was personally very disadvantaged by cutting them down. So should I have to pay other countries not to cut theirs down now? My point is, these high-level thoughts are theoretically sound but can never be applied to the real world.

<comment><USER4> If you value intact ecosystems and diversity you should definitely pay for them. You can't just tell poor countries not to exploit the resources that they have and hope they comply. Especially when your country's wealth is build on clear cutting, strip mining, and pollution. Even if you think that the past has nothing to do with you, the simple argument that you have money and like Orangutans and they have nothing but a forest should be enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Meanwhile even a country normally viewed as responsible is cutting down ancient forest to get to the coal beneath. Bit of a double whammy. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/berlin- startup...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/09/berlin-startup- offers-1m-to-save-ancient-hambach-forest-from-coal-mining)

<comment><USER7> George Monbiot opines that Germany has never been particularly responsible:

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/19/world- leading-eco-vandal-angela-merkel-german-environmental)

<comment><USER8> My government (Germany) just "lost" _(their feeling, esp. voiced by minister of the Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital infrastructure (BMVI) who is from the most conservative coalition partner and sees tougher standards as a problem)_ on the EU level when they voted for tougher CO2 limits for cars. German governments have always valued the car industry (or any other for that matter) higher.

On the other hand, I'm from East Germany, and the area was a huge dump. _very_ dirty rivers, ash mountains, it was really bad. A few decades later: Mostly paid for by West Germany (due to their still being far less industrial power in the Eat) rivers are actually wonderful. The river through Nuremberg, where I live now, (still?) is dirty and stinks (probably runoff from agriculture) - but the two rivers in East Germany where I used to grow up now have _wonderful_ clean water. The ash mountains were removed, which took thousands of trucks and a few years, there now is new industry in that spot. It is much, MUCH cleaner than before. Similar efforts took place in West Germany in areas where there had been lots of dirty industry and mining. As a student I got to be on an educational tour and was shown a lot of projects, they had achieved incredible improvements in formerly devastated areas.

Also, courts and cities are starting to try to fight pollution by cars, e.g. by placing bans and restrictions on Diesel powered cars, at this point often against the federal government which fears loss of jobs (the great thread from the car industry whenever they are asked to build cleaner cars).

So, good as well as bad in Germany. I think we are way too dependent on the car industry. It's not just the known manufacturers themselves, the amount of directly dependent industry is even bigger. One in seven jobs and ~14% of GDP is in or depends on the car industry ([https://www.thelocal.de/20150924/what- the-vw-scandal-means-f...](https://www.thelocal.de/20150924/what-the-vw- scandal-means-for-germanys-economy)).

<comment><USER6> If Germany cares about their car industry they'll force ten percent per year drops in ICE sales to force them to compete in electrics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Whatever happened with the idea of using drones to plant 1 billion trees?

I was in Iceland earlier this year - a country largely devoid of trees. There aren't any because the Vikings chopped them all down. Despite the cold - however - they do grow there albeit much slower then elsewhere.

In any case, it seems to me we could be seeding a lot of barren locations so they'll become forests within 20 years.

<comment><USER10> Sheep.

They've tried and sheep tend to eat all the saplings. Unlike in other places the sheep are not penned in, they're free to roam which means any area you want to try and re-forest in a fairly hostile environment to begin with has to be expensively fenced off until they get to a fairly good size.

<comment><USER11> Can't fence in the sheep? Fence in the trees.

<comment><USER4> It's a lot harder to build a fence with a drone than to airdrop a sapling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Number one cause for amazon deforestation is cattle.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest#Causes_of_deforestation)

All the more reason to go vegan.

<comment><USER13> Or don't keep cattle in the rainforest. Not every problem with cattle has to be solved by making an impractical and enormous swing in your life.

<comment><USER14> Cattle are kept in the rainforest, yes, but the forest cut down for grazing is far outweighed for the forest cut down to groy soy to feed the cattle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I wish that we didn't keep getting headlines containing phrases like "scientists say this" "according to scientists" and so on. I mean, how much does it hurt to be specific? Sometimes it just turns out to be a single grad student or something like that. The article doesn't even say who they are but even "A group of 40 scientists signed a statement saying.." would be an improvement.

</comment><comment><USER16> I sometimes wonder about the right of a country to use rapid deforestation / dirty energy as a way to development.

100-200 years ago, every modern developed economy did the same and cemented their positions as dominant economies. There is no question that these countries have been the majority contributors to climate change over the last 2 centuries.

Morally speaking, are underdeveloped countries not entitled to the same. Why should they use more expensive and cleaner fuel as payment for a problem that's not their fault ?

I see the fault in my own argument, which is that we are all on this together and massive collective action is the only recourse we have.

But, the perceived injustice faced by underveloped countries is probably not misplaced.

The onus is certainly on the west to take an initiative.

<comment><USER17> The onus is definitely on the existing developed nations to persuade developing nations not to deforest.

That likely means paying to protect the forests, and also to encourage the kind of economic development that would have happened with deforestation as well. All of the timber logistics and processing industry, as well as the agriculture that would develop in the cleared lands is compelling. Certainly maintaining pristine forests employs some people and could promote tourism (depending on access issues), but that doesn't really compare.

But developing countries also crave independence and self-sufficiency, so it must be done with a light touch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If you want to take direct action join the Woodland Trust [https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/membership/](https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/membership/)

We are actually out there planting trees like it's going out of fashion

</comment><comment><USER19> Sure. The greater problem is how do we achieve that. With a growing population, deforestation has become necessary to meet agricultural and accommodation needs of humans. As sad as it sounds, people need food and shelter.

The problem boils down to controlling population and also handling population. If people want to keep buying new houses, there is more demand for deforestation. The agricultural demand for deforestation increases with the amount of food wastage we observe these days. Such incremental improvements in lifestyle could help us save forests.

<comment><USER20> vertical agriculture

<comment><USER21> What about preventing new births and drone controlling every pristine forest with multiple task-forces ready to jet there when the bad boys try to touch it ? While vertical agriculture might in some measure work - it's ugly AF

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Ironically in the first world we have reforestation and the wild reclaiming more and more land. While in the third world more and more forest are cut.

</comment><comment><USER23> In a capitalist economy, why would anyone maintain a forest? Unless you get enough direct personal benefit, or someone else is paying you enough, you wouldn't.

This isn't a failure of capitalism; this _is_ capitalism.

<comment><USER6> Because not maintaining it is too expensive after you pay for the externalities. Which you must, of course, in any reasonable regime.

<comment><USER24> Not in Q4.

<comment><USER6> Thus the "reasonable" bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Why can't a few billionaires of the world buy up a large % of the rainforests? Seriously. Besides the fact that they would rather let their wealth sit in a hedge fund, I mean.

<comment><USER26> Because that would only get them paper. Trees are poached even when offically off limit and enforcement carries its own problems - especially with the optics involved. Even if they started on the rental foreign aid model they would rapidly wind up in trouble via Morton's forks. Government engaged in travesties (even worse if done in defense of the tree subsidies) or becomes a dictatorship - do you stop the cash flow? Not to mention the money infamously usually fails to be distributed equitably driving the desperately poor to make more short term decisions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Talking about that, how can a small group plant trees (with seeds) ? Is it subtle and complex ? or is it possible to do on a hike ?

<comment><USER4> Just plant a couple of trees every day: [https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/short-film- showca...](https://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/short-film- showcase/india-man-plants-forest-bigger-than-central-park-to-save-his-island)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> "By protecting and restoring forests, the world would achieve 18% of the emissions mitigation needed by 2030 to avoid runaway climate change"

So no, it could NOT "really be as simple as saving trees".

<comment><USER29> We changed the url from [https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/10/science- says...](https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/10/science-says-saving- the-planet-could-really-be-as-simple-as-saving-trees/) to its original source. Bonus: a non-baity title.</comment></comment>


Cutting the Cord on Cable  - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577138841278154700.html <comment><USER3> But where is the author getting his internet service from?

For instance, I live in Brooklyn, and the only reliable high-speed internet service is via Time Warner Cable. I currently get their WideBand service (50mbps down) bundled with basic cable and an VOIP phone I never use in a 12-month promotion. This costs me $118 p/mo. When that 12-month period was up I called to cancel stuff and they extended that promotion for another 12 months.

If I subscribed to just the internet service, it would cost me $95 p/mo and that's before the taxes and fees, so it would come to about the same I am paying now.

The only other player for internet service in my area is Clear 4G WiFi which is a joke when it comes to speed.

So basically, I'm stuck with cable for internet service, and through effective bundle pricing the missus can still watch Housewives of * on the big telly.

<comment><USER4> Clear 4G is a dream to setup though. No shady install guy and 4 to 8 hour window. You get a box in the mail next day and plug it in.

<comment><USER5> Unfortunately, it's not a dream to use: [http://jseliger.com/2008/02/25/another-public-service- announ...](http://jseliger.com/2008/02/25/another-public-service-announcement- on-clearwire/) . Maybe things have improved since then.

BTW, like the OP, I have expensive Comcast service because I have no other effective choice, and they just sent me a box and let me set it up too.

<comment><USER6> If you know you are going to use Comcast for a year or more, it is cheaper (or break-even) to buy your own modem. Amazon has the Motorola surfboards (SB6120 and SB6121) for $75 and $85, respectively (vs. $7/mo *12mo=$84).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Personally I've found TV watching to be borne out of some sort of inertia. There was a point where I paid for all the pre-requisite packages for the privilege of being able to add The Speed Channel and watch my Formula 1, ALMS, etc. I watched a fair amount of TV, and already had some pricey packages, so what was a bit more?

However, the time came along where I didn't have as much time to watch racing anymore. I had a TiVo, but even then, I just didn't have the time to watch the recorded races. Eventually, I pared things down to the "Expanded" package. However, the few shows of interest went away. So when I moved, I pared down to Basic, only because if I didn't, I would only save $0.80/mo on my cable bill since Internet service would cost $10/mo more without a bundled television package.

I think the television was on about 12 hours last year, in terms of broadcast programming. Yes, twelve. Why? I fell out of the habit of slouching in my lounge chair and sitting there for a few hours every evening. My routine changed, and there always seems to be this large amount of inertia to overcome to change my routines. Unless the content producers come up with compelling reasons for me to park myself in front of the TV again, it will probably remain a tremendously expensive paperweight.

Granted, I do occasionally play video games, and stream content from YouTube, or my transcoded DVD library to an Apple TV, but I don't do that all that much.

It's like getting someone who lives in New York City to get excited about and buy a boring midsize sedan. They ride the subway, buses and take the taxi. You'd have to overcome their inertia of not using a car, and get them over the fact of what a car would cost them. I look at TV now almost the same way (though I live in Boston) -- there's this tremendous amount of inertia you have to overcome to change someone's habits, especially when there's viable alternatives that are nearly as good and cheaper.

<comment><USER8> _since Internet service would cost $10/mo more without a bundled television package_

I'm convinced that the only reason for them to do this is to whitewash the "myth" of cable-cutting. Comcast in my area has a similar deal - it's a couple of bucks cheaper per month to get Internet with "limited" cable rather than Internet on its own. To the networks and advertisers, I'm still a TV subscriber, even though the coax goes directly to my modem and nowhere near my TV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I quit cable around 10 years ago when I moved out of my parent's house. Really, I hadn't been into it for some time even then and found it generally to be a time-sink and of little value.

I enjoy some of the content that's on TV, but the medium just isn't right for me. I don't like commercials, and I'd rather just have the option of paying more to not have them. I want what I want when I want it. I rarely care about realtime information from a television (I have the internet for that). I also like being able to watch most of a series in a short period of time. I like movies better than shows. 99% of of the content on TV isn't something I'm interested in.

At this point, cable TV just seems to be an annoying novelty to me. Its background noise when I'm at someone's house with it. I'm frankly shocked so many people still subscribe to it. Even if it was given to me for free, I wouldn't use it.

</comment><comment><USER10> I pay $40 month for ESPN in HD. I love football, and more importantly, the majority of my customers and important contacts love it more. $500 year for an easy and relevant conversation starter is a steal.

<comment><USER11> If you only do it for NFL, you might reconsider. All regular Sunday day games, Sunday night football and all ESPN/NFL network games with your local team are available for free in HD over the air. And all playoff games and Superbowl, too.

The live sports was my main reason for holding on to cable for so long, but I finally made the switch two years ago and it's great. I can watch all NFL I want, once a week baseball and sometimes basketball and hockey.

<comment><USER10> I would love to do this, but I live in an area where I can't get OTA broadcast of Fox or NBC.

<comment><USER11> Try plugging in your TV into cable outlet directly, bypassing the cable box. I've found all network channels are available that way as well

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I barely watched TV as a kid/teenager living with my parents (it helped that cable isn't that popular in France, where I'm from- most people are content with the 5 free national channels, which are now completed by 15 or so more through the free TNT service); so when I moved out, I never missed it and as such I have never had TV since.

Semi-exception to that, an ex-girlfriend of mine moved at some point in an apartment with cable TV- the difference in the quality of our relationship with or without the TV was noticeable. Without TV, we'd go more out of our way to cook, find things to do, play games, etc.. With TV, a lot of evenings were spent just on the couch staring blankly at the screen (well, I would be programming on the couch while she would be watching TV).

It's a very subjective experience, of course, but all of that makes me feel that TV watching is inherently pernicious and to be avoided as much as possible.

I think a lot of the phenomenon is due to the fact that you can't watch TV in a discrete fashion- as soon as something ends, something else starts and you do not have to do any effort to keep watching. When you watch something like a movie, the activity is clearly defined in time, and as such you don't get sucked in like you do when watching TV.

</comment><comment><USER13> Anyone who cut the cord a women or live with a women? I live with my girlfriend and don't watch our cable except for live sports and the occasional show I can't (easily) torrent. But my Girlfriend has no way to get all her favorite cooking shows. Those don't show up as torrents - I think cause most people who rip TV shows are men/nerds.

<comment><USER14> My girlfriend and I replaced cable with Netflix and internet TV (Food Network is online, plus lots of youtube stuff and other channels with food shows). FWIW, many nerds I know love cooking (including myself), so finding good shows (not crappy reality TV meets cooking) was a necessity. Netflix definitely keeps my girlfriend more occupied than me, but for $8/m and lots of variety, it's the way "cable" is (or should be) going.

<comment><USER13> > finding good shows (not crappy reality TV meets cooking) was a necessity

I just searched for the my GF's 3 favorite cooking shows, and found ~8 torrents, total, for two of them and zero for the other. Granted Good Eats, a more "nerdy" cooking show, has every single episode available for its 14 season run on the private TV torrent tracker website. My girlfriend is pretty girly and not nerdy at all, so her "style" of show is hard to find.

I was also unable to find those shows on Food Network's website - perhaps I missed them? Could you point me in the right direction? And even if they are online, getting that content to my TV is difficult - certainly harder, at least, than a torrent playing through Plex on my Mac Mini.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I saw this in the paper yesterday, but I was immediately disappointed to see that their primary forms of switching away from cable not only required cable Internet connection (because let's face it, DSL and others have no way to stream that quickly), but also required nonfree software (Silverlight for Netflix, Flash for Hulu). The world can offer so much more to these people who have been wronged by corporations, but for some reason, they keep moving from one bad corporation to another! Even the Occupy movement, who are supposedly protesting against the influence of corporations, are using nonfree, corporation-run sites to spread their propaganda. Why are people so blind?

<comment><USER16> What do you mean Silverlight and Flash are nonfree? As an end-consumer I've never paid for either of them.

<comment><USER17> If you're running Silverlight, unless you pirated Windows, you've paid for it.

<comment><USER18> Really? I had to download it for my Mac, and if Microsoft is somehow getting Apple to pay them off, they're getting a shitty deal because I still had to download it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What the author means is "goodbye TV"

Cause many have to use cable to get a decent internet in the US, still. Sadly its usually called Comcast (but it does offer Internet-only - even thus its very expensive and internet+tv isn't much more expensive)

<comment><USER20> I'm on Comcast and Internet-only costs MORE than Internet+TV. So I have the basic TV package as well as basic internet. I also call them every 6 months or so and threaten to quit and they will offer to put me on a "new subscriber" discount rate (lowered monthly rate for 6 months).

<comment><USER17> I was on a Comcast phone/TV/Internet promotional rate for a year, and they wouldn't renew a reasonable rate at the end of the year ("promotional rates are only to acquire new customers" in spite of what they said when I signed up). I needed to port my phone number, so I canceled TV and internet in the interim - and paid more than I'd been paying for the three services combined package.

Then to complete the cancellation, I had to take the modem in to their office in person and wait in line to return it.

Comcast promotional deals: not worth the hassle.

Currently very happy with a community network cable provider internet-only service, against my "lassez-faire" inclinations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Let's say I'm hooked on Spanish language soap operas. There are generally three or four of interest running all the time on cable. These program run daily for three or more months and have an end (unlike some American soaps). When they end, a new soap starts up to take it's place.

Where else can I go to record/watch these besides cable? Some are on over the air channels, but I live in an area that can't receive those channels either.

</comment><comment><USER22> I did this a few years ago and never looked back. Had a tad bit of apprehension about it but I simply don't miss cable or satellite and the thought of paying at least $60 a month to have loads of useless content jammed with commercials strikes me as a scam.

</comment><comment><USER23> The author claims he cut cable yet pays $340/year to get NFL Sunday Ticket on his PS3 - really?

The only reason I still have cable is for ESPN. They have live sports that are exclusive to ESPN and the only way to get ESPN is to have cable.

<comment><USER20> Yeah I cut the extended subscription last year and no longer have ESPN which I sorely miss but am living without. If I could have a-la carte channels I would definitely be back on board, as there are about half-a-dozen channels I would be willing to pay to get, without 150 other crap channels.

<comment><USER24> Lets not stop at choosing your own canals -- which my TV provider has started to do, except the channels worth watching are not part of the offer -- and let me choose my own shows. That is what could have been so nice about iTunes and it would have enabled me to watch more SciFy.

But no, no then they would make less money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think at this point, my primary (and perhaps only) reason to stick with the traditional TV delivery paradigm is HBO. That being said, I would be ecstatic if they introduced an HBO Go-only price plan.

<comment><USER24> You could just pirate the shows worth watching. That seems to be popular these days, or so I hear...

<comment><USER25> As a poor college student I can't really deny the appeal of piracy but:

a) Saying 'hey, I can get this illegally for free' isn't really a valid economic argument. b) Pirating HBO just, I dunno, feels wrong. They're a company with a unique economic model that consistently produces amazing television; even if it's on an incredibly micro scale, I think they should be rewarded for that.

<comment><USER24> I have begun to think of TV as a lossleader for DVD sales. At this point I mostly spy on what kind of shows people in the US talk about, read up on them and select one for my parents birthdays + christmas. My parents love this, I have no trouble buying them gifts(thanks to Amazon.co.uk) and there is a new market for HBO.

But yeah, HBO will earn more money when they get off cable-only.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Anyone switch to Clear or some other 4G variant and have success? seems cheaper than just Comcast.

<comment><USER27> I've had Clear for 18 months now. It had a lot of rough edges at the start but the service has been pretty stable lately. Maybe two outages lasting 2-6 hours each time.

I'm literally next door to a tower, so my experience is going to be better than most, I fear. I get 2mbit down and 1mbit up on a typical day. 8mbit down on a great one. I seem to get better speed after an outage, oddly enough.

The price is about 1/3 what Comcast would charge (I have the two-plan bundle: home net and phone service). No complaints about the phone service at all except for the extreme ping times. Talking to a mobile phone from the "home" phone is just as laggy as two mobiles talking. International rates are _awesome_.

I've run a light bittorrent set over it with no problem. I haven't hit a usage cap so far. Customer service, as others have noted, is pretty bad. AT&T/DSL- level bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I saw no mention of MythTV in the article, I wonder if it would be an option paired with OTA.

</comment><comment><USER29> > ~my cable provider's my best broadband option"

We're witnessing non-death throes of a more-intelligent animal.

When the music industry was disrupted completely, their Plan B was a white- knuckle-grip onto Plan A (their traditional business model). The cablecos were foresightful enough to turn their TV monopolies into broadband value-adds. They've done a d _rn good job at it, despite the bellyaching we can do. While providing "the best available internet access," they're no dummies, and entrenched cableco interests will ensure cord-cutting's not easy.

HBO is balancing the beam effectively (for their business, if less so for their "audience"). They have zero plans to make their "HBO-Anywhere" service available except to cable subs.

[http://paidcontent.org/article/419-hbo-to-cord-cutters- youll...](http://paidcontent.org/article/419-hbo-to-cord-cutters-youll-never- see-our-shows/)

Competition is still Good. Cableco monopolists were in no hurry to improve things until DSL and fiber-to-the-premises services became available and attractive. But they've responded.

Re TV programming itself, cutting the cord is more difficult when kids are involved. Even with timeshifting as second (or first) nature, you need the source to switch _from.* As for torrenting, etc., "it's only 'free' if your time has no value" comes to play.

Per the cited article, and per comments in this thread, TV is a lean-back, consumption-oriented time sink. I like to have that even knowing it's a less- than-optimal use of time.

<comment><USER30> > As for torrenting, etc., "it's only 'free' if your time has no value" comes > to play.

Whenever I hear someone disregard torrents offhand, I get the distinct impression that they've either never actually tried it or that they're simply being dishonest, because piracy has never been easier.

Have you actually tried torrenting TV shows or movies (or any other type of digital content, for that matter)? Contrary to the FUD that seems to be popular opinion on HN, it's a cake walk. Most importantly, learning how to use torrents is a (rather small) _one-time_ time investment, whereas watching TV means that you _perenially_ waste 1/4th of your viewing time watching ads. And don't forget that you have to keep track of when shows are airing and either watch them then or remember to record them for later viewing.

So if saving time is one of your primary concerns, _the numbers simply don't add up in favor of broadcast TV_ , no matter how you look at them.

In fact, piracy is _so_ easy that I won't even bother with free solutions like Hulu - why should I waste my time traversing 10 different sites looking for a particular episode of a particular show I want to see when I can go to the _same_ torrent site _every_ time and have a virtual _guarantee_ that the content I want will be instantly available, and in HD, at that?

If you have moral qualms with respect to piracy, I can agree to disagree, despite my personal lack of objections to the practice. But claiming that piracy is somehow _time inefficient_ is nothing more or less than pure prevarication.

<comment><USER29> > Whenever I hear someone disregard torrents offhand, I get the distinct > impression that they've either never actually tried it or that they're > simply being dishonest, because piracy has never been easier.

It wasn't offhand: it takes more time to find and download content than it does to turn on the tube and flip through its offerings. With hope, you're not arguing that point.

Your distinct impression is incorrect in my case: The last several torrents specifically for shows not then available via other means took me several minutes to find and many more to download. The shows in question weren't tiny unknowns; in my experience, finding less-popular shows is even more of a hassle. If any of these had been available on demand, for "purchase," or via Hulu (to which I subscribe), I would have preferred those methods.

Your own points are also not mutually-exclusive: piracy may be as easy as it's ever been and still be more involved than turning on and tuning in. I don't mind paying for content I feel is of value. I also value my time and the frictionlessness with which I can ~"mindlessly" enjoy some programming. Less hassle - even if it's still little hassle - is worth it to me. YMMV.

<comment><USER30> > It wasn't offhand: it takes more time to find and download content than it > does to turn on the tube and flip through its offerings. With hope, you're > not arguing that point.

> I also value my time and the frictionlessness with which I can ~"mindlessly" > enjoy some programming. Less hassle - even if it's still little hassle - <USER2> > worth it to me.

I think our use cases are different. I have no interest in flipping on the TV and "mindlessly" watching whatever programming happens to be on at the time. I have always hated "channel surfing", and I certainly don't like watching anything from the middle (of the episode or the season).

I carefully pick and choose what I watch. Once I've picked a show, I always watch it from the beginning to the end, in order, and keep careful track of which episodes of which shows I've seen (using Anigrate: <http://anigrate.glacicle.org/>). As you can imagine, I take my TV viewing quite seriously (though this is not necessarily true for all, or even most, torrenters).

> The last several torrents specifically for shows not then available via > other means took me several minutes to find and many more to download. The > shows in question weren't tiny unknowns; in my experience, finding less- > popular shows is even more of a hassle. If any of these had been available > on demand, for "purchase," or via Hulu (to which I subscribe), I would have > preferred those methods.

Like I said, it takes a (small) upfront investment of time to educate oneself in the best means of finding such things. I don't know which particular shows you were looking for, but I can likely find a torrent (or direct download, if that's your preference) of any show you name in under 30 seconds.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Look Under the Hood: AI for Customer Experience at Wootric - <AUTHOR> https://www.wootric.com/blog/a-look-under-the-hood-ai-for-cx-at-wootric/ <comment><USER2> Does this work better than existing APIS from cloud providers? I'm guessing the answer is yes but was wondering how much better this is?

<comment><USER3> To expand a little on the previous answer, existing cloud API's typically fall into one of the following categories:

1) generic NLP classification API's where you need your own large supply of training data and have very little (if any) control over model parameters, or

2) Topic extraction/topic modeling (usually employing LDA), which will simply give a list of potential topics, and will not be able to conform to the set of topics (in our case called "tags") that we have selected.

Because of this, our solution is better at addressing the specific problem of categorizing customer feedback, and allows for more flexibility in how we can collect and manage data.</comment></comment>


Armored Car Used to Potentially Block Minuteman-Missile Launch (1987) - <AUTHOR> http://articles.latimes.com/1987-10-29/news/mn-17348_1_minuteman-missile <comment><USER2> > The theory, according to the spokesman, is that the cover is blown aside so > rapidly that a vehicle parked atop it with brakes off will be left hanging > in thin air--like yanking a tablecloth out from under dishes--and then drop > straight down, in hopes of keeping the launching missile from going > anywhere.

Feels like something Adam Savage might enjoy testing out.

<comment><USER3> As long as they don't attempt the usual "Well, that was fun and educational, now let's see if we can _really_ make it explode..."

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like that an article from 1987 is freely available on the web. I wish most of the news organizations that have historic content locked up in libraries and microfilm would do this.

<comment><USER5> The National Library of Australia is progressively digitising it's collection of historical newspapers (some coverage from 1803 to 2007). [http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper?q=](http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper?q=)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Love this: _The procedure has never been tested, he added._

</comment><comment><USER7> > The spokesman said an Air Force investigation established the troubles began > with the failure of the navigation guidance unit inside the missile. That is > not unusual, he said, because the guidance units have a finite life and must > be replaced periodically.

There must be more to it than that... "Fire!" "Err, Sir, the guidance unit has just indicated it needs to be replaced"

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting military hacking. Is it wise to unveil this missile exploit?

<comment><USER9> If you can maliciously drive an armored car onto a missile silo in a military base, you have already owned the military base.

<comment><USER10> ...with all sorts of drones / driverless cars around nowadays, you can imagine some of them could be remotely hacked and made to land or park themselves more or less inconspicuously atop a silo at the right time. You don't need to "hack a silo" (which, I hope, is really not possible!) anymore to incapacitate the adversary from delivering a nuclear strike, just hack any random device that can be moved around at the right time. Hopefully you can't use the same tricks to _trigger_ a missile launch, so overall the new situation might have increased humanity's chances of long term survival :)

Now it would be obvious, but in a future with god knows how many small little e-critters swarming around everywhere doing god knows what... yeah, bad I idea to share, but someone in a foreign military paid to have such an idea would've already had it anyway :)

<comment><USER11> > more or less inconspicuously

I'm going to have to go with "far, far less" on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So how old are our nuclear missiles now?

And what happened with the massive cheating going on inside the unit that is supposed to maintain and run them?

<comment><USER13> The 'youngest' nuke is now over 21 years old. Due to the terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaties, we no longer conduct any actual testing, so it's all computer-simulation based.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile_stewardship)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I wonder what sort of armored car it was. An APC, some kind of secure transport...?

</comment><comment><USER15> It could never get past that super-secure launch code.

<comment><USER16> Weren't the codes 00000000 for 20 years? :)

[http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/nearly- two-d...](http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/nearly-two-decades- nuclear-launch-code-minuteman-silos-united-states-00000000/)

<comment><USER17> That code was only used past numerous safeguards that required multiple access codes/keys. The actual activation code was trivial compared to the layers of security necessary to use it.</comment></comment></comment>