Comcast is donating to defeat mayor who is bringing gigabit fiber to Seattle - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/31/comcast-is-donating-heavily-to-defeat-the-mayor-who-is-bringing-gigabit-fiber-to-seattle/ <comment><USER3> This is going to be a comment that needs to know a bit about the Seattle area, so if you're out of town, I'm sorry :).

I currently live near the top of the hill of Queen Anne, my options for internet are Comcast, or Comcast essentially. Century link is also up there with a plan for a whopping 7mbps of speed down and less than 1mbps up. Comcast offers a plan for 50mbps down and 10mbps up, I need more upload speed, but I can make do with an upload running for hours a day. This wouldn't be bad if Comcast actually worked, but it doesn't. Probably 2 or 3 nights a week my internet becomes near unusable during peak times, I resort to putting my cell phone on LTE and seeing what I need to that way, I can't even keep up with the buffer rate on the lowest quality Youtube videos.

Downtown though, there are a number of apartment and condo buildings that offer 100mbps up & down internet for $60 a month (compared to my $75 for Comcast), or 1gigabit up and down for $120 a month(not available from Comcast at all). So, we do have _some_ gigabit internet, and I've actually found a few places I'd consider living and likely will affect my decision when I eventually move.

At least in my neighborhood, Comcast has terrible(often broken) service with absolutely no alternative. I suppose maybe the density of Queen Anne can't justify the cost of gigabit fiber to the top of the hill, but given how many Microsoft and Amazon people live up here I'd be shocked if there weren't huge interest. This seems damning as to the economic viability of fiber that a relatively dense upper income neighborhood can't get fiber without government subsidy.

<comment><USER4> Have you called Comcast about the connectivity issues? I was having problems with connections dropping and packet loss. I called them, they sent a tech out who replaced a bad wire connecting to the building. Apparently others in the building had the same problem, but I was the only one who had a tech come out.

<comment><USER5> When damaged, coax (and POTS-based DSL for that matter) are both susceptible to environmental changes, so a cool-down in the evening can significantly change the characteristics of the wire, higher levels of humidity don't help either.

In other words, yet another reason fiber to the premises is superior.

<comment><USER6> Someone better tell the conservative Australian government... our fibre rollout got canned in the name of saving money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you'd like to donate to the mayor who is fighting for gigabit fiber for Seattle (and thus cancel out a portion of Comcast's donations), you can do so here: [https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.as...](https://services.myngp.com/ngponlineservices/contribution.aspx?X=qhuzDOZ0xKqvW9ig8jZCBUcAyUPUT7MgYFFyqKatDIY%3d)

<comment><USER8> Can Canadians donate to a candidate?

<comment><USER9> How about this: As an U.S. citizen, I'll donate to McGinn, so long as you, as a Canadian, donate against Rob Ford?

<comment><USER10> Deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Mayor McGinn brought this up in his recent /r/Seattle AMA (worth reading if you're at all interested in the race):

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1ox3gd/my_name_is_m...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1ox3gd/my_name_is_mike_mcginn_and_i_want_to_earn_your/)

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't see why this is a bad thing? Comcast is contributing to the campaign that is best in line with its interest. As long as political contributions by corporations are OK (which is another debate which is out of the scope of this issue) this seems completely reasonable.

<comment><USER13> How is preventing a city from gaining access to gigabit connections anything other than bad? That statement is completely baffling.

<comment><USER14> Preventing a company from getting gigabit connections is not bad for you if you are the company that competes against those gigabit connections. It isn't wrong or shady of Comcast to donate like this, just like it isn't wrong for the original poster of this link to post it here and get awareness and activism for the other side.

As an aside, I despise Comcast, Time Warner and many of their ilk, but they are completely well within bounds to do this.

<comment><USER13> There is a benefit to society getting access to fast and affordable communications.

There is no benefit to denying society this option.

Therefore, preventing it, especially in the name of your corporate interest, is "bad". To say what they are doing is good is sociopathic.

Legalities have no relevance to this at all.

<comment><USER14> I didn't say it was good or bad. It is a legally, ethically and economically acceptable practice. They are exercising their right to protect their business.

That being said, I hope they lose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It may not be a single-issue sort of thing. McGinn has not exactly been popular across a wide cross section of the local electorate, as anyone who has spent five minutes walking (or more likely ducking and running) through downtown Seattle can attest.

Comcast may be trying to kill the fiber project, or they may have some other reason for opposing McGinn.

<comment><USER16> From what are you ducking and running?

<comment><USER17> Crackheads, the homeless, and a particularly loud (and occasionally violent) group of youth that are constantly at the corner of 3rd and Pike. Persistent (though not apocalyptic levels of) gun crime.

Downtown Seattle can be a bit rough. I wouldn't lay it squarely at the feet of the mayor though - a lot of it traces back to city planning gone disastrously wrong.

Just a few off the top of my head:

\- the southern end of downtown is _strictly_ commercial. Little to no mixed zoning here, meaning that as soon as 5pm rolls by the entire area is a ghost town. If you're there past 6-7pm you will see that the homeless and addicts move in to fill the void. There is no residential or leisure traffic to balance this out. This is US-style single-purpose urban zoning run amok. _Vast_ portions of the urban core is entirely idle after work hours.

\- downtown Seattle isn't a cultural or entertainment core, unlike the downtowns of most cities. The actual food scene, nightlife scene, music scene, etc, are in surrounding neighborhoods like Capitol Hill, Ballard, Fremont, etc. This contributes to low foot traffic after work hours, which contributes to higher crime and simultaneously a magnified perception of danger.

\- poor urban planning decisions meant an explosion in large-scale development without sufficient requirement for retail frontage. _Lots_ of buildings that take up the entire block with little to no ground-floor retail, making it a pedestrian dead zone and contributing to the feeling of walking down a shady alley no matter where you are. See: much of Belltown, where the declared intent was to produce a walkable neighborhood full of restaurants and nightlife - except few residential buildings wanted to play host to them. This has resulted in little pockets of activity with vast stretches of nothingness in between them.

<comment><USER18> What city do you live in? Have you lived anywhere else?

I work in downtown Seattle and my work takes me a-walking across huge portions of it, and my bus stop is right by 3rd and Pike. I've certainly never felt unsafe, and only occasionally have I been accosted by the homeless (or possibly crackheads) looking for money. There are some problem spots, but nothing terribly aggressive, certainly not by standards I've come to expect from my time in other major cities.

It's much, MUCH better than what I saw/experienced while living in Atlanta, Chicago, San Francisco or Kansas City. Seattle may have some issues with theft, but violent crime isn't out of control. Play around with this [1] Wikipedia lin or this [2] comparison tool:

Seattle is 30th in total violent crime amongst cities with a population above 250,000. Not great, but not bad. For Murder Seattle is 67 out of 75. That's, comparatively, very good.

As for your specific points, I agree with them without regarding them as contributing as much negative impact as you state. You make it sound like Seattle is some pedestrian ghost town where you're taking your life into your own hands by taking a wrong turn. Like any city, some neighborhoods are better than others for leisure activities, and there are some worth avoiding into the night. But it's no worse than most other cities, and often considerably better.

\--

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_r...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate)

[2][http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Seattle&s1=W...](http://www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm?c1=Seattle&s1=WA&c2=kansas+city&s2=MO)

<comment><USER17> I live in NYC currently. Besides living in Seattle (2 yrs) I've also lived in San Francisco, Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Waterloo, and London (Ontario, not the cool one).

I've seen a _lot_ worse than what happens in downtown Seattle, and yeah, SF has it a lot worse. _A lot_ worse.

I also have an intense dislike for the urban one-upsmanship that seems uniquely American in my experience. As if having seen/lived through worse crime is a badge of honor, and that people living/working in elevated crime areas (just _less_ elevated than some other places) should just suck it up. SF is the absolute worst in this regard (far worse than Seattle), where any criticism about the state of poverty and crime in the city elicits a "hurrr go back to the midwest then hurrrr".

A spade is a spade, even if there are bigger spades out there. The fact that Seattle's urban planning cockups are less severe than San Francisco's should come only as a very mild, very cold comfort.

Part of Seattle's problem - one that I touched on but didn't expand on earlier - is that it feels less safe than it actually is. When it comes to quality of life though, perception of safety is equally important as actual safety. The vast stretches of nothingness at night presents a huge perception problem that I don't think can be conquered by simply telling people "yeah, that nearly empty street with no businesses and a lot aggressive panhandlers making catcalls at you isn't so bad, statistically your odds are good!".

Seattle isn't that dangerous of a city - I made that clear earlier. The downtown is mildly sketchy, the homelessness problem is acute but not as bad as some other places, but the complete void that fills downtown after work is a huge problem that prevents any major progress on this front.

By the way, Seattle _is_ a pedestrian ghost town. Even Pioneer Square on a busy night is ghostly compared to every other urban core in North America I've ever been to. Downtown Seattle (qualified as Olive/Pine all the way down to Yesler or Jackson, and west of I-5) is completely f'ing deserted at night.

<comment><USER18> > I also have an intense dislike for the urban one-upsmanship that seems > uniquely American in my experience.

That's fair, but you're talking about normative comparisons, and I'm talking about relative ones. I think relative comparisons are more useful in a country that, all things considered, has pretty safe cities. I don't mean to dismiss all of Seattle's problems, but it helps give perspective.

> Part of Seattle's problem - one that I touched on but didn't expand on > earlier - is that it feels less safe than it actually is.

That's fair.

> Seattle is a pedestrian ghost town.

No, it's not. Downtown is, yes, but Seattle as a whole has _many_ options for a pedestrian's nightlife. Capitol Hill is one of them, and it's an easy walk from downtown even.

I think that goes back to my last point. I just don't perceive the negatives of Seattle's "urban planning cockups" in nearly as dramatic of fashion.

I'm not from here, I'm not a homer. I just find much fewer problems here than I have anywhere else. I know you don't like relative comparisons, but when choosing a place to live relative comparisons are my most helpful tool.

<comment><USER17> IMO relative comparisons are misplaced here. I'm talking about Seattle's problems, as they pertain to Seattle residents - that SF or Atlanta has it worse only is a factoid mainly tossed around to try and minimize the problem or suggest inaction. I am not suggesting that Seattle, on the whole is a bad place to live - please don't draw the wrong conclusion. I _am_ suggesting that the city has deep planning problems and despite its relative peace compared to the rest of the country, needs to aggressively address them.

Seattle's downtown core is horribly planned, in a pattern that is sadly typical of American urban cores post white-flight. Its urban planning awfulness is hardly unique to itself, and like every other city that employed the disastrously myopic single-use zoning strategy, it needs to change.

Or at least, not continue - but before I left Seattle I saw the exact same pattern in Belltown, South Lake Union, and Capitol Hill. The failure to learn from the failure of downtown Seattle IMO threatens to turn perfectly fine neighborhoods into empty, unfriendly, unpleasant shells. Every point I mentioned - large full-block developments, insufficient requirements for retail frontage, and little planning around pedestrian dead zones - <USER2> demonstrated in new developments stretching out of downtown.

Note that I am not anti-gentrification or anti-development. I support building upwards and increased density. I support urban renewal. But the developmental policy and requirements that have been the city's norm for decades supports buildings that serve to enlarge the "dead zone". The city - and its voter base - has evidently not learned its lesson, or hasn't ever been to a long-term successful urban neighborhood. Now is not the time to compare yourself to crime hotspots like SF and Detroit and feel good about yourself. There is a problem, and it needs fixing, even if it isn't the same scale of a problem like San Francisco's gigantic urban fuckup.

<comment><USER18> Well I appreciate your perspective, and will think about as I move about the city and decide where I'm going to five years from now. I do very much disagree on the value of relative comparisons though.

Ultimately, I just don't see nearly the extent of "urban fuckup" as you do even in normative terms, which is perhaps why the voters you admonish haven't responded as you think they should. I won't forget your comments though, and perhaps a in a year's time I'll be singing a different tune.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Sorry to divert off topic, though but: I wish local governments would start treating the Internet as a basic utility; like electricity. You'd have 2 entities involved: the government (PUC) which would, for a very basic rate, maintain your fiber; and an ISP which would actually route your traffic to/from the Internet. So, as a consumer, you'd pay a small amount ($5/mo?) for the fiber; and then depending on your service requirements, pay some gateway to get out to the 'net. This way, Comcast would just be a gateway provider. GW providers would offer different types of services to set them apart from each other (VPN? Movies? Music? etc.).

That's my dream. :-)

<comment><USER20> In a large minority of states, they can't. In North Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, and 16 other states[1], state law prohibits any form of municipal broadband, including acting as a common carrier.

The reasoning is that municipal networks can be (but usually aren't) funded by local tax dollars so it represents a theoretically unfair advantage relative to private corporations. I find that reasoning specious especially considering I can look out my window in Texas and see a city water tower standing right alongside a private water supply company's tower, yet both departments are funded solely by ratepayers, not out of a general tax fund.

1: [http://www.gwlr.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/Stricker1.pdf](http://www.gwlr.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/03/Stricker1.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Comcast executive named Janet Turpen contributed $500 to Murray's mayoral campaign in October 2013"

Errr, in a large company aren't you likely to find individual employees donating to almost any given cause?

<comment><USER5> Not in the executive class.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> What else could we expect of one of the worst customer service companies in the world? Fair competition?

<comment><USER23> I agree - except i think it is sort of fair competition isnt it ? Anyone can donate

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Ah, the corruption of democracy.

<comment><USER25> no...the foolishness of the citizens united decision

<comment><USER24> Again, this is a corruption of the democratic process. The fact that any corporation can contribute financially to influence an outcome is corruption in itself.

<comment><USER25> it's just the plain corruption of human nature, democratic process or not....democracy was not structured to work this way

<comment><USER26> >democracy was not structured to work this way

The laws of economics (Incentives 101) care not for the intent of the lawmakers.

<comment><USER24> Regulation can minimize the impact of incentives (economics 101).

<comment><USER26> And who decides what regulation exists?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Can someone help me understand how a public-private partnership with Gigabit Squared for fiber is different that a similar project with Comcast for coax? Will there be any deregulation of the fiber at any point in time (e.g. a sunset date) or is this just trading one company for another?

<comment><USER28> The primary difference is Comcast's indifference to improving their network and services or lowering prices, despite their astronomical profit margin.

<comment><USER27> The result is different (because Gigabit Squared hasn't reached city-wide fiber monopoly yet), but the stage is set the same. This feels so much like history repeating itself. Wouldn't surprise me if people made the same argument in favor of Comcast over Southwestern Bell (or other local telco monopoly).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This article would have been better if it quickly described the donations against the scale of the campaigns themselves and the size of the PACs. Looking at this, it appears that all Comcast related donations to McGinn's opponent total to less than $70k.

This is a serious amount of money, but how does it really factor in against all other donations? I don't know because the journalist didn't really share that information.

Outside of PACs, here is the direct total contributions to each campaign: [http://www2.seattle.gov/ethics/sumreps/sumreps.asp?ElCycle=e...](http://www2.seattle.gov/ethics/sumreps/sumreps.asp?ElCycle=el13a&n1=contributions&n2=total&n3=amount&n4=campaignbycategory&n5=mayor)

</comment><comment><USER30> Hey everyone,

I'm a working to help re-elect Mayor McGinn to Seattle. We're in a close race with our opponent, who has received thousands of dollars from Comcast. I'm hoping that you will consider helping us out so that we can show the rest of the country that we can do something about improving internet service. Would you consider helping us out with $5 or $10 donation? Here's how you can help: [http://www.mcginnformayor.com/donate](http://www.mcginnformayor.com/donate).

And this isn't the only issue in the race. You can read about the mayor's positions and his vision for the future of our city here: [http://www.mcginnformayor.com/why](http://www.mcginnformayor.com/why)

Thank you,

aaron

</comment><comment><USER31> Comcast has other serious challengers here in Seattle as well between CascadeLink (terrible website, but top notch service) and CondoInternet, if you can get either of those, you'll never look at Comcast again (between $30-60/month for 30/100mbit)

<comment><USER26> Those are hardly challengers; they service upscale condos and select buildings only. I live in the damn city and I can't get CenturyLink/Quest 40mbps (12mbps max), CascadeLink, CondoInternet, or the future Seattle Gigabit. Ridiculous.

<comment><USER31> Comcast services only select locations too. A good number of apartments around the city don't even offer Comcast (and instead the aforementioned and other services such as 'Wave'). The building I live in (granted, yes, an upscale condo), had several offerings.

Full on competition? No. But better than a wide majority of cities? Yes. (Try living in Florida...ugh)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Here's the page for the fiber project: [http://gigabitseattle.com/](http://gigabitseattle.com/)

</comment><comment><USER33> This is how every issue plays out in US politics at the state, local, and national levels, as law professor Lawrence Lessig explains [1]

[1] [http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...](http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> High speed is cool 'n all, but on the other hand do you really want the government owning or controlling _data_ pipes that you use for personal business?

Seattle police, for one thing, have a history of hostility toward its citizens. I'm sure they'd love easier monitoring of, for example, anti-police groups.

<comment><USER35> Solution: government runs the fiber to a cross-connect point, private companies offer services (anything, Internet, TV, phone, or something we haven't even thought of) over that fiber and pay a small fee for use of the line.

Right of way is a natural monopoly. There's a limited amount of space on poles and in conduit. The market can't support having even 4 or 5 providers all running their own lines (even if they all had equal penetration rates, none of them would be making a profit).

When it's done this way, you can choose from many different providers (see UTOPIA and the, what, 9 or 10 providers they have that are all offering 1G for $65-$70/mo.?) and there's actual competition. Those ISPs can choose to provide options for L2 encryption as well (supporting it on their end and providing CPE that supports it).

<comment><USER5> Yes, let the government own the monopoly on the "pipes" and let private enterprise compete on the type of "water" that flows down the pipes.

We will never have meaningful competition for pipes anyway so we gain none of the benefits of the free market by handing them over to private ownership.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I was about to make a donation to the PAC of Concerned Good Patriots for Niceness and Helpfulness. Then I looked into the organization and discovered it was run by nonagenarian ss officers intent on converting welfare recipients into soylent-green. Imagine my astonishment!

</comment><comment><USER37> I know it's a public-private partnership, and I know the key point is "hey, it's faster/better," but after all the NSA revelations, do we really want the government to have direct control over our network access?

<comment><USER38> It is a local government, to be fair. And honestly? The current legislative landscape means there's almost no functional difference between public internet and Comcast internet. There's still the pretext of a warrant in specific cases, but after that? Bring out the trap and trace gear and the NSA black box for everything else!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Seriously? Instead of investing into the infrastructure Comcast is investing into political interests to ultimately hold back technological progress.

This should be illegal in so many ways...

</comment><comment><USER40> Well, Comcast is protecting its business interest.

</comment><comment><USER41> Everyone, quick, click on comcast ads.

The power of the internet.

</comment><comment><USER42> this is why only voters, not companies, should be allowed to donate to political campaigns (and even then, at a capped rate.)

</comment><comment><USER43> The css and fonts are completely busted for me. FF24 on OSX.

<comment><USER44> They were busted on 25 as well, but my FFbeta just upgraded to 26.0 while I had the article open - it's fixed.</comment></comment>


What's the Future? Native Apps or Mobile Web Apps? - <AUTHOR> http://www.plexical.com/blog/2011/05/02/whats-the-future-native-apps-or-mobile-web-apps/

<comment><USER2> Why do people need there to be only one winner?

It's going to be both web and native. Performance matters and web simply aren't up to it for a long time to come. Even with WebGL etc.

<comment><USER3> The article isn't about picking a winner, it's about what the current pros and cons are of choosing each as your platform for development.

Understanding the tradeoffs is important because we don't have unlimited development resources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Aaron Hillegass gave a great talk incorporating this topic at the Voices That Matter conference in Seattle a few weeks ago.

He made a few assumptions about the type of project that a client might ask the "web or native" question about, where there is a certain amount of backend work, a certain amount of design work, and a certain amount of presentation- layer work, either native or HTML/CSS/JavaScript.

The backend and design work scale identically for web and native apps as you move from "prototype" to "usable app" to "delightful experience". The client side work scales relatively linearly across this axis for native code, but tends to rise exponentially for a web app.

He actually said that couldn't really think of any good examples of a "delightful experience" in a web app, particularly on mobile. He cited the example of one of the top web companies on the planet working for years to build what is arguably a worse word processor than the "hello world" example code included in most native platform SDKs.

Another issue is that once you start really trying to nail the user experience on each platform, most of the cross-platform nature of a mobile web app goes away. Sure, you can use something like PastryKit to make a web app that acts just like a native iPhone app, but then you end up with a very un-Android-like app when using it on Android.

Something like JQuery Mobile is a great way to get a usable product to market on multiple platforms quickly, but ultimately not everything that could be just a web app should be just a web app.

</comment><comment><USER5> This doesn't address how to monetize a "mobile web app" - not a problem if you're just wrapping your marketing materials in a UIWebView like he recommends, but how do you make money off of a "real" app if it's "just a web page"? One-click purchasing through a store that already has your cc info is critical when we're talking about impulse <$5 purchases.

Anyway, this is just patently untrue for many, many users: _But you know what? My dad doesn't care about the deceleration of a scroll and neither does yours. Not mentioning the "native experience" of my brother's ZTE!_ Yeah, dad doesn't care about "scroll deceleration", but if the app _feels_ clunky and unresponsive, they do care and won't come back. Again, it depends on whether we're talking about real apps that _do_ something or just wrapped-up marketing pages.

</comment><comment><USER6> At the moment, it looks like the trend is towards fragmentation in mobile platforms. A lot of companies are jumping on the mobile bandwagon, and they're not all adopting Android. I don't know if this trend will continue, but even with the current level of fragmentation, developing web apps seems very attractive.

Already, developing the same app for the iPhone, iPad, Android phones, and Android tablets is an expensive prospect. Appcelerator helps, but it's not a perfect solution, in part because it doesn't and probably never will support every platform.

With HTML/CSS/JS, on the other hand, you get cross-platform compatibility for free. "But," you say, "not all mobile devices have good support for web technologies!" This is true, but I think we can expect that to change. Support for the web should constantly improve across all platforms over time.

Since I prefer to invest in the technological long-run, I'll put my money on web apps except when native-only features are required. That way, instead of trying to port my app to an ever-increasing number of platforms, an ever- increasing number of platforms will--of their own accord--come to support my app.

</comment><comment><USER7> html5 will steadily wire up the missing features over the next few years with WebGL, device API workgroup[1], notifications api[2], video and audio tags etc.

the problem is that vendors will have a conflict in implementing those features since they will compete with their native apps and app stores

Apple and Google will need developer pressure to keep them honest, and hopefully give us access to the appstore upside of distribution while writing to just the html5 api

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2009/05/DeviceAPICharter>

[2] [https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium- html...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/group/chromium- html5/browse_thread/thread/b5749c130b6a784c/5e90d4eb77a27e65)

<comment><USER8> I think Apple and Google can protect their distribution channels and support mobile web as an equal to native.

They can maintain the same approval processes, charge the same fees, and enforce submissions of your mobile apps to the same places if you want inclusion in their app stores.

For mobile web, it could be as simple as compressing a folder of specially named HTML and JS files or providing an absolute URL where the main "executable" HTML file lives.

In the end, Apple and Google can make the same amount of money from mobile apps vs native apps. I don't find many reasons they would care how the app is made (except that maybe they want "exclusive" apps that are only on one platform or the other --- or they want to not include absolute URL mobile web apps because you can submit an app and change it entirely the next day by changing the files on your server...though you could get around this by mandating that your app be submitted as packaged HTML/JS)

<comment><USER7> I hope this happens, esp with the solution you outlines where the app is just the html+js+css etc. zipped up into a distro form (is there an open standard for manifest files in this type of distribution of web app?).

The only thing I can see possibly being a concern is UI consistency - web apps are a free-for-all. Apple may release a UI kit

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Good read. There is way to many native mobile apps out there that could have been mobile web apps.

</comment><comment><USER10> The vast majority of business applications don't need to be native apps. Once jquery mobile reaches version 1 lots of companies will be able to justify mobile versions of their websites that are stopped now by the price tag of creating a native application.

</comment><comment><USER11> I agree. There are too many road blocks for mobile apps to replace web apps.

Until you can solve the data input problem on mobile devices, and massive content delivery limitations by screen size, web apps will still rule.

When it comes to games, the computer vs. mobile device really isn't a fair comparison. They both solve different entertainment needs. One is an intense or shared experience need, the other is a casual time filler need. The concept of a portable gaming system is not new. Mobile games are just more accessible than previous systems.

</comment><comment><USER12> What's the future?

i) Trains

ii) Cars

iii) Buses

iv) Airplanes

v) Subway

vi) Trolleybus

vii) Segway

viii) Helicopters

ix) Others

I don't have an answer yet.

</comment><comment><USER13> As a developer, I hope html5 apps end up being the norm, but one key difference between desktop apps and mobile apps is that you pretty much always have your phone with you. As a consumer, I love web apps because I can access them from anywhere and dont' need to have my computer with me. But if I always have my smart phone with me, what's my incentive to prefer a web app to a native one, especially one that syncs to the cloud?

</comment><comment><USER14> Either author has narrow definition of what "app" is, or he forgot a lot of apps.

I could remember CPU-intensive applications (for example, number crunching of all sorts), cryptographic applications, OS-integrated applications (VPN, network filesystems of all sorts, process monitoring, and whatever else needs to be integrated with OS), all sorts of plugins and so on.

</comment><comment><USER15> It will take a long time till there will be no native apps anymore. As long as the choice remains between the browser experience and native apps, native apps will still have a chance. The moment the first OS finds a new and cooler more native style experience way to access the internet and website, Webservices will win.

</comment><comment><USER16> > Can you name one great application the last 10 years that wasn't a web app > or a game?

Yes. Scrivener.

<comment><USER17> Chrome, Firefox, OneNote, Sharepoint, iTunes, Windows Media Center, Camtasia, VMWare, Git, Garage Band, Final Cut Pro, CS5+, True Crypt, Visual Studio 2010, ... The list can go on and on (although some might be slightly older than 10 years old).

<comment><AUTHOR> Actually, most of these applications are more than 10 years old. And back-end systems, develompent tools and heavy duty media creation apps can hardly be compared to something that's a candidate for a web app.

<comment><USER18> So as long as you exclude apps that are lousy as web applications then all new good apps are web applications? How pragmatic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think the biggest problem is that Apple has created the behavior of going to the appstore to find stuff, and until startups and developers stop going this route, or Apple really starts doing what they say, and promote HTML5 apps.. then the transition will be slow.

<comment><USER20> It's true, I've known a couple of startups who went the mobile web route only to continually hit the "I can't find your app in the store" support question. Using Phone Gap or a wrapped mobile web app in a native app mitigates this though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> How does Readability (a web app) achieve the launch screen when run from the home screen on an iPad?

<comment><USER22> <link rel="apple-touch-startup-image" href="/startup.png">

under "Specifying a Startup Image": [https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/Ap...](https://developer.apple.com/library/safari/#documentation/AppleApplications/Reference/SafariWebContent/ConfiguringWebApplications/ConfiguringWebApplications.html)

<comment><USER21> awesome, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> _cough_ Phone Gap _cough_ AppCellerator _cough_

</comment><comment><USER24> Push notifications mean native apps win.

</comment><comment><USER25> Why doesn't HTML5 include support for camera input, accelerometer, compass & voice commands? How long before these are integrated?

<comment><USER26> Because it will never end. Today it's camera, accelerometer, compass, and voice commands... tomorrow it'll be something else.

Right now, since apps are predominantly native, a vendor can add new hardware and capabilities to their devices without the prior blessing of a standards body. Standards bodies will always be several years behind the state of the art in features, which means anything really compelling and new will always be in native form.

<comment><USER25> Well, geolocation didn't take long to incorporate, hopefully the rest will follow.

<comment><USER26> Didn't take long to incorporate into the spec (even then, it's practically light speed by W3C standards, and a tortoise crawl by native standards)... but support in the wild is still pretty pathetic.

As long as IE lives, web standards will move at a snail's pace. I'd say we're >5 years (probably more!) out from being able to, in general, expect something like geolocation to be supported in your average user.

If you want to move faster than the competition and give more hardware/features to your users, you're still going native.

<comment><USER25> it works decently on webkit browsers (and palm os i think, and nokia). The thing is there should be at least drafts for camera or voice support in webkit, simply because there is a need for it (Or else there wouldn't be projects like phonegap or titanium). With the proliferation of tablets and more and more mobile devices, going native will soon be a sisyphean task.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Peter Thiel and Max Levchin at TC Disrupt (video) - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.tv/show/new-and-featured/psYW1zMjrBR3eTuVeV25hFD552lZwAoWA

<comment><AUTHOR> It's an interesting idea to look at non-internet innovation and see a decline, but the internet provides a lot of slack in the need to do hard, physical innovation. In the case of transportation, we're seeing productivity gains because the internet provides substitutes to (some) travel.</comment>


Doubts rise over TTIP as France threatens to block EU-US deal - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/03/doubts-rise-over-ttip-as-france-threatens-to-block-eu-us-deal <comment><USER2> Cameron's eagerness to seal the TTIP deal is rather unsurprising given that he'd likely sell his own mother for a pat on the back from the US. It's nice to see Obama keep his integrity on this one.

As for Hollande, I'm guessing he's attempting to appeal to France's strong cultural protectionism, in a last ditch effort to improve his ratings, as this is an unusually strong stance coming from him ("Flanby").

In either case, the TTIP deal seems like more of a political excuse than an actual effort to consider the deal thoroughly.

That said, I'm glad somebody is standing up to it, even if the motivation is questionable. France isn't the most corporate-friendly country, so it'll be interesting to see what changes are proposed, if any.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yaaaaay!

I've been in despair over this whole process as I've read the dirt on HN. Those special courts for rights holders to sue sovereigns, such egregiousness. Maybe the French will save the day?</comment>


Canadian Charged for Not Unlocking Smartphone at Canadian Border - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/quebec-resident-alain-philippon-to-fight-charge-for-not-giving-up-phone-password-at-airport-1.2982236 <comment><USER2> We should frame this story with what the actual end result of 'unlocking your phone' is when discussing it. The government routinely claims that it is no different than asking a traveler to open a physical briefcase. It is very different.

If you're treating the phone as a 'good' as indicated in the quotes on this story, you can inspect my phone as a good. You can look at the phone. You can xray it. You can open up the back cover to ensure it's a real battery inside and not something more sinister. All that would be fine and fall within what the law was intended for.

What the government is actually asking you to do is unlock your digital key to your entire digital identity for them to do with as they wish. Your phone has direct access to all your email accounts, all your personal and work files within the cloud (Dropbox, Box, iCloud, Google Drive, etc), your entire address book, your chat history, all your personal photos, your private PGP you use to sign communications to prove they came from you, etc, etc.

Asking to inspect your phone is fine. Asking to have complete access to your entire digital life, history, and identity is not. If I'm asked for the former, go ahead and inspect it, I put it through the scanner on every flight. If I'm asked for the latter, the answer will be no.

<comment><USER3> And then you will be fined for your non-compliance with the law, if you don't like the law go ahead and leave.

<comment><USER4> With that attitude, how do you expect to ever improve anything?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Customs officials forcing you to unlock your phone is not just an invasion of privacy - it's a pointless invasion of privacy. Customs agents don't even know where to start in finding data that a user wants hidden.

Even if allowed access to personal devices, data is slippery enough that it could be stored in almost anything. Here's yet another example of taking away rights in a way that does nothing to deter actual crime. Hopefully the court understands technology enough to make the right call, but I'm not counting on it.

<comment><USER6> I had this experience. My laptop wasn't locked, but I was asked to let someone look through it. That took about 20 minutes, which caused me to miss my coincidence.

Since I now had time to waste, I asked to see the customs lady's supervisor, and then berated the person who inspected my laptop for not having any idea how to do this sort of search properly. So, I ended up sitting both the customs lady and her supervisor there for another hour or so while I taught them how to use undelete and some basic free forensic tools.

I then handed them a bill for an hour of my time and left to wait for the next plane.

I like to think it took them a while to process just what the hell had happened. Mindless securistas like that need to be humiliated at every turn, or they'll never stop. Society - the segment of society with which they interact - must make it clear that their job is not wanted, not needed, and not welcome.

This was in Montreal in 2009, if anyone cares.

<comment><USER7> Hilarious! Did you ever receive payment for services rendered?

<comment><USER6> No. I am fairly sure that it all went in one ear and out the other...

(I do this stuff a little too often, maybe twice a year. This probably makes me an asshole, but it gets the testosterone out in a nonviolent manner, so it's the lesser of two evils ,really).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Under the Customs Act, customs officers are allowed to inspect things that you have, that you're bringing into the country,"

\- Here's my phone, sir. \- I see it has a password, give me the password. \- Mhhh... OK. It is 1234. \- Oh, I see you have Dropbox app installed. I need the Dropbox password. \- Mhhh... OK. It is 5678. \- Oh I see you have a GPG encrypted file in Dropbox. I will need to decrypt that. Give me the password. \- Mhhh... I can't... It's encrypted with a public key and I don't have the private key on me. \- Ok, boys! Take this guy! He is clearly obstructing.

<comment><USER9> Could you not backup your device, wipe it at the border, and then when they request the password simply say "There is no data on the device. Its as it comes from the factory" and hand it to them?

You could then perform an over the air recovery once safely away from the border.

<comment><USER10> I do this (reset and reformat to factory spec) with my phone and my laptop every time I cross a border. On the other side I download a TrueCrypt file which has everything (and only what) I need whilst abroad. I started doing this in 2010, after my phone got taken into another room for a half hour at Ben Gurion in Tel Aviv in 2010.

<comment><USER11> I've been wondering about how to do this.

The problem I'm having is that I have a ton of widgets and custom settings on my phone (Android). If I were to wipe my phone before crossing a border, it would take quite a while to get it set up the way I like on the other side.

I am just using stock android though. I wonder if there is a way to achieve what I want with a rooted phone.

<comment><USER12> You can completely backup most apps and your sdcard with adb on an unrooted phone [1]. The tricky ones are apps like Google Authenticator, which disable adb backups. You have to be patient and not use your phone for a while. It takes a long time. If you root, a nandroid backup is the way to go.

[1] [http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy- nexus/general/guide-p...](http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy- nexus/general/guide-phone-backup-unlock-root-t1420351)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> There is no reason anyone should search a phone, because anyone smuggling "illegal data" can just transfer it directly over the internet undetected.

This is horrible and ridiculous.

<comment><USER14> Unlocking my phone for border officials in 2013 when I arrived in Canada cost me about $300. They turned on cellular data when it was left in airplane mode so they could search through my emails.

I fly internationally on business and the Canadian border officials are the worst I've run across.

<comment><USER15> This brings up an interesting point. Next time I fly with my smartphone, I am going to remove my SIM card so that something like this doesn't happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> As a European I have to say, that I associate these sort of things with totalitarian regimes and it is just unimaginable for me why the American society tolerates this while _fighting for democracy_ elsewhere.

<comment><USER17> If you had bothered to read the article you would know this was Canadian Border Patrol.

<comment><USER16> I was indeed referring to both Canada (because of this article) and the US (because of previously read articles) and therefore used your continents name in anticipation of comments like this.

<comment><USER18> The continent is North America. If you want North and South America, Americas is fine, but must be plural. You're being simultaneously pedantic and wrong.

<comment><USER16> Alright, lets do this. Wiki says you are pedantic and wrong while I am only pedantic.

> The Americas, _or America_ , also known as the New World, are the combined > continental landmasses of North America and South America …

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

I love how strong you all feel about this. Just relax.

I am from Deutschland, but most people on the world call it either by a too general term Germania - and nobody in Denmark, Austria or the Netherlands is offended - or the too specific term Allemannia - and nobody in Switzerland is offended. In English you even use your own names for German cities (Cologne, Munich etc.) and the people there do not give a crap.

<comment><USER18> Wikipedia is a great resource in general, but it fails in places. For example, none of the 3 sources cited for that usage of America agree with that. One points out that America (singular) can mean any of N America, S America, or the USA (but not both N and S America). The second doesn't refer to America singular at all, instead clarifying usage of "American". The third gives us some historical context - America was used to mean N + S America, but only prior to the 18th century.

I will admit that if you are from the 17th century, your confusion is reasonable, but I question how you found HN.

More importantly, at least 95% of the English-speaking world disagrees with you, and that's the real test of language and definitions.

I'm curious - in what way is Germany not an appropriate name? My understanding is that it's a translation of Deutschland, and considered an exact synonym. I'll admit that hundreds of years ago Germany or Germania meant something different from modern-day Deutschland, but I fail to see how that's relevant.

<comment><USER16> Germany is the biggest Germanic country (population-wise) but the Dutch and others are Germanians, too. Much like the US is the biggest American country, but Canadians are Americans, too. It would be weird to use the word "Germane" in German for Germans, because we would picture some wild guys fighting Romans. For the same reason, you do not call the French Gallian or the Italian Roman.

I indeed said "American" and at least cited some sort of source instead of claiming that you are "95%" wrong, but lets keep it with this. I mentioned the German-story anecdotally. Nobody really cares. Names are just words, you can just relax, when its clear, what the word was intended to say.

I promise to add a "North" the next time and hope, that I will not get chased by angry Mexicans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Here's the section of the law that he was charged under:

 _False statements, evasion of duties

153\. No person shall

(b) to avoid compliance with this Act or the regulations, (i) destroy, alter, mutilate, secrete or dispose of records or books of account, (ii) make, or participate in, assent to or acquiesce in the making of, false or deceptive entries in records or books of account, or (iii) omit, or participate in, assent to or acquiesce in the omission of, a material particular from records or books of account;_

I'm not a lawyer, but I would be pretty dismayed if a court agrees that this covers withholding a password.

<comment><USER20> I"m a US lawyer, and uh, this looks remarkably weak of a charge unless their is some canadian precedent somewhere that says "records or books of account" covers "random shit on non-business phone"

<comment><USER21> I believe I read that this type of case has not been tested in Canadian courts yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Interesting. I don't have a password. And I defy you to unlock my phone.

The question is "Can I be forced to unlock my own phone? Under what circumstances? Under what circumstances can I be charged for refusing to do so?"

If you haven't already guessed, I use a complex swipe pattern, one that uses all nine points and cannot be determined from reading the grease streaks, at least not easily. I know this because I moved to the current pattern after my daughter unlocked my phone by reading the grease streak. I changed the pattern and handed it back. It even used the previous pattern. She took one luck, uttered an obscenity, and handed back the phone.

Can I be compelled to describe how to perform the swipe? To describe the pattern? To guide the agent? Interesting questions....

<comment><USER23> > _Can I be compelled to describe how to perform the swipe? To describe the > pattern? To guide the agent?_

Yes, yes and yes.

Until there is legal precedent, if they want into your phone and you don't provide them access, you'll be in trouble. Any "cleverness" regarding a security code will likely make it worse.

<comment><USER24> And this is why deniable encryption is important: [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deniable_encryption)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Smartphones should have optional extra user accounts, with no indication of whether they exist. Same phone number, but the account you use is the one that records the history. Keep one mostly clean and that's the one you unlock.

<comment><USER26> Android 5.0 does. It's actually quite hidden and I only found out about it by mistake when playing with my new update (although I remembered Google announced it earlier after that, but had forgotten about it).

More operating systems should be doing this, including desktop ones. Windows makes multiple accounts too obvious.

<comment><USER27> Why would this get downvoted??

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The idea of nations and borders is one the time for has passed.

I personally don't care what invisible, made-up lines you were born within or without. Do you?

<comment><USER29> This sounds more like a platitude than a thought I can actually agree or disagree with. What does it even mean? You want to abolish rule of law? You want everybody to be ruled by the Communist Party of China (now the Community Party of The World)? You just want everybody to behave the way you imagine people ought to behave in a utopia?

<comment><USER30> Many parts of the world had not formed into modern nations states 300 years ago. Surely there was the rule of law in many places without the current idea of nations. There is no a priori reason the current political organization of people is eternal, or even very durable.

<comment><USER31> By 'not durable', do you mean 'the concept stretches as far back as we have written records'? Yes, 'nations' meaning 'something that gives you a passport' haven't been around long, but 'nations' meaning 'geopolitical entities' is as old as record-keeping itself.

And what do you mean by 'rule of law'? Do the decisions of tribal elders count? That doesn't suggest consistency, which is the spirit of the term.

<comment><USER32> >but 'nations' meaning 'geopolitical entities' is as old as record-keeping itself

This is completely untrue. States as we recognize them in the modern sense have only existed since the 17th Century in Europe[0], and much later in other parts of the world[1]. Before this time, political organizations consisted of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, tribes, and various other small groupings of people.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westphalian_sovereignty) [1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization)

<comment><USER31> _This is completely untrue. States as we recognize them in the modern sense_

Well, I said 'nations', in response to the parent saying 'nations'. I didn't say 'states'. If you are going to be pedantic, then be pedantic correctly.

 _Before this time, political organizations consisted of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, tribes, and various other small groupings of people._

I guess places like Egypt, the Roman Empire, and Ming were all 'small groupings of people'?

That somehow 'Rome', that stretched from the Atlantic to the Red Sea, was merely a 'city state'? Even after the capital was moved to a different city half a continent away? That despite having a complicated system of senators, emperors, provincial governors (or that they even had the concept of 'provinces'!) and so forth, that there was no 'political organisation'?

In the context of the conversation, the OP's 'nations and borders', there's nothing wrong with what I said - 'nations' and 'borders' have been around for as long as we have records.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Where's the line? If you give them your lock screen PIN can they then request your bank app password? The credentials for your work VPN?

<comment><USER34> There is no line, except perhaps for the first one. This is why so many of us are totally against crossing that first line and giving up passwords. After that, tis a very steep, slippery slope indeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> It's actually a good thing they charged him, as now there is a case with standing to determine the legality of this practice. If he wins it creates a precedent if he loses a reason to dispense with the current leadership. Imagine if they tried to force all visitors to divulge their password in order to snoop on the phones. Goodbye vacation business.

<comment><USER36> So if he's lucky he'll been "precedented" [1]. Would you take that risk for the good of everyone, especially when it could go wrong? As much as I'd like to say yes, I'm not sure I would.

[1] [http://goo.gl/uvIkmC](http://goo.gl/uvIkmC)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Border guards had me unlock my phone to check text messages and my emails in regards to a car I was trying to import, to see if I was lying about the value. I wasn't. It was horrible but refusing meant serious fines and perhaps jail time.

<comment><USER33> Did they go through your phone because you told them you had text messages and/or emails where the value was discussed?

<comment><USER37> No, I brought out my phone to bring up an email showing the ebay ad for the car in question and at that point they asked me to hand over my phone.

From now on, I'm backing it up and wiping it before I get to the border. Just on principle.

<comment><USER38> Unfortunately, the best policy when dealing with these people is "say and do as little as possible". Give one word answers and don't offer any other information that you're specifically asked for. Also, don't engage in any friendly conversation. I tried that before and would get hounded by questions whereas if I just answer "Yes", "no", "2 weeks", "travelling" then I get through much more quickly.

<comment><USER39> Time again to remind people:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

"Don't talk to Police"

<comment><USER40> While good overall advice, I understand that those protections do not cover you at the border. As an American entering the US, yes you just need to provide a customs declaration. As a non-US person, it's not clear what rights you have. They certainly don't need to permit you entry.

<comment><USER39> Sure. It's certainly more complicated at borders (or, in the US "border zone" [https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights- governments-100-mile-b...](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights- governments-100-mile-border-zone-map) ), especially for us non-US citizens, but the underlying sentiment still holds.

The other guy does not have your interests in mind. He knows the rules better than you, and knows which rules you probably don't know and what he will get away with when bending the rules. He's probably not specifically out to get _you_, but he's definitely being measured on his "performance" by whoever pays him, and that means he's highly motivated to "get" enough people, whether or not it's deserved. Anything you say is less likely to convince him of your innocence than it is likely to give him more ammunition to use against you.

Make both of your lives easier - firstly don't do anything wrong, secondly answer any questions he has with the briefest possible truthful and polite/respectful answer. You'll get waved through, and he'll move on to the next talkative and/or disrespectful person and give them a hard time. (For those of us who aren't US citizens, remember it _is_ a privilege to be permitted to visit, a privilege the possibly minimum-wage customs/immigration/border people on the ground have the authority to revoke.)

<comment><USER41> "For those of us who aren't US citizens, remember it _is_ a privilege to be permitted to visit, a privilege the possibly minimum-wage customs/immigration/border people on the ground have the authority to revoke"

This is a libelous accusation. The US Government doesn't pay its employees minimum wage. Those border police make more than engineers and programmers on average.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra Does our world have even one country that is not awful but at least passable?

(Preferrably one you can actually live in?)

The shrinking life space makes me contemplate suicide.

<comment><USER39> People _used_ to say "Im moving to New Zealand!", but the Mega/Kimdotcom fiasco and some of the most recent Snowden files show they're no better than any of the rest of them.

I'm hoping Elon gets us to Mars and we get to leave the B-Ark behind on this once-nice rock that we're busy destroying for ourselves...

<comment><USER42> and now NZ customs is seeking blanket authority to force people to give them passwords at the border

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Them being allowed to search my phone is one thing, but how is not unlocking it "obstructing border officials"?

Where I come from (Europe), you aren't required by law to help police (or border officials). If they come with a warrant to search your house and your door is closed, you aren't allowed to obstruct them by barricading your door but you are not required to help them by opening your door either (be prepared to pay for your new door though). Is that different in Canada?

</comment><comment><USER44> Since the digital storage of a phone cannot contain a firearm, explosive, blade, protected species of plant or animal, or a pork sausage, they have no goddamned business.

</comment><comment><USER45> Please look into the details of the court papers before making a judgement.

I would say that at least 70-80% of these stories leave out very important details and contexts - to mold what happened to fit whatever narrative the spinners subscribe to.

For example -

The person could have been importing a large amount of goods with him that exceeded the value he stated.

Once questioned about the disparity, he might have made statements about having the transactions documented in his phone.

The boarder agents would then have asked to see those transactions. Or even said, "could you just turn on your phone, move the screen towards us, and show us (or just email it to us so we can print out and attach the record to your declaration)".

I've looked into pretty much every major story, and once you get passed the superficial reporting, and into the actual details, it becomes depressingly clear that the media (at all levels and all sides) are just political (or ideological) organizations that filter, mold, and in a lot of cases make up, everything they put out.

<comment><USER46> Actually majority of people searched going through borders turn out to be perfectly innocent... Which means that if the law does allow officers to search everybody's personal information on their electronic devices they can browse at will my personal communication every time I cross the border.

One good thing about this story is that electronic device searches on Canadian borders are somewhat in the legal grey zone and this will force the courts to clarify the rules. And... allow public to voice their approval or disapproval of this ongoing practice.

<comment><USER45> I don't think I was stating otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> This gives me an idea for an app to make for mobile phones.

Leave the phone off or turn it off before you get to the airport Security line then when you turn it on the app auto-starts which makes the phone slowly boot.

Then when the phone does finally boot it shows a fake screen showing "Installing update 1 of 44" and make it so it never ends.

My password is my index finger I should change it to my middle finger, my password is written down and really complex I'd never be able to remember it without seeing it.

</comment><comment><USER48> Unfortunately for our good hero at the border, this mess all needs to be tested in the courts. He's just the prop for whatever organizations want to line up behind him. Just as the 'prosecutors' will be the prop for the actors lined up behind the definition of their current policies.

See you in a decade when this all shakes out.

</comment><comment><USER49> I hear they can even copy your whole drive and send the contents off for analysis:

[http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-u-s-border- a-c...](http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-u-s-border-a- constitution-free-zone-where-officials-can-grab-your-computer-and-copy-your- hard-drive)

</comment><comment><USER50> Do we not have a "you shall not be compelled to testify against your own person" in Canada?

For those unaware, here in Canada they've started playing catch-up ever since the snowden leaks, and they've been doing it with the same strategy (wait for any kind of terrorist attack and manipulate the people)

</comment><comment><USER51> Giving someone the password allows more than just looking around. Giving someone the password also allows them to _modify_ the data on the device.

Even if you "have nothing to hide", this is worrying. Who knows what has been changed on your device?

</comment><comment><USER52> Idea: When you're traveling change your settings to load the grub shell -- they ask for the password and you can say, "There is no password. It's a Linux grub-shell, just type the commands you want the computer to execute."

</comment><comment><USER53> Deplorable. Where notebooks are concerned, it reminds me of a TrueCrypt decoy password feature that would unlock a 'clean' hidden volume when entered in place of your 'working' volume password. Might be mistaken, though.

</comment><comment><USER46> Here is an idea for workaround. Have two passwords. One normal, the other one wipes out the phone. Back up your device to the cloud before you travel. Hand it in with a good smile and bad password...

</comment><comment><USER54> Why is someone looking at your cellphone not in the same privacy level as someone reading your mail? Would customs officials ask to read your letters?

</comment><comment><USER55> I wonder if it would be considered even more suspicious to _not_ carry any phones or other electronic devices at all across a border?

</comment><comment><USER56> At least with a password you can refuse. With a fingerprint it's very easy to actually force you to unlock your device.

</comment><comment><USER57> relevant: [http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/06/charge-your-phone-before- fl...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/06/charge-your-phone-before-flying-tsa- will-now-block-dead-devices-at-some-airports/)

</comment><comment><USER58> out of curiosity, I wonder what would happen if an app was made to lock the phone down for a period of time or some other future forward criteria. Can they charge you when you don't actually know the password.

</comment><comment><USER59> This kind of thing is a big f'ing deal breaker.

</comment><comment><USER60> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California)

<comment><USER61> American case law doesn't really hold for Canada.

<comment><USER62> And in any case, at borders there is not the same level of protection as within the country:

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

"This doctrine is not actually an exception to the Fourth Amendment, but rather to the Amendment's requirement for a warrant or probable cause. Balanced against the sovereign's interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of entrants. Not only is the expectation of privacy less at the border than in the interior,the Fourth Amendment balance between the interests of the Government and the privacy right of the individual is also struck much more favorably to the Government at the border.This balance at international borders means that routine searches are "reasonable" there, and therefore do not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against "unreasonable searches and seizures"

<comment><USER63> > _Not only is the expectation of privacy less at the border than in the > interior ..._

Begging the question, wouldn't you say? The only reason there is less expectation of privacy at the border is because of government policies, like this one, whose constitutionality is open to question.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Find-me – Connecting advertisers with content creators - <AUTHOR> https://www.find-me.co <comment><AUTHOR> Recently launched [1] this on product hunt, Find-me is my first 'shipped' product.

Basically, it's a database with statistics and direct contact information for content creators actively looking for advertisers and sponsorship opportunities. We cover over 79,000,000 impressions and growing.

Access to full database is $9/month, but also have a free email list where we feature one creator per week.

[https://www.producthunt.com/posts/find- me-2](https://www.producthunt.com/posts/find-me-2)

</comment><comment><USER2> As a leyman it took me a while to grasp what the concept is. Perhaps keep the language, but also have something "graphical" so its easier to follow along what the value proposition is. By the way, this = "Basically, it's a database with statistics and direct contact information for content creators actively looking for advertisers and sponsorship opportunities" was far easier to understand. keep grinding!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, super valuable at this stage! I will work on getting something graphical for the top of the landing page. I think the 'how it works' section of my landing page has the copy you mention resonating with you, but will be good to get the graphics to tie out. Thanks again!</comment></comment>


Is a 1 MB header image too big? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/west-wing-solutions/asktheindustry-39-is-a-1-mb-header-image-too-big-4f8521f1ded8 <comment><USER2> The implementation of this article actually shows a perfect example of why obsessing about image size might be entirely the wrong way to look at a problem and at best a misguided optimization.

The header image of this article is gigantic and mostly black, which is a huge waste of space. In a case like this, it's not the image size: it's the way the image was _designed_ , and the fact that maybe an image isn't even _necessary_ most of the time. At the very least, a smaller image could produce the same desired effect, and probably no image is needed at all.

Use a black web page element to produce a large black field, right away ensuring that _at most_ a much smaller image would be needed for the non-black center. Then, use green text (which is more accessible anyway). Once that's done, probably no image is even needed; and if an image is still needed, it would be really small, taking care of just minor adornments that the text did not provide.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree. It's a tough adjustment to make in a blog though, where images get uploaded by non tech people. Also, if your talking about the medium article I don't think one can code stuff in there :) anyway it's a good thing to keep in kind mind, thanks!</comment></comment>


Choke Point for U.S. Coronavirus Response: The Fax Machine - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/13/upshot/coronavirus-response-fax-machines.html <comment><USER2> Working as a software developer in the medical industry, I'm not at all surprised. Fax machines are everywhere in hospitals. In some sense I see it almost as a failure every time a fax is being sent.. but from a more objective view, the fax is really a very reliable form of communication. Of course, it doesn't scale very well, as the article describes.

(Note that I'm not in the US, but in Sweden.)

<comment><USER3> > but from a more objective view, the fax is really a very reliable form of > communication

I agree with you, but.

When healthcare professionals use fax machines they normally have a protocol that they work to. This lets them know that their telephone line is working, that the fax machine dialled the other number, that the other number picked up, and that the fax was sent. Some of them for urgent stuff include a final "make a call and make sure they got, and read, the fax".

The problem is that these protocols were created when fax machines were on POTS lines. Now many machines are using weird fax-to-email and back again gateways, so we get all the disadvantages of fax combined with the flakiness of email.

Fax is _everywhere_ in healthcare, and someone designing a better safer communication tool that addresses the reasons fax is used could make a lot of money.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Embarrassed to open-source code because of code quality? - <AUTHOR> Folks, like many here, I'm a self-taught developer.
And while I've been doing it for a few years now, I've generally prioritized outcomes over technical elegance, so I often hesitate to learn the trendiest frameworks & instead just focus on shipping.
This results in a fair helping of code that works well but might use untrendy frameworks, sub-optimal structures, etc.
I now run 2 ventures with decent traction. While I never handle sensitive/financial information, my beliefs in privacy, transparency, and freedom require making the source available (at least for the local client software like desktop programs, smartphone apps, etc).
But I wonder about the downsides...how would you (as a user, or as an employer) think of code that technically works (doesn't crash), practically works (gets users, makes money, etc), but looks kinda unprofessional (not super-concise, not terribly efficient, etc).
Every project I've come across on GitHub looks like it was built by people who are so much more experienced than me.
I've heard some founders (the Foursquare one comes to mind, but I know there are others) say similar things (i.e., they're "lousy" at programming and can only do "just enough" to get the job done) but they didn't make their code available to the world. Then they raised millions and hired great programmers to fill their gaps.
While I plan to make a decent amount of money, I'm not betting on unicorn status. This is a different level of scrutiny, and while I'm confident the principle of open-sourcing my code is sound, I'm not so confident if the code itself will live up to the reputation of the services it provides.
Any thoughts? <comment><USER2> I believe there are four reasons why people open source their code, and what the reason is directly affects the quality of what they put out in the open;

1\. They want their code to act as their resume. These people put a _ton_ of effort in to making their code work well, look good and read nicely.

2\. They genuinely believe in the Open Source movement, and want to share what they build so other people can add to it, improve it, and use it more freely. Their code looks good and reads well, but often not as well as the people in group 1 because the results actually matter more than the code.

3\. Pure vanity. They want to be famous and think making their code open is a way to build their rep. They'll give things a bit of polish before putting it on Github, but often quality is second to quantity.

4\. They put things on public repos without really caring whether anyone sees the code because they write the code for themselves, so it's technically open source but only because it's not private. The code is usually _really_ hacky but no one sees it so it doesn't matter.

By the sounds of things you're in the second group. In your position I'd tidy up the code as best as I can but I wouldn't stress if it's not the best there is.

(I'm in group 4)

<comment><USER3> It's not technically open source if it's merely visible. It's only technically open source if you explicitly license it to be so.

<comment><USER4> Generally speaking, people in group #4 throw an athena license or BSDL on it (though sometimes they'll throw a GPL or something on it instead).

Group #4 accounts for most individual open source projects (though not most code, since big projects tend to be huge); we discount it at our own risk.

<comment><USER5> Most of the work I do for myself is on Github and it almost never gets a license. The one thing I have added to PyPi got MIT because according to the online license picking tool I used it was the most open.

I actually intend to more widely open source that lib but I have so many projects I'm working on currently it's hard to pick one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> All code sucks. Your code, my code, everyone's code. For every codebase, there exists a significantly loud contingency of eyeballers who will hate it. I've gotten into arguments with unpleasant people who hate GNU Octave's code. The very first time I showed my C++ code to someone, which solved a problem in what I thought was a clever way, their only response was to say "why are you using cout, use printf instead, and what's with the horrible indentation format?"

Code shame and code shaming is real. But this should never prevent code from being published. Your users can always benefit from having the code available, so you should give them that code.

<comment><USER6> Heck just ask anybody on a code review. In my experience, they are simply code shaming and one-up-manship institutionalized. No effort made to address feature or correctness. No, endless squibble about names, indentation and which particular language feature they prefer.

I know two companies that are hamstrung at this very moment, by endless code review nonsense delaying projects indefinitely. They think more people will help. Ha. </rant>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Have you ever seen an apache project? The norm for code quality is abysmal, even in open source (where it's much better on average than proprietary hacks).

HR generally doesn't have the training to distinguish good code from bad code, and will be counting your repos or the lines of code in your repos if they look at your github at all.

Ultimately, the bigger issue is whether or not you feel like your competence _should_ disqualify you from a position. If you feel that way, then you should do something about it before applying for jobs. A good way to improve your skills is to fix the code you've already written, and doing that in a public repo demonstrates progress in a way that technical peers can appreciate.

(Re: trendy frameworks -- fashion has nothing to do with fit, and trendy frameworks are overhyped specifically because people use them when they are inappropriate for the task at hand. It's not hard to pick up a new framework on the job if you're asked to do so; I would avoid trendy frameworks and focus on the basics until somebody who controls your paycheck tells you otherwise. After all, which framework is currently trendy is liable to change inbetween getting a job and being able to start work, and the people making decisions about which frameworks will be used are almost inevitably tied to the trend cycle but ten or fifteen years behind it.)

</comment><comment><USER7> Ironically, I was having this same conversation with my fiance this morning. Lately I have been watching/listening (or at least having it playing on a screen on my other computer) Twitch programming channel. I switch between programmers and usually try to find something that is somewhat interesting to me to at least listen to. She asked why and how I could listen to that while working. Not sure why I switched from Spotify to Twitch over the last couple weeks, but I have found myself twice as productive so I am not questioning my choice. Her asking me though made me stop to reflect on that switch.

I am by no means a "great" programmer, but I can write code and would consider myself a good programmer. Like you said, it may not not always be elegant or the most efficient, but it works and gets the job done. My biggest problem is that I hesitate to launch/release because I second guess myself sometimes on the overall quality of the code. I am also hesitant to release open-source code for similar fears/lack of confidence.

Watching Twitch though I see others writing code. Some of them write better code than me, but for the most part the quality of code I see is equivalent to my own. They each have their own style and focus. Some are better commenting code while others write more efficient code. In the end though, 8 out of 10 times I find them writing the exact same code I would have written. Listening to them talk though gives an insight into what they are thinking. What I see/hear though is people who are confident enough to just code regardless of what others think. Sometimes someone in the chat will provide feedback on a better way they could do something or a general observation that provides valuable feedback. This confidence to just code without regard to what others think combined with seeing that many of the coding decisions they make are similar to my own has increased my productivity. Seeing and hearing all this has made me not second guess my coding decisions as much and I find myself writing code much faster.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting insight. Thanks for sharing!

Watching others in the process of coding sounds like an excruciating level of transparency for the subject. Mine would have to be X-rated for all the language during the frustrating periods, ha.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Chances are it's just impostor syndrome. Nobody's gonna care unless there are hideous hacks everywhere. When reading other people's code the first instinct is to assume everything is there for a reason. Given the effort it takes to critique someone's code, if somebody does - you're in luck.

You could ask a friend to take a quick look if it makes you feel better.

</comment><comment><USER9> > I'm not so confident if the code itself will live up to the reputation of > the services it provides.

Then don't open source it.

If you are running a business then it should be a financial/business decision. Is there any financial/business reason to open source it?

Weigh the opportunity costs and make the decision.</comment>


Too many start-ups or too few venture dollars? - <AUTHOR> http://informationarbitrage.com/post/12280605278/too-many-start-ups-or-too-few-venture-dollars <comment><AUTHOR> last time I checked capital was a limited resource, hence there will always be "too few"</comment>


The Story of Google's Closure: Advanced JavaScript Tools - <AUTHOR> http://blog.louisgray.com/2009/11/story-and-impact-of-closure-googles.html <comment><USER2> What he doesn't tell you is how much the Reader code would be if it was just gzipped. That's the real comparison to make.

If gzipping alone would get the code down to 800kb or something, then the improvement made by closure doesn't seem so awesome.

Nonetheless, it's obviously good to get the file size down to the absolute minimum when you are going to serve millions or billions of copies.

<comment><USER3> I've seen (and used) benchmarks with compressors other than Closure. The compiled + GZipped size is usually about half the size of the just GZipped file. Closure may do a bit better because it performs pretty aggressive dead- code elimination. 800K-1MB sounds pretty reasonable as a rough estimate.

I'd disagree on this not being awesome, though. 800K -> 143K is _huge_. You're talking about shaving several seconds off your user-visible load times. You get less cache thrash through having smaller pages. And at Google scale, this could be exabytes worth of bandwidth per month.

I've had code reviews held up while I shaved _3_ bytes off the compiled GZipped size, and proposed changes vetoed because they'd add 19K to the GZipped JS size. The entire JS for websearch is something like 13K. Saving 600K+ is absolutely enormous.

<comment><USER4> _You're talking about shaving several seconds off your user-visible load times._

This is the sort of statement that SHOULD set off a veritable explosion in your head of "If what he is saying is true, that is awesome. Seventeen exclamation points elided here!", because shaving seconds off user-perceptible load times results in huge, automatic, reproducible impacts to the bottom line, across a wide range of different web sites. You can reproduce it for yourself by A/B testing adding unnecessary delay into your pages versus not adding unnecessary delay, and watching what it does to conversions. Google has done this: they've found that less load time means more searches, which means more money. Amazon has done this: they found that 1 second more means 1% less -- revenue, that is.

Although I don't routinely A/B test bad practices against the default to make a point, I did get a handful of percentage points worth of free conversion back when I first saw one of the YSlow presentations and got religion on this. Seriously -- if you don't already pay attention to page load speed, you have a money tree in your back yard. Go put a basket under it and shake a bit.

<comment><USER5> Did Amazon (or Google) publish this result?

<comment><USER4> Yes.

[http://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/11/marissa-mayer-at- web-20....](http://glinden.blogspot.com/2006/11/marissa-mayer-at-web-20.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find this whole Closure story amusing, because what it amounts to is applying static typing techniques to a dynamic language - and guess what, static typing makes "it easier to catch errors much earlier". Where are the dynamic typing extremists when you need them?

<comment><USER7> I don't remember seeing any "dynamic typing extremists" who would argue that static typing is totally worthless, just that it has cost (e.g., it's an additional concern for the programmers) too in addition to the benefits it provides, and there are often times and cases where the cost dwarves the benefits. I do see static typing advocates who would argue that static typing should be everywhere, at all time, and non-optional.

To the extent that a single case can prove anything, what is being done here in fact strengthens the case for dynamic typing, for it shows that a dynamic language can reap the benefits of static analysis too, WHEN it is beneficial.

<comment><USER8> _To the extent that a single case can prove anything, what is being done here in fact strengthens the case for dynamic typing, for it shows that a dynamic language can reap the benefits of static analysis too, WHEN it is beneficial._

You don't know that dynamic typing + static analysis is better than just static typing. Closure definitely does not catch everything. Hell, even just using the [] operator on a non-array object, Closure breaks down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Mihai estimates that without Closure, Reader's JavaScript code would be a massive 2 megabytes_

Wow. That just seems wrong to me.

<comment><USER10> The direct quote from Mihai from my e-mail reads: "The benefits of the compiler system are tremendous. The most obvious are the size ones, without it Reader's JavaScript would be 2 megaytes, with it it goes down to 513K, and 184K with gzip (the compiler's output is actually optimized for gzip, since nearly all browsers support it)."

(I left in the typo for this excerpt) \-- I'm the author of the piece. I can't say why Reader's JS would be so high. I assume RSS can be heavy, and many feeds at once can be browser intensive.

<comment><USER6> There is no necessary relationship between the size of code (the JS) and the size of data ("many feeds at once"), and since data is almost always much larger than the code, there is proportionally very little benefit from reducing code size to fit more data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd be interested to know how it compares to the current version of Dojo.</comment>


Stealth Ethereum-Based Company pays ~$1B for land in Nevada - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/7t2jc8/stealth_ethereumbased_company_pays_1_billion_for/ <comment><USER2> It's more safe to own a billion dollars worth of land then to have a billion dollar at the bank. And definitely more safe then having a billion worth of crypto currency. The more interesting question though is _how_ they got the money.</comment>


What's up with all products videos using the same song? - <AUTHOR>

What's up with all products videos literally using the same exact song?<p>I just watched Spendee's video (http://vimeo.com/69027145) but I'm almost positive I've heard this at least a few other times. <comment><USER2> Not the same. It's just a trend, to use Ukelele happy songs. I think it sucks real bad.</comment>


NTSB says an over-reliance on Tesla's Autopilot contributed to a fatal crash - <AUTHOR> https://www.recode.net/2017/9/12/16294510/fatal-tesla-crash-self-driving-elon-musk-autopilot <comment><USER2> previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228838](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228838)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Original title: _A federal agency says an over-reliance on Tesla's Autopilot contributed to a fatal crash_ (8 characters too long)

Techmeme Summary: _NTSB says causes of fatal Tesla crash in May 2016 included driver 's over-reliance on Autopilot, approves safety recommendations for automakers, DoT, and NHTSA_</comment>


Google AutoDraw - <AUTHOR> https://www.autodraw.com <comment><USER2> I feel like I used it wrong. BUT I think it is also very amusing.

[https://www.autodraw.com/share/RIJ0ZMHLGNEP](https://www.autodraw.com/share/RIJ0ZMHLGNEP)

It's very tempting to just use whatever it guesses you want. Which is how we end up with electric drills for legs, and maybe this inspires the creation of...new superheroes.

BTW congrats to the team on the launch of this new product.</comment>