Ask HN: What do you think about the idea? - <AUTHOR> Just imagine you are somewhere you do not know anybody. Using https://www.nolone.net you can login, create an invitation and accept a response of the person you want to meet in the city. You can get in touch with very interesting people and explore the world in a way you never did before.<p>What do you think about the idea? <comment><USER2> This has the potential to be really cool & it's an idea that I've previously found myself wishing for a solution for. I also think that the trend away from facebook is ever-growing & there is an opportunity for an alternative. If Facebook was about connecting with people that you already know, how do I connect with people that I don't know yet?

I do think, considering the social space, it really needs to be executed well. I get that this is MVP, but I'd look to hire a designer ASAP (I'm a designer so I'm more biased to good design, but still).

Also, I really don't like the name. The word "alone" has very negative connotations. Can you change it to something more around the opposite of alone? Friends, conversation, understanding etc etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much for your positive opinion!

I did my best making the look simple, functional and mobile friendly but probably it is not as fancy as you expect it to be.

We need to hire a good designer, we also need to get more traction. Therefore we need people who believe in the idea and who are ready to invest their time or money.

I am open for a new name as long as we can find an unregistered .com or at least .net domain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > You can get in touch with very interesting people and explore the world in a > way you never did before.

Suppose you get a response from this nice girl near you and when you meet "her" she is actually an ugly man who wants to eat you.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can write a review about your appointment for other people to know that the girl is not a girl but an ugly man. The reviews are visible in user profiles.

<comment><USER4> But how can you review him if he ate you ?

<comment><AUTHOR> You do not need to meet him in the first place if he does not have a lot of good reviews.

<comment><USER5> But what if the ugly men form a ring and leave good reviews for each other, and since all of them eat their victims, they have no bad reviews to balance it out?

<comment><AUTHOR> "Conspiracy of the ugly men". Never heard something like this before :) I would not recommend you using the dating sites at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems like it would have a lot of security issues, but supposing that gets worked out it seems to be something for all those extroverted people I just don't understand. It seems like one of the things I don't understand that could actually make money.

</comment><comment><USER7> How do you plan to prevent all the escort services from abusing it?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is not an issue at the moment. We can easily implement the "bad behaviour" reporting system to block the accounts of escort services or to prevent the commercial usage of any kind at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> How is this different from any number of dating services that provide a "friends only" section?

I used to have a FWB who did exactly this when she had to travel for business.

<comment><AUTHOR> What is the difference between Facebook and MySpace? There is a difference as you can easily see. Nolone is an invitation based communication system. One of the most direct ways to meet new people in real life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> How would you make money with this?

<comment><AUTHOR> There are plenty of ways to make money. What we are looking for now is to get more traction. At this stage we need money for advertisement and further product development. If you are an investor who believes in the idea like we do, then let me know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What would be the difference between this and couchsurfing?

<comment><AUTHOR> Couchsurfing is nice for finding a place to stay. Nolone is good for sightseeing, dating and meeting new people.

<comment><USER11> If you go to one of the regular Couchsurfing events you can meet people, too.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is not about going to events. Nolone is about meeting new people randomly.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


New Zealand: Wish you were here? - <AUTHOR> http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/166595366.html <comment><USER2> As someone who's lived nearly my whole life in NZ and considers myself a large part Kiwi, I think they're overdoing this a bit.

\- Auckland is not walkable. It's very spread out, and the public transport is awful, so it's not practical to visit many places without a car. It probably helped that they had friends with an apartment overlooking Herne Bay, but that's a pretty expensive neighbourhood; most of us couldn't afford to live there.

\- They didn't see a Target or Gap because we don't have them, but NZ certainly _does_ have McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Subway and a few other multinational fast food joints. They must have been amazingly lucky to avoid them - I'd think it'd be a pretty hard trick to plot a journey that didn't run into any of them.

\- You can actually get tomatoes at any time of the year.

A lot of the reasons I left were work-related, which they wouldn't see from a ten-day holiday. Even in Auckland, interesting IT jobs are rarer than you'd like; 99% of the jobs I saw advertised looked to be soulless C++/Java/C# forms-based applications for some internal business thing.

Money's not great either; despite paying a lot more on rent in London now, I'm financially better off than I was in Auckland. Salaries are higher to counter the rent, and most of the rest of the cost of living is not a lot different. Some things are much cheaper; books, for example, cost a fortune in NZ (weirdly, milk as well, despite all the dairy farming).

The nightlife is okay in Auckland but a big pain in the ass to get to/from, unless you can afford to live nearby. The lack of public transport really bites here.

I like the place overall, and I'll always have a soft spot for it, but there's another side to this story that I think they're missing.

<comment><USER3> There are an estimated 460 000 New Zealanders living overseas or 14% of the population. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealanders>

By comparison, there are 6 million Americans, or ~2% of Americans living overseas. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_United_Stat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_United_States#Overseas_US_populations)

If NZ is as great as the author thinks it is he might want to ponder why so many people have left.

<comment><USER4> There are other factors involved. There's really easy migration to Australia which has a stronger economy, it's common for people to have other passports so it's easier to move elsewhere because of that too, there's less of a belief that we're the greatest country in the world that could bias American emigration. America is also a big place, so people can move around within the country fairly easily if conditions for any particular group of workers in any particular place is bad, which isn't the case here.

It's not quite as simplistic as you make it seem.

<comment><USER5> In addition to this, some folks get Australian citizenship by getting the easier NZ citizenship first, as it's easier for NZ citizens to become Australian citizens. This would add a little bit to the 'percentage overseas' issue.

<comment><USER6> This is outdated, I believe. These days there is no easy way for NZ citizens to become Australian citizens. However they can still live and work in Australia, but remain second class in various ways, such as not having access to many types of social welfare benefits and not being able to vote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a New Zealander who grew up in Australia and now lives in the US, let me start by saying what I love about New Zealand:

1) The culture is for the most part pretty awesome. Friendly people, love of sport, lots of folks with gumption and can-do attitude, appreciation of nature, etc etc.

2) One of the most beautiful countries in the world.

3) Politically well-centred, and doesn't brown-nose the way Australia does.

Now let me enumerate my issues with New Zealand:

1) Not the paradise this article would have you believe. I feel a lot safer in California than I ever did when I was living in New Zealand.

2) A bit of a backwater - so far from anything, very socially isolated, living in a small pond basically.

3) A negative/tall-poppy attitude. Lots of complaining, "make sure you know your place" feeling.

The entrepreneurs I've worked with from NZ were all amazing people, but being there was holding them back.

Overall - there's no way I can imagine moving back there anytime soon, but I do love it as a country.

<comment><USER8> >1) Not the paradise this article would have you believe. I feel a lot safer in California than I ever did when I was living in New Zealand.

Wow, never would have guessed that. Could you elaborate?

<comment><USER9> As an Australian i felt far safer in NYC and San Fran than say in Melbourne or Sydney, which went against my expectations. I think both Australia and NZ are extremely tolerant of youth crime which is a big part of the problem. That combined with limited legal protection for those acting in self defence means you often feel like criminals and gangs have greater rights than ordinary citizens.

<comment><USER5> I think it depends heavily on which parts of the cities you visit. Tourists don't tend to visit the slummy areas.

 _That combined with limited legal protection for those acting in self defence means you often feel like criminals and gangs have greater rights than ordinary citizens._

This is nonsense. You have the right to use equal force in return, and you are expected to retreat if possible. What it means is you can't shoot someone who's only threatening you with their fists.

And if you're talking about gangs, Australian gangs are not a patch on US gangs - US self defence laws have certainly not given them less gang influence than here.

<comment><USER9> > I think it depends heavily on which parts of the cities you visit. Tourists > don't tend to visit the slummy areas.

I was walking the streets of Brooklyn and Queens in not-so-touristy areas and didn't run into any problems or feel threatened. I got the feeling that there might have been dangerous people around, but if you didn't mess with them they wouldn't mess with you.

> This is nonsense. You have the right to use equal force in return, and you > are expected to retreat if possible. What it means is you can't shoot > someone who's only threatening you with their fists.

As a somewhat pudgy software engineer who hasn't been in so much as a scuffle since primary school, knowing that I can "use my fists" against a street hardened, violent thug does not exactly leave me feeling empowered. And while I would not like to shoot anyone whatever the circumstances, I would like to feel I could use a firearm to deter someone from violently assaulting me.

> And if you're talking about gangs, Australian gangs are not a patch on US > gangs

Your right, there is a big difference. Gangs in the US appear to be well organized, hierarchical, structured operations, "gangs" in Australia are more like packs of disaffected youth roaming the streets looking for trouble. And I may be way off here, but while the US might have a lot of gang violence, it seems to be largely gang-on-gang violence. The incidents of random, senseless, violent attacks against innocent bystanders by violent youths and thugs - usually without any other motive such as theft - is a bewildering common occurrence in Australia, and a well-known and widely talked about issue in contemporary Australian culture. Here is a very recent example which is typical of the kind of stories that we hear about every few days: [http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/mans-neck- slashed-...](http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/mans-neck-slashed-with- box-cutter/story-fndo3ewo-1226453417602)

<comment><USER5> _As a somewhat pudgy software engineer who hasn't been in so much as a scuffle since primary school, knowing that I can "use my fists" against a street hardened, violent thug does not exactly leave me feeling empowered._

So you're subscribing to the idea that carrying a knife or gun is going to help? But more importantly, note this part of your quote: " _hasn't been in so much as a scuffle since primary school_ ". What, exactly, do you feel you need to defend yourself against? You want to bring sidearms into a nation to protect yourself from 'not so much as a scuffle since primary school'? The US has major problems with handguns and crime, but the genie is out of the bottle there.

 _The incidents of random, senseless, violent attacks against innocent bystanders by violent youths and thugs - usually without any other motive such as theft - is a bewildering common occurrence in Australia, and a well-known and widely talked about issue in contemporary Australian culture_

I might be wrong here, but the 'random, senseless attacks' were a large part of NYC until the very recent efforts in making the city much safer. It's not something that is peculiar to the Australian psyche.

But yes, around nightclub districts there is a problem. Even your linked article it's talking about the heart of a nightclub district at 2:30am. But in reality street crime is no worse here than anywhere else. I think you're falling into the trap that Australians so like to fall into, claiming that the country is always going downhill and is worse than anywhere. It's like the people that claim our country is the most racist in the world. Sure, we have some problems with racism, but what countries don't? Whenever we have these discussions, there's almost never any actual comparison to contemporary countries - it's habit for us just to assume we're the worst (because like the US, we like to think we're #1, it seems :)

It's actually really hard to accurately compare crime directly between countries (excluding homicide). A punch-on between a couple of guys can end up with five charges being laid in Australia (ascending charges, one of them will stick), and is listed as 5 charges in the stats. NZ does this as well, but not many other places do. In contrast the US doesn't even bother publishing those stats, they'll generally only publish _aggravated_ assaults, which are with either a weapon or resulting in severe injury.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article neglected to say about Auckland that it's a huge overpriced real estate market. And the bubble doesn't look like popping because it's propped up by massive immigration from Asia, previously Korea and Taiwan, but now especially mainland China. There's always more international students who'll rent the apartments and immigrants who'll buy the houses.

The last 5-yearly census held in 2006 showed ([http://www.waitakere.govt.nz/abtcit/ps/pdf/2006AucklandCensu...](http://www.waitakere.govt.nz/abtcit/ps/pdf/2006AucklandCensus.pdf)) the percentage Asians in Auckland is 19%. It was maybe 1 or 2% only 25 yrs ago. The next census is due in Feb 2013 (delayed by 2 yrs because of the Jan 2011 earthquake in Christchurch), but based on impressions during my last trip back earlier this year, I'm guessing it could be up to 25%. That's quite a quick change in the ethnic makeup of a city.

When the NZ government ran out of money in 1991, they cancelled welfare benefits for anyone aged under 25. Suddenly, all these unemployed "kids" shifted back to their parents houses, and landlords had to half their rents to get tenants. To appease landowners and force those rents and house prices back up, the government opened the gates to Asian immigration bigtime.

Because of the automatic right of Australians and New Zealanders to live and work in each others country, many Asian immigrants move/d to Australia's big cities of Sydney and Melbourne after becoming a NZ citizen after 3 to 5 years of residence. That 19% Asian population of Auckland is only the tip of the iceberg of the immigrants who came.

<comment><USER11> _overpriced real estate market_... _the bubble doesn't look like popping because it's propped up by massive immigration from Asia_

Sounds more like there are structural reasons why real estate is priced higher than you expect. That doesn't make it overpriced, let alone a bubble.

<comment><USER12> New Zealanders buy houses Instead if other investments (to the frustration of numerous finance ministers). The housing market dipped only fractionally with recent world events, and basically sits where it was in 2007 at the moment. Kiwis love houses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a Yank in New Zealand, here are the things that I enjoy:

\- The people are friendly. Hitchhiking works; particularly on the South Island.

\- Everywhere is beautiful. I spend 5 hours in an open-pit coal mine. In NZ, even the coal mines are pretty.

Things I don't like:

\- Racism. It's not hateful, but it's omnipresent.

\- Sexism. There are boy jobs and girl jobs. This is, apparently, improving; and I haven't seen disparate pay for identical work.

How to come here: Use Helpx.net. Exchange 4 hours of work a day for food and accommodation. Almost any kind of work, in almost anywhere in the country. I've been helpxing for 7 months, hitchhike between hosts, and barely spend a penny.

<comment><USER12> I suspect you encountered racism outside of Auckland? I have been surprised by attitudes in the South Island, where non-white people seemed to surprise the locals.

<comment><USER13> Oh, no; I've seen just as much up North as down South. I'm not talking so much about severe racism; just the more everyday "Maori are lazy, the Asians steal our jobs and our houses, the French are poor workers..." I guess I should call it racial prejudice, rather than racism. "I'm-not-racist-but" racism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> New Zealand is a pretty awesome place! I left my home of Scotland to do a years backpacking around NZ and ended up staying for 14 months. I didn't want to leave but my visa was running out so I jumped across to Australia where I'm now working on my residency.

What I loved about NZ is that you're always close to nature and amazing sights. I climbed a glacier, I walked through national parks and I visited some amazing beaches.

Kiwis are some of the nicest people I've ever met, though some of the younger generation seem to be similar to those UK.. lots of binge drinking and fighting.

Auckland gets a lot of bad press, it really is a lot different than the rest of NZ but one thing I will say: If you want to party then Auckland is a great place to do it! The bars don't seem to ever close!

There are some downsides though, Internet access in most places sucked ass and was expensive. Wages are low and the weather wasn't too great, though I'm used to that being from Scotland.

<comment><USER15> Why haven't you applied for a permanent residence?

<comment><USER14> It's pretty hard to get and I couldn't make any decent money to get the ball rolling. I've applied in Australia now though and I think once I've been a resident here for a while then I can go back :)

<comment><USER15> Oh, that's bad. I thought it's may an option for you, because you have already been there for a while. The rules for getting a visa in NZ are really strict then. What are the major differences between Australia and New Zealand from your viewpoint? I heard that Australia is more US-like and NZ more Europe oriented, but thats it. It would be cool if you could share some experiences :) Thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> chris-j Around 3 years ago I was living in Auckland and wanted to escape the city for winter. Hearing people moan about the weather and cold was getting boring and bringing me down. A friend told me about a town called Wanaka and it sounded like a fun place so off I went. It was the best decision I've made yet. Even the police are friendly here. For example I once ran out of gas and while parked on the side of the road a cop pulled over and gave me a ride to the gas station and back. During the ride he told me how much he loved his job. I've found my new home.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have never heard Auckland described as walkable. It's easily the worst city I have been to in that regard, unless you have a car, you're pretty much stuck. It's a pretty flattering article about home I'd say.

<comment><USER16> _"... I have never heard Auckland described as walkable. It's easily the worst city I have been to in that regard, unless you have a car, you're pretty much stuck ..."_

Disagree. Spent a week walking around Auckland city last year along Hobson St, Beach Rd, Quay St, Khyber Pass Rd, Parnell Rd, Symonds St. This is pretty much the outer 5km boundary of Auckland. When I was tired or needed to be somewhere fast, I caught a (free) bus. Great city.

<comment><USER12> The area you describe is nowhere near the outer edge. It's not even the edge of the CBD. Keep in mind that Auckland covers a vast area of nearly 5000 square km. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_Council> There are centres all over the place, north, south, east, west, and most are worth visiting and have very different tastes to them. I came off very negative in my first post, I love Auckland, but it's chronic lack of decent transport options is problematic.

Edit: typo

<comment><USER16> _"... The area you describe is nowhere near the outer edge. It's not even the edge of the CBD. Keep in mind that Auckland covers a vast area of nearly 5000 square km ..."_

When you put it like that, yes. I'm from Melbourne where the metro area is a 50km N/E/W arc from the CDB. What allowed me to get around in the 30-40km distance I was from Uni was a combo of train, car & tram. The rest I walked.

<comment><USER17> True. I lived in Melbourne last year, and although the transport has way better compared to Auckland, I don't really miss it. I live in Ponsonby and I still find I can get around pretty easily without a car. You still sorta need one if you got friends who aren't that close to the CBD but I'm quite lucky that the majority of my friends are in the same area, so its usually a 5-15 min walk to anywhere.

I can walk from Queen St to my house in 25mins usually (and vice versa) which is I find is usually faster then catching a bus. Parking is a pain and a rip in town so walking is fine by me. Also you save $10 taxing home from town on a Fri/Sat night.

One thing I don't miss about Melbourne is that is actually easy to get home on a Friday/Saturday night from the City. Your more likely to win Lotto then get a cab, so your only option is to wait till 5am to get the first train of the day or if your lucky find a bus which drops you miles away from home but at least you can get home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm a huge fan of Flight of the Conchords...having spent time living in both NZ and Australia made the show a lot funnier. I didn't realise how much I liked NZ until I left. I'm in Oz now, originally from Los Angeles. I feel much safer now that I've left, disagree with @diiq, I personally experienced more racism in both America and Australia. Never plan on going back to America except to visit family, wish I left much earlier than I did. Main reason for leaving though is because I am afraid of what the US government has become and will turn into in 5-10 years, politics in America is so incredibly backwards, and the people don't seem to care or notice what is happening.

</comment><comment><USER19> I live here in New Zealand and unfortunately I'm too depressed to enjoy it. The terrible weather doesn't help. On that note, I'd love to meet any HN folks in Auckland. I'll use this thread as an opportunity to reach out.

<comment><USER20> erm, is this a joke? If its not I am a kiwi living abroad who is in the country right now (briefly). If you want to catch up I will be coming through Auckland in the next few weeks.

NZ is an extraordinarily picturesque country filled with sweet but naive people. As a small-town kiwi boy I have had my mind blown in the last few years traveling and working in some of the poorest parts of the world. The really difficult thing is coming back and trying to tell people there is more to life than the frequently changing weather conditions or the latest All Blacks result

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> THere is a culture in New Zealand of after leaving University going overseas to "See the world" (their OE: Overseas Experience). Many highly educated people end up staying there because of the more interesting/higher paying jobs.

However, after they start a family, it's fairly common for people to want to move back to New Zealand as it's seen as a great place to raise children. When people come back, they've acquired a large amount of experience from other places.

</comment><comment><USER22> Based on the number of kiwi accents I hear living in Perth: apparently not.

</comment><comment><USER23> The worst thing about New Zealand is that our national sport makes no sense. I've had to explain rugby to a few foreigners and it's a challenge. Still, it's nice to be the best in the world at something.

<comment><USER2> What's so hard to explain about rugby? It's no worse than most others; try explaining gridiron to a total novice (ie. most Kiwis) or soccer (why is that player lying on the ground pretending to be injured?).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you're wondering if there's a typo in the article, we say "tomahto", not "tomayto", much like the Brits.

<comment><USER22> Actually, you say "tehmuhtew", mich lek the kewees.

<comment><USER24> Actlly, wee sy tmato, wthout th xtra vwls.

<comment><USER22> ixsillint

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> He's right, New Zealand is gorgeous. I am fortunate enough to live here and I really appreciate it.

</comment><comment><USER26> How knows Clojure/Java and wants to live in Auckland?

We'll help. Ping me at colin taylor at gmail.

</comment><comment><USER27> Nature + robots: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4wEkZZ3YL0>

</comment><comment><USER28> It turns out -- US law is enforced in NZ, by ... the FBI (Megaupload) so no, I don't wish I was there.

<comment><USER12> I agree (some seem not to). However the courts are whittling away the crown case, and both the police and the FBI have got explaining to do. This current government brown noses the US somewhat but compared the other countries, we are positively independent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I plan to go to New Zealand in 2 months and live there for one year :)

<comment><USER29> I did exactly this last winter, spent 6 months living and working in Queenstown for clients back home in Melbourne. It was some of the best time I've spent traveling.

<comment><USER15> Ah cool, I want to work there for a while and will apply for a work visa. Maybe I'll stay there. If I won't get a work visa then I'll go to another country :)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is JavaScript Java.next()? - <AUTHOR>

Like you all I digest the daily collection of JavaScript-created genius on HN with a little bit of "god I hope I don't need to learn how to do that..." and a whole lot of open-mouthed gawking.
Some JavaScript trends in the last few weeks that I didn't know was possible:

  PDF Rendering [1]
  MP3 Decoding / Playback [9]
  Parsing/Rendering RAGE Game Levels [2][3]
  Parsing EXIF Data from JPG/TIFF Images [4]
  Physics Simulations [11]
  Animated/Interactive Insanity (Thanks Ben Vanik!) [5]
  Servers! (Nodejs) [6]
  Video Games [7]
 Why isn't any of this being done at the same scale and fervor with Flash? Why not Java Applets? JavaFX? Air? Silverlight?
JavaScript seems to have something going for it that only Java before it had: a VM arms race involving all the major tech companies in the industry.
The first 4-7 years of Java's life was punctuated by almost yearly (notable) performance jumps as Sun, IBM and BEA battled each other for the VM crown (Microsoft bowed out early after the lawsuit so I won't include them). I remember the pre-1.4 days as relatively blasphemous to use Java on the server side; it was too "slow and bloated" for a large-data application (although IIRC eBay was one of the first large-scale commercial rollouts of Java).
Post-1.4, into the 1.5/5.0 and 6.0 days it became a forgone conclusion for a lot of folks that Java was just what you used on the server[8].
That shift and acceptance caught me off guard at the time, but I see that as a direct function of the performance increase in Java (and server hardware) suddenly allowing the convenience of using Java to be a reality with less and less cost associated with it.
That seems to be exactly what is going on now with Google, Apple, Mozilla and Microsoft. I imagine some of these companies (Microsoft?) would have preferred staying out of the VM wars, but find themselves committed[10] because of how fast the tech is advancing.
Look at what JavaScript was doing 4 years ago compared to those links I posted above and it's night-and-day; more of a leap than Java ever took and I don't see the trend slowing.
I've been curious for 4 years or so what Java.next() would be.
Ruby has got it's following and GO will most certainly have it's group of supporters grow in the next few years as the language matures, but none of these languages had what it took to actually knock Java off its "I do everything pretty well on most all platforms!" pedestal until JavaScript sauntered in the room and every hacker with a wild hair decided to do things I thought were impossible with it.
To recap, why I see JavaScript as Java.next():

  - Platform independence (Desktop, Server, Mobile, etc.)
  - VM Arms Race / Investment from 4 mega corps
  - Java-esque feel to it, making it an easier transition
  - Big existing code base of libraries and examples
 Do you all see the same writing-on-the-wall that I do or have I just convinced myself it is there?
[1] http://blog.mozilla.com/cjones/2011/07/03/pdf-js-first-milestone/
[2] http://blog.tojicode.com/2011/05/webgl-rage-source-is-up.html
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0S2dsuSxHw
[4] http://blog.nihilogic.dk/2008/05/reading-exif-data-with-javascript.html
[5] http://www.ro.me/
[6] http://nodejs.org/
[7] http://www.webresourcesdepot.com/25-amazing-javascript-games-some-fun-and-inspiration/
[8] http://www.infoq.com/articles/twitter-java-use
[9] http://jsmad.org/
[10] http://mashable.com/2010/10/29/microsoft-silverlgiht-html/
[11] http://www.queness.com/post/3296/8-amazing-javascript-experiments-of-physic-and-gravity-simulation <comment><USER2> Java is Java.next();

I jumped on the java bandwagon a few months ago, but fully committed to it for work just in the last month (long story, sole/lead/CTO for fashion house with tens of retail outlets. Ass needed to be covered, and we're doing 30% Android, so might as well go fully java.)

Yeah, it's doable. In fact, it's tasty. Eclipse integrates really well with it. Java EE is better than I expected: I would kill to have hibernate/JPA for Lisp, to be honest. I tried a few web frameworks but decided to use Play, which is absolutely delicious.

If you have any substantial "backend development" you will cream your pants at how much "process" & good workflow the Java ecosystem embodies. Right click -> Run As -> Deploy on Server. There ya go, then you get a bunch consoles to monitor your apps and get some fine grained stats. You can hook a debugger to remote process, if you need that too.

I implemented RBAC security, database auditing & roll-back (at the ORM level, zero SQL), object validation, the whole admin crud, and a REST API in 2-3 weeks. Having never done it in Java before.

Dependency injection is one of those opaque jargons that don't make any sense until you do a bit of Java. Then it's the most awesome thing you ever heard of.

Modern Java is not like the Java of old. It's all clean classes, a few conventions (yes, they discovered "convention over configuration" and the annotations make everything a breeze), and the rest are just rock solid servers and software.

I can safely say that XML is 100% optional. I have yet to write any of it. Nearly everything is done with var=val type configuration files.

Once you get the hang of it you discover you have a world of possibilities. I'm pretty much spoiled for choices.

Not necessarily "fun" and "hackish", but it's very productive (it doesn't _feel_ like normal coding, more like assembling blocks. 90% of what I do is customization. As a matter of fact, I prototype all of it in Common Lisp before I rewrote it in Java, so I might be in for some pain later, who knows.)

<comment><USER3> What are your thoughts on Clojure? Do you use it?

<comment><USER2> I think clojure is lovely, but my current circumstances are such that I can't be selfish. I have no "technical" supperior, I'm the "it" guy at work, the sole arbiter of everything software, and the trust placed upon me is far too great for me to take lightly. So I decided to man up & do everything as formally as possible: for my employer, for the responsibility, and for my own sanity should I decide to walk away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Because using javascript is convenient and fits well in an environment of "just type in a URL and you're good to go"; your users wont have to install anything, you'll be able to make updates EVERYONE will get the next type they visit, and you're not limiting yourself to a fraction of the people who have an up to date version of some plugin. To me that's seriously about the most perfect app deployment mechanism I could want. At least on the web it is.

I personally still wouldn't use node.js ever, but I see how it might be used by someone who already knows javascript and doesn't have the time to pick up Haskell or Erlang for some idea they want to execute.

Also, it used to be that without the HTML5 tech a lot of what you listed wasn't even possible and that was a forcing factor to use something else. So it's not just improvements in speed here, that RAGE demo wouldn't exist without WebGL.

<comment><AUTHOR> Other excellent points; I hadn't even considered the deployment/update scenario and how many different ways that problem has been solved and re- solved in different languages to just try and make it easier (Installshield, OSGI/Eclipse Update, Flash, WebStart, Windows Installer, etc. all come to mind).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If we get an IDE with proper intellisense going and performance comparable to Java and C were indeed possible. Personally, I just don't think a dynamic language is ever going to get large scale adoption like Java/C/C++. It's just too inconvenient to test.

I actually think C is going to have a comeback, as crazy as that sounds right now.

</comment><comment><USER6> What's the JS equivalent to J2EE?

<comment><USER7> Why would you want one?

For me J2EE is the very reason I abandoned Java. Lean and mean is the win for me. Unfortunately, I can see that given time NodeJS will accumulate all the "enterprise features" to make it the behemoth of its day.

<comment><USER8> I've actually heard Ryan Dahl (who made node.js) say specifically that he's against node becoming Java-like. I'd take his word for it :)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you use checklists in your job/personal lives? - <AUTHOR>

If you do, could you share your use cases? What software do you use to manage them?<p>Edit: This question is only about checklists - not todo lists <comment><USER2> Todo lists are a subset of Checklists. I use them whenever im on risk of forgetting some parts, shopping, packing for travel etc. And i use pen & paper because its faster for use and available in most households or offices.</comment>


Show HN: A Game to Battle Depression with Friends - <AUTHOR> http://ForeverMaze.com <comment><USER2> IOS only.</comment>


Young blood does not reverse aging in old mice, UC Berkeley study finds - <AUTHOR> http://news.berkeley.edu/2016/11/22/young-blood-does-not-reverse-aging-in-old-mice-uc-berkeley-study-finds/ <comment><USER2> > In many of these experiments, older mice that received younger blood saw > either slight or no significant improvements compared to old mice with old > blood. Young mice that received older blood, however, saw large declines in > most of these tissues or organs.

> The researchers think that many benefits seen in old mice after receiving > young blood might be due to the young blood diluting the concentration of > inhibitors in the old blood.

How can these things be compatible? If it were diluting the inhibitors, that should have shown up as an improvement in the old mice, no?

<comment><USER3> My guess is that the effect of the inhibitors is not linear with concentration.

Imagine that the effective (deleterious) dose of these inhibitors is, say, 10% of the amount found in old mice. So an equal exchange between two mice is enough to provide an effective dose to the young mouse, but not enough to eliminate an effective dose to the old mouse.

<comment><USER4> If this inhibitor hypothesis were true, an experiment could be set up to determine which component/combination of components in the old-blood actually plays the inhibitor role, with injection of separated part by component of old-blood into the young mice, more or less like a binary search. After knowing the exact combination, it would be much easier to target the inhibitor itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This seems like this is a misleading way for these researchers to present their results.

Yes, there study did show that young blood can not stop the effects of old blood.

However if someone were going to get transfused with young blood the amount of old blood in their system would decrease, so then, presumably, you would see anti-aging effects.

I don't know why they didn't present the research like that. It seems like they don't want to say it or I'm just missing some logical step in my thinking.

<comment><USER6> They didn't like how the previous results were sensationalized in the media so they are proactively downplaying anything that could be used as a sound bite.

<comment><USER7> Isn't that sorta not the point to science at all? Shouldn't findings be conducted regardless of whatever bullshit the media spews?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Importantly, our work on rodent blood exchange establishes that blood age has virtually immediate effects on regeneration of all three germ layer derivatives."

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm wondering if these inhibitors could be toxins from bacteria or bacteria themselves or another kind of parisite in the blood?

My personal theory is older organisms get colonized by all kinds of bacteria that might trigger or speed up the breakdown the body.

</comment><comment><USER10> So, if you had a few dozen pints of toddler blood in, say, a bar cooler, what would be the best way to dispose of that? Asking for a friend.

</comment><comment><USER11> Worth giving a try with humans anyway.

<comment><USER12> Try young virgins next (sarcasm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whew. Thank goodness.

<comment><USER14> It would have been convenient. But if anything so simple could work, then nature would likely have already done it.

<comment><USER15> Perhaps. Dying very easily is sometimes a good thing for a species from an evolutionary standpoint.

<comment><USER16> Yup. I'm of the opinion that aging just is a "feature" of evolution. A population with aging has a significant fitness advantage over a population without aging so its not surprising that everything ages (the next generation is almost always more fit than the previous gen so the faster a population transitions to the next gen the more fit it is). But if aging just is a trait rather than some inevitable result of entropy, it leads one to be optimistic for reversing aging at least in principle.

<comment><USER17> Aging as a feature doesn't make sense to me. It seems more likely to me that immortality simply hasn't been 'cracked' yet, intelligence that could create immortality would seem more likely to evolve first than immortality itself.

You have to get so many things just right for immortality to 'work', i.e. to actually be useful in a survival context. It does no good for creatures to not age if they lose a significant amount of viability.

But real immortality in the complete reversal of aging, I think would be an immense advantage. Instead of having to teach your young over a very short period of time the tricks they need to be viable adults, creatures could super-specialize. One creature could supply all the food needed for a huge colony. They'd just get better and better at exploiting their niche and other creatures could find other niches.

I think if intelligence hadn't 'gotten there first', immortal creatures would be running the show.

<comment><USER18> > One creature could supply all the food needed for a huge colony.

We call this a "single point of failure".

<comment><USER17> Other creatures could provide security.

<comment><USER18> Against a really clever predator, perhaps with wings? Against accident and illness? Against a change in circumstance such that those overspecialized strategies no longer work sufficiently well or at all?

<comment><USER17> A colony could stockpile food for the interrim period where the backup could be trained up.

<comment><USER18> Trained up by whom? All that's left of the colony's institutional knowledge on the subject of provisioning is an owl pellet's worth of tiny bones and hair.

<comment><USER17> With immortality, institutional knowledge doesn't have to go away. Everybody can know everything, and the specialist that has all the experience dies, then a new one can just be selected, and the whole colony can pick up the slack until the new specialist is experienced enough to do it all himself.

Everybody becomes T-shaped.

<comment><USER18> So immortality implies perfect recall, such that skills not exercised cease to grow rusty and fade with time?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > found evidence for tissue rejuvenation in older mice when they are > surgically joined to younger mice

That's terrifying.

<comment><USER20> "Mice Splicer" on your resume, though? That'd be an interesting interview conversation.

<comment><USER21> I had to do exactly these surgeries on rats for a few years as a lab tech.

Also did some other fun things such as mass killings of rats using mini- guillotines, harvesting bones and doing amateur brain surgeries while other rats watched restlessly and anxiously peeped from the smell of blood.

This kind of stuff can mess with your sanity. For me it was a converse of how serial killers injure animals when they were children.

Still have nightmares sometimes.

<comment><USER22> Why let the other rats watch/smell ? That's just cruel, and the stress might actually skew your testing data, screwing over your experiments.

<comment><USER23> Most likely they grab a box of 2-3 rats, take it to a procedure room, and perform surgeries on all the rats in sequence. It's a bit on the lazy end, since you could always do a surgery on one rat, take it back to the housing room, and get the next one. Some labs do not permit animals to observe another's surgery or euthanasia. The rules are more lax for _Mus musculus_ and _Rattus rattus_ , than for other mammalian species, in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> sad day for peter thiel

<comment><USER25> It's sad to imagine a day when Peter Thiel, Donald Trump, the Koch brothers, Fidel Castro can live forever. Even non-evil billionaires like Bill Gates living forever could be tragic, in that it greatly reduces the motivation for significant philanthropy.

<comment><USER26> I think if i was going to life indefinitely i would want to ensure the society around me is strong ,stable , healthy and happy to protect myself.

<comment><USER27> If anything, once you've cheated death amassing more personal power might feel like a bit of a waste of time. Waste of time probably isn't the right phrase but you get my drift.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


America's dental-health divide - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2017/05/13/the-painful-truth-about-teeth/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_rigged-teeth-1109am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory <comment><USER3> I'm sure part of the deeper issue is that preventative care is not really popular in the US among many, along with far too many sweets. Unfortunately, even if that changed overnight, tomorrow we'd still have the exact same problem.

Systemically, we have to consider the costs of dentistry and why they are high; we have to consider the hand of the insurance company and their price regulation; the costs of materials; the costs of running a small office & regulatory compliance of same; the costs of dental school; and more. This is largely an exercise in system thinking and determining which lever is most effeciacious in improving public health outcomes. Insurance regulation is a narrow way to affect costs without disrupting the choices dentists and patients have made in their life regarding location, choice of careers, etc.

Grew up poor, but we had floridated mouthwash to help cope with well water, and my parents made _sure_ we hit the dentist 2x a year for cleaning & sealants. I wonder if the cost curves for dental care are different now, 20 years later. I'm very grateful to them for taking me to the dentist as diligently as they did.

These days I have dental insurance, but still do the 2x/year clean.

<comment><USER4> There's this seemingly unspoken assumption that fluoridated drinking water has dental properties worthy of whatever other risks it could have. I don't know either way, in fact I'm very curious for a trustworthy source, not of water but of evidence.

Anecdotally, I always drank bottled water growing up in the US. I also never had a cavity. Is it genetic? Both of my parents have terrifying teeth issues. Is it diet? Partly - thanks to my mom, I was never obsessed about sweets.

Anecdotes aside, why does fluoride belong in drinking water?

<comment><USER5> I see a couple of other responses here, but let me address why fluoride belongs in _drinking water_

Fluoride belongs in drinking water in much the same way iodine belongs in salt ---it's an extremely cheap, low-risk, and effective way to improve public health. Read some of the references for more details [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Effectivene...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Effectiveness) but the short version is that fluoride is safe and effective and because it's so widespread in use, even if you only drink bottled water you're probably getting secondary exposure from other food/drink sources. And if you brush your teeth regularly with a fluoride toothpaste, then you've got that delivery mechanism covering you as well. In the end, the public health benefits are there because fluoridation is pervasive and hard to avoid. By similar argument, you probably also don't have an iodine deficiency because of all the iodized salt in use.

This is interesting because people relying on anecdotal evidence is pretty much the same failure mode for why so many people don't recognize the importance of vaccination. Because it's so pervasive in the US (and other places) it's easy to find stories of "I wasn't vaccinated and I didn't get sick" or similar "I didn't X and Y didn't happen" but it's not just the primary exposure, but all the secondary exposure and effects that also play an important role in public health efforts.

<comment><USER4> _fluoride is safe and effective and because it 's so widespread in use, even if you only drink bottled water you're probably getting secondary exposure from other food/drink sources. And if you brush your teeth regularly with a fluoride toothpaste, then you've got that delivery mechanism covering you as well. In the end, the public health benefits are there because fluoridation is pervasive and hard to avoid. By similar argument, you probably also don't have an iodine deficiency because of all the iodized salt in use._

So, I don't think you're factually wrong in most of what you said. But I have to say, you're saying that it's pervasive in other sources besides tap water (since you raise other food/drink sources), but still in your first sentence asserting that it belongs in drinking water.

So I ask you, if these other sources of beneficial fluoride exist (like our toothpaste, or even food/drinks), why would it need to be added to the drinking water?

And why, of all things, would they choose fluoride to add to the drinking water, and not the myriad other minerals/vitamins we're deficient of. I know that's proposterous to imagine - but fluoride somehow made it.

<comment><USER6> The secondary food/drink sources contain fluoridation because they're prepared using tap water. If you don't drink tap water, you'll still get some exposure but if you take the fluoride out of the tap water, you won't. If literally everybody brushed their teeth with fluoride toothpaste, I don't know if adding it to the water would still be worthwhile; it might be good for very small children before they have enough teeth to start brushing.

As already stated, fluoride is cheap and safe in the water. Other substances aren't cheap, have risk of overdosing (possibly only for people with sensitivities), or are readily supplied through diet. Some substances may also not be transportable through a water system because they too readily bind with others or don't remain in suspension long enough to reach your faucet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article is pretty poorly written and lacks focus, but the problem is real. Dental health is just health, it shouldn't be this separate part of our system. It's also one of the few parts of your health a stranger can judge from the outside. I can't see if you have arterial plaque but I can tell if you don't clean your teeth.

I have two dentists in my family and when this topic comes up they focus on the Medicaid issues presented in the article. Medicaid reimbursement rates haven't budged in years and for whatever there's a much higher no-show rate among Medicaid patients. The end result is there's no incentive at all for dentists or orthodontists to help these people who need it most.

<comment><USER8> > I can't see if you have arterial plaque but I can tell if you don't clean > your teeth.

Maybe if you are a dentist. Having not the best teeth myself, people sometimes think I don't clean my teeth.

I think tooth health is actually similar to other parts of human health. If you maintain a healthy lifestyle from childhood on, do all recommended inspections, then everything is likely to be good. However most people don't know better or just don't do better.

Politicians would do good in truly reforming a health system. I'm only aware of one example where efficiency got a 10x improvement, which is the Chinese one in the 50s. It's cool to complain about [insert politician] about cutting health cost but add the end of the day it's not how to solve the problem. Too sad Trump is intellectually too limited to make real cost savings.

<comment><USER8> Not sure why that's downvoted but I see that health care is a highly complex topic. On the one hand everybody knows (at least I hope so) that all the care systems are going to be more and more expensive every year. On the other hand people still want to maintain highly unhealthy lifestyles because those are more fun. But I think nobody is ready for a paradigm shift yet, that would allow for cheaper health, higher coverage and better health.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> After I read in 2011 that funk musician Bootsy Collins' nephew died because he couldn't afford antibiotics for a tooth infection the fact really stuck with me. It really puts in perspective statements like "Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care", said by a politician just last week.

<comment><USER10> Walmart has Amoxicillin, a commonly prescribed antibiotic for tooth infection for $4 for a month supply. [https://www.walmart.com/cp/4-dollar- presscriptions/1078664](https://www.walmart.com/cp/4-dollar- presscriptions/1078664) They have quite a few common generics all for the same low price. The generic medications are often times cheap but the catch is you need a doctor's prescription and that is where it costs.

<comment><USER11> I'm not from the United States, so I have to ask: is amoxicillin available without prescription?

<comment><USER12> Online, you can purchase fish or cow antibiotics with purportedly the same stuff, but these are not medical grade and I have heard stories (not sure if it is big pharma propaganda or not) of dangerous impurities.

It is probably best for species survival that we keep antibiotics behind a wall. But only if that wall comes down when people need it, not only when they pay the toll.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I resell a lot of dental equipment. The tools are incredibly cheap now and the composites are becoming increasingly more advanced and easy to use. It's all coming from China where things have become deregulated. Also, aligners are now made using machine learning, so those are more affordable than ever. Basically, the tech is there but the regulation in US is lagging as always.

<comment><USER14> As someone from inside the field(and other replies are welcomed of course), let's say you had total regulatory freedom and could control everything - <USER2> would you write the rules, how would the businesses look like, what tech will be used, and maybe if it's possible to guess, how cheap can the common treatments(filling/root/crown) get ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> You need two things for nice, straight teeth: Either good genetics, or parents with good dental insurance.

Any kid who's parents had money in school had braces. I remember hearing parents complain/brag about spending $3,000, $5,000, and even $7,000 on their braces. The other kids? You better hope they came in straight.

Mine came in fairly straight, but like others in my family one of the adult canine teeth never came through. It's still in my upper jaw. The baby tooth is still just barely there, and it's shifted my top row of teeth around a little bit.

The other thing with teeth is you have to take care of them. You have to brush twice a day, you shouldn't eat things that get stuck in there, and avoid crunchy things that can break them.

Even though I had dental insurance from work, I skipped out on going to the dentist after I wasn't living with my parents anymore. And like other hackers, I lived on sugary, acidic, and caffeinated drinks. Years later I succumbed to toothaches, finally went to see the dentist, and spent a couple thousand dollars (with insurance) getting fillings, crowns, root canals, and an extraction or two - all on the rear teeth that nobody can really see.

Back to the top row of front teeth, I saw a orthodontist about having those fixed. When you're an adult, insurance doesn't cover braces. So I was looking at between $10,000 and $12,000 to get it fixed, which would all come out of pocket.

Now, I don't think everyone has the right to perfect teeth, and you can't control everything about how they come in. But most people avoid the dentist until it's too late, they're in pain, need to get in right away, and the fix is expensive procedures like root canals and crowns. If you go every months (a regular visit doesn't cost much, even out of pocket) you can fix a lot of issues while they're cheap and easy to fix.

<comment><USER16> > You need two things for nice, straight teeth: Either good genetics, or > parents with good dental insurance.

Dental insurance doesn't help much with braces. Every dental plan I've seen maxes yearly dental coverage at $1500 or less. And at least one of those is known for having one of the best benefits packages. So while it helps, most of the cost will be out of pocket. So really either way you need $$$.

<comment><USER15> My crappy Delta Dental plan covers 50% of Ortho up to age 19

<comment><USER17> I've never seen a dental plan without a yearly maximum benefit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Every time I hear about bad dental care, I think about these articles that were floating around ten years or so ago:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/world/europe/07teeth.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/world/europe/07teeth.html)

Ouch!

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm British and yes - I have what you over the pond like to call "British teeth". I do wonder if it's fairly healthy from a social mobility standpoint that we haven't taken quite so passionately to US views on the value of cosmetic dental procedures.

It's one less way to spot at a glance whether someone has a large disposable income.

</comment><comment><USER20> I used to have cavities every time I went to the dentist. Then I got a timer from the dollar store and use it to time 2 minutes. Use floss at night and the timer twice a day. No cavities in 3 years.

</comment><comment><USER21> In the Netherlands, dental is outside of the national health care plan. And we are still doing fine. I pay all my dental bills out of pocket because its cheaper than insurance(#). So it is possible to have great national dental- health without having a national health care plan.

(#) We have plans that compensate up to 75% of €500 per year, but it will cost you €250. Doesn't really make sense.

<comment><USER11> I'm down voting because you are saying: "This policy is good because it is good for me."

You are saying "we are doing fine", but you provide no evidence and no explanation for it.

Social policies should be evaluated by their impact on everybody in the society, not just on you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> One thing nobody taught me was that stressors and psychological problems can ruin your teeth. I spend years without nightguard- and bear the marks of that.

If your dentitst mentions gnawing marks on your teeth- get a nightguard as soon as possible. Also get rid of the stressfull situation.

</comment><comment><USER23> > But since he took office, Trump has focused on so many other things... that > Matello has begun to wonder about his promises to the working class: "Was he > just out to get our votes?"

This is truly sad. So many people put their faith in that con artist.

</comment><comment><USER24> The article seems to blame Trump for dental problems. This is strange since none of the described problems have anything to do with Trump. Adult dental coverage is not a required part of ACA plans so changes to ACA can't make it worse as the article implies.

<comment><USER25> You're skipping over the art where Trump promised voters like this an affordable and comprehensive solution to their healthcare needs. That's a matter of fact, and refuting it with legal technicalities is exactly the sort of thing that make his voters feel they've been had.

<comment><USER26> They were (had / taken advantage of). Does anyone at all remember even an outline of a real plan for /HOW/ that campaign promise would be realized? All I remember is marketing puffery, pure factless, baseless, hot air.

Come to think of it, I can't even remember what Hillary was running on. Bernie was someone I could believe in and wanted to vote for.

<comment><USER3> Hillary would have expanded and improved Obamacare, basically.

Relevant to this article, a goal was to add a public option; along with adding optional Medicare coverage down to age 55 and significantly enhancing the ideas of "community health centers", which are currently pretty effective.

Of course, the goals of a product often conflict with implementation realities in the process of getting it done, so not all the features would have landed, I think. Er, I mean political candidate & campaign promises, not product & features. What _was_ I thinking?

That you don't remember Hillary's policy is an artifact of her marketing combined with the media's coverage, which was not on her policies.

<comment><USER24> I would like to see a reference to Hillary promising to add dental coverage to Obamacare. Thanks in advance.

I would also like to see a reference to Trump making the same promise as anigbrowl has claimed. Thanks in advance.

It's interesting that several people in the thread are suggesting that adult dental coverage was going to be part of the ACA insurance overhaul proposals by both Hillary and Trump. I can find no reference to either candidate making such a proposal. Those claiming they did make these promises should provide references showing so.

<comment><USER3> > I would like to see a reference to Hillary promising to add dental coverage > to Obamacare. Thanks in advance.

Can't give that, sorry. I wanted to specifically provide the high-level claims Hillary was making, as GP couldn't recall her promises. My source is the campaign promise book, _Stronger Together_. Dental is not mentioned in the area I surveyed.

A more policy oriented remark by HRC is found here:

> We need to address the lack of access to primary health care, dental care, > and mental health care by catalyzing partnerships between public health > departments, health care systems, and community-based organizations. As we > do, we must promote integrated mental health care, and enforce insurance > coverage parity requirements to ensure that mental health care is not > siloed.

[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1612292](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1612292)

Clearly dental was not a headline coverage promise, unfortunately. I'm not sure it would have mattered....

With respect to Trump's promise:

> DAVID MUIR: Let me ask you, Mr. President, about another promise involving > Obamacare to repeal it. And you told The Washington Post that your plan to > replace Obamacare will include insurance for everybody. That sounds an awful > lot like universal coverage.

> PRESIDENT TRUMP: It's going to be -- what my plan is is that I wanna take > care of everybody. I'm not gonna leave the lower 20 percent that can't > afford insurance. Just so you understand people talk about Obamacare. And I > told the Republicans this, the best thing we could do is nothing for two > years, let it explode. And then we'll go in and we'll do a new plan and -- > and the Democrats will vote for it. Believe me.

Source: [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-anchor- da...](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-anchor-david-muir- interviews-president/story?id=45047602)

<comment><USER24> Thank you, I appreciate that reference. To summarize my reading, Ms. Clinton's statement to the NEJM does in fact show what has been claimed, that dental coverage was to be considered as part of ACA improvements Ms. Clinton wanted to work on. She even discusses dental specifically in a letter discussing how to "Improve the ACA". On the other hand, Mr. Trump's statements likewise don't seem to specifically support addressing problems with dental coverage and accessibility. Therefore it is reasonable to take the position that the election of Trump did in fact reduce the chances of improving dental care in the US, is it was part of Ms. Clinton's plan, but not Mr. Trump's.

<comment><USER3> I believe Trump made some pretty grandiose promises. Now, he may have _intended_ in good faith to follow through, but he harnessed his star to the Republican party, which has systematically opposed Obamacare since it was announced. Therefore, unless Trump decides to be genuinely maverick and jump to the Democratic policies, it will be unfortunately unlikely that his promises would be followed through. I'm kind of curious to see if Trump does that - many of the desperate voters profiled in the original article voted for him on that kind of basis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Turns out this is another article about Trump. Now it seems so much press has to twist any possible story and make it about Trump or in this case "Trump's America." It seems WaPo is trying to make up for missing the possibility that Trump would actually win. But this article just underscores how they missed it in the first place: the issue of people not having dental care is not a standalone issue worthy of journalistic attention. Instead, the third paragraph has to say that someone voted for Trump, with a later paragraph saying someone voted for Obama. To WaPo these issues don't exist outside of the lens of presidential politics I guess.

Unfortunately it seems WaPo has merely gone from ignoring some parts of America to simply taking a few safaris there to report on the exotics who voted for Trump and have rotten teeth. WaPo will tire of its safari soon enough and return to its usual class blinders, like reporting about "how hard it is to get into a good college" and then quoting the anxieties of a bunch of upper middle class kids from the Virginia and Maryland suburbs, and somehow it won't be worth mentioning that their parents voted for Clinton.</comment>


The Strava files - <AUTHOR> http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/strava-files

<comment><USER2> It would seem that there's an easy solution. Strava knows the grade of a climb. If the segment has a negative incline, don't have a leader board. Otherwise it looks to me like they're just encouraging dangerous racing on a non-closed course. Breaking speed limits, running stop signs and lights: imagine Strava for motorcyclists and ask yourself how long that would last.

I've hit more than 50mph on a bicycle plenty of times, but it sure as hell hasn't been in the Castro District of SF. The rider carries the responsibility of choosing an appropriate time and place for such antics, but let's not egg them on.</comment>


This is how you healthcare - <AUTHOR> https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/this-is-how-you-healthcare

<comment><USER2> Previous submission, with lots of discussion on the main page:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5245321>

(Hat tip to you for submitting the canonical URL.)</comment>


Fast Artificial Neural Network(s) in PHP - <AUTHOR> http://php.net/manual/en/book.fann.php

<comment><AUTHOR> I spend quite a bit of time trying to keep up with things, and yet this (a topic I'm very interested in) seems to have slipped through the cracks.

</comment><comment><USER2> Is this a new feature? I've got to try this out and see how it works.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's an extension. The github project is here: [https://github.com/bukka/php- fann](https://github.com/bukka/php-fann)

The library itself has existed for more than a decade, but the PHP bindings have been in development on Github it appears since Dec. 2012. But I'm almost certain the documentation page has only recently shown up on php.net website.</comment></comment>


Detecting a 2.4 GHz transmission for under 1 EUR - <AUTHOR> https://www.chzsoft.de/site/hardware/detecting-a-2.4-ghz-transmission-for-under-1-eur/ <comment><USER2> "If one wants to make it more sensitive to certain frequencies than to others, one needs to add a resonant circuit, usually a combination of an inductor and a capacitor"

Coincidentally for OP, the ideal antenna element length for a 2.4 ghz dipole antenna is around an inch and a quarter, which handwavy looks like about how long his diode leads are.

Even a pitiful attempt at a tiny air wound coil choke would decouple his scope probe wires from interfering with the natural dipole antenna pattern.

I bet, that if OP decoupled his scope probe wires, he could plot the natural radiation pattern of a dipole by rotating the diode and its antenna around and noting the voltage on the scope at various angles relative to the transmitter. If I have time I'll try that in the lab today just for fun.

All it'll take is a couple inches of hookup wire... OR more sneakily could coil the diode leads themselves at the correct distance from the diode... Or I could tack solder some coaxial cable and BNC connector with a sloppy homemade choke balun ... hmm...

I bet for TWO EUR I could plot antenna radiation patterns pretty reliably. I wonder if OPs mouse has a horizontal or vertical polarized antenna? I bet I can test that for two EUR.

<comment><USER3> If you have the time, please do write up what you mentioned. I'd love to read about it and learn. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> An even simpler recipe from me. Get an epoxy cased LED and twist its leads around a schottky, polarity reversed.

It will light up near wifi/bt sources.

<comment><USER5> Interesting, just that? No power source?

<comment><USER6> I guess the schottky has a much lower voltage drop, compared to using two LEDs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Of course, the price in the title is assuming you already have an oscilloscope :)

<comment> kalium-xyz You can get one for a decent price these days, Ive bene using the digilent analog discovery 2 lately and its pretty amazing for its proce. Also it allows for much more freedom because of its nature as USB oscilloscope. i hooked it up to an RPi and with a battery and screen its now a proper mobile oscilloscope.

<comment><USER8> I've been looking for an oscilloscope for almost a decade now. Every year the cheapo ones get better but they're still very limited IMO and feel very expensive for what little they do.

As far as I can tell the Analog Discovery you mention is quoted by Digilent at $279 and for this price you get two 100MS/s analog inputs, so that means that you can't sample anything above 50MHz max (and in practice you probably won't be able to do a lot of useful work above ~40Mhz). With modern circuits routinely having signals in the hundreds of MHz that's fairly limiting for me.

And if I just want to probe "slow" digital signals like SPI or I2C I can get 90% of the features of this module by using a cheap-o ~$10 Saleae clone off aliexpress. It's only a digital analyzer but it goes up to 24MHz and with 8 channels you can already do quite a lot of work for a tiny fraction of the price of an entry-level scope.

Of course if you do a lot of analog work then a digital analyzer won't cut it and the ~$300 price tag for a basic scope is almost a required purchase at this point.

<comment><USER9> _As far as I can tell the Analog Discovery you mention is quoted by Digilent at $279 and for this price you get two 100MS /s analog inputs, so that means that you can't sample anything above 50MHz max (and in practice you probably won't be able to do a lot of useful work above ~40Mhz). With modern circuits routinely having signals in the hundreds of MHz that's fairly limiting for me._

This comment dismisses a lot of measurement use cases out of hand, at least as far as a hobbyist or rudimentary manufacturing test case is concerned. An input bandwidth of 50MHz is still more than sufficient to evaluate all kinds of useful circuits - a few I can think of offhand:

* Buck regulator loop compensation and transient response * Large signal audio debug (not suitable for small signal just due to the limits in the analog frontend and the number of bits in the scope ADC) * Basic digital protocol debug

If you're tuning a PLL, or need to evaluate DDR signal integrity, or trying to design an audio system with -120dB of THD+N, then yeah, an Analog Discovery is probably not the right tool. Then again, if you need to do any of those work items, then you probably already know that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've done something kind of similar (but much less low-level) using the nRF24L01+ attached via SPI on the GPIO pins of a Raspberry Pi Zero. I'm in the middle of writing it up, but it will probably be a couple of weeks.

</comment><comment><USER11> Opinion: HN should have the equivalent of folders/tags for articles; this article and others like it would be perfect for a folder/tag marked "Cool Hack For Under $10" \-- or some designation similar to that...

</comment><comment><USER9> I've never understood why germanium diodes are special here.

Am I missing something? Does the diode have to be germanium for this trick to work?

<comment><USER4> The lower the voltage drop, the better. I guess, in their part of the world, germaniums are cheaper than schottkys

<comment><AUTHOR> Simple: The germanium diode was the first suitable diode I found in my parts collection. :-)

A regular silicon diode will not work. An appropriate Schottky silicon diode will do the job; see the Infineon app-note in the "PPS" of the website. Also, the point-contact (regardless of the semiconductor material) reduces the diode's junction capacitance, making it faster, i.e., more suited for RF applications.

<comment><USER9> What's the typical forward voltage of the germanium diode vs a silicon diode's 0.7[V]?

It's a neat hack! Long live the Rigol DS1054Z!

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't measure it, but literature has a value of about 0.3 V for a germanium diode's forward voltage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I presume those little key chains that flash when your phone is ringing do something similar?

<comment><USER9> Seems like a safe bet!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> NRF24l01 + ESP8266 (or arduino) + OLED screen can do the same for less all- included</comment>


Show HN: Simple application that helps keep up with New Year Resolutions - <AUTHOR> http://newyeargoals.surge.sh/ <comment> chupa-chups This appears to be an ultra-primitive todo-app targeting gullible people, semi-cleverly asking them for their email address in order to make some money.

([https://surge.sh/pricing](https://surge.sh/pricing))

Edit: I want to apologize and believe this is sincere.

<comment><AUTHOR> hey chupa-chups, built this as a small project(in the first two days of the year) to help myself with keeping up with new year goals. So thought maybe there are definitely others who will benefit from it!

<comment> chupa-chups Well, I'd like to apologize in this case. Provided you don't sell the collected email addresses ;-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ofc not. I was trying out different tech. Setup the tech using Surge for frontend, node + mongo on ec2 as backend while sendgrid to send out mail. Looking for suggestions to improve tech stack.

<comment> chupa-chups Sounds interesting. Would be interested in a post detailing the tech stack.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What are the most confusing 'top' websites you've seen? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> As I've been looking at some of these heavily funded startups, I am often left asking myself - what do they do? Even after five minutes of poking around, it's often such a mess that I still can't figure out how I would explain it to someone else.

37Signals discussed this about Virb.com at the bottom of this post:

<http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/374-designcopy-ups-and-downs-at-virb>

Virb's 'About' page:

<http://www.virb.com/is>

What other sites have you come across where it takes more than a reasonable amount of time to figure out what they do?

<comment><USER2> I think Virb and our start-up have very similar goals. Except from the beginning we knew we wanted to do few things and do it well; seems like Virb is committing the trademark mistake of packaging in too many functions too quickly.

<comment><USER3> Would you elaborate on what you mean by "similar goals"?

I'm not a MySpace nor a Virb user, but I'm under the impression that Virb is a "MySpace killer," erring more on the social networking side, rather than music sharing.

If you look at it that way, I would think it makes sense to pack a lot of auxiliary features (blogs, video, music) revolving around a central function (friend tracking). It's like creating an amusement park. After you have people coming in, you put rides here and there. iJigg would be more like an open concert hall. Does that seem right?

<comment><USER2> If you goto Virb, ~75% of the homepage is dedicated to music. So whatever they may say, I think the idea of Virb originated with music and then they got too mixed up with the fad of packing all the other "web 2.0" features like videos, blogs etc.

Of course I can't be against such features as they are critical to growth but I think the idea of "pack all the features you can" is a bad one and encourages lynching as 37signals folks have pointed out. Instead start small and focused then grow the features. Like facebook.

<comment><USER3> Certainly there are different strategies for different markets. I believe Facebook is a bit different from Virb; it started with a relatively new niche. In a way it still serves mostly the same niche, except that the niche it attacked proved to be extremely large, popular, and profitable.

If Virb is marketed as a MySpace killer, it's entering crowded arena and cannot escape a feature-by-feature comparison with MySpace. Assuming they are trying to grab defects from MySpace, it seems reasonable to sport a features galore -- as long as MySpace users can feel right at home. If they want blinky text, they got it. Embedded music? Got it. Want more than MySpace? Have more than MySpace. Stuff like that.

That said, I think it's more about being clear about your target market and your product goals. Considering iJigg though, I am not so sure about aiming for a similar userbase is what you meant by "similar goals". The reason I bring this up is because I'm interested in how you are planning the next steps for your product. I'm nobody to give suggestions here, but I would be cautious about aligning myself with Virb if that's what you're talking about.

<comment><USER2> Only thing Virb and us may share is our love for music.

We're headed towards a system where we can recommend people indie music that they may like. Most of what we do comes from our users(ie. we did a survey last month) so hopefully we shouldn't have a big gap from what we make and what our users want.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What will it take for phones to be able to mesh during emergencies? - <AUTHOR>

Is it yet possible to do mesh networking with modern smartphones? If not, is there a point at which the phones will be likely to be able to create robust mesh networks during an emergency outage and if so what will it take? <comment><USER2> Just found this ...

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.servalproj...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.servalproject)

<http://www.servalproject.org/>

I am unable to become an access point. I believe you need a rooted phone to do this. However, you can connect as a client on non-rooted phones.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you - v interesting

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't know about smartphones, but you just need an old wrt54xx router to create a really nice mesh network. <http://hsmm-mesh.org/just-starting-read- this.html></comment>


Whither Netflix? - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2011/09/whither-netflix.html

<comment><USER2> If I were Netflix, I would strongly consider hedging my bets and making a white-label offering so that when HBO/etc decide they want to do their own streaming, it makes sense to pay Netflix for the infrastructure instead of reinventing the wheel.

It seems like Netflix has invested a lot of money into making a large-scale, high-availability platform for streaming video with DRM. They should be able to offer some serious cost savings over everyone trying to reinvent that difficult wheel.

Then they have a chance to become the new network or the new cable company. And they'll already have a commercial relationship with these companies, so it'll be easier for them to sell people on "once the season's over and you've made most of your money, why don't you let us stream those old episodes?"

<comment><USER3> HBO GO already started to do own streaming service.

Next came Cinemax with www.maxgo.com

Then came TNT for iPad <http://www.tnt.tv/mobileapp.jsp>

And I'm sure the rest of the cable channels will soon have their own service.

I can't imagine anyone of them wanting to give Netflix anything but the finger.

<comment><USER4> Interestingly, I don't know a single person signed up for any of those services. All of my friends and family use Netflix, Redbox, and/or Hulu|Hulu Plus.

I wonder how much they're paying to build/maintain those services and if they're actually profitable.

<comment><USER3> Those services are free... As long as you have a cable/dish subscription to them.

They are also fairly new, so give it some time to get around.

Personally, I think the current Netflix stock crash has nothing to do with the subscription "loss" noise going around, and everything to do with the above (and other) competition.

<comment><USER5> I have less than 0 interest in picking up a separate app or service for each channel. Aggregation is just way too convenient. Whether they like it or not, I don't think of things in terms of "I want to watch an HBO show", I think of them in terms of "I want to watch x, so I will go to y which has every show I want to watch". Hulu seemed to be pulling this off, but the networks couldn't seem to make that work for them.

I agree that the cause of those services existing (networks wanting to go it alone, causing licensing problems) is also the cause of Netflix's troubles. Netflix's subscription pricing change and subsequent subscription losses is a reflection of those licensing issues, though, as the producers are no longer giving it away for a relative pittance.

<comment><USER6> How did you first find out about the next show z that you want to watch? Content distributors know that often some is introduced to their next show z while watching x on y. They want to make y one of your dedicated content discovery places.

<comment><USER5> For me, at least, it's usually from friends who mention that show z is awesome, completely disassociated from where that show appears. Why would I be loyal to HBO when I know that AMC has some great shows as well, as does Showtime. HBO doesn't have the monopoly/near-monopoly on good stuff that it would need for their version to be attractive. I'm far from a normal TV watcher, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Much scarier for Netflix is the challenge of securing rights to high-quality content for the long haul. This current stock crash is a blip, and their vision of transforming their focus to streaming is brilliant, but it will only matter if they can secure content people want to watch. From the looks of their current negotiations with Starz that will only get harder. The good news for them is that it won't be any easier for competitors to get those rights at a reasonable price. Long term, either the studios build their own infrastructure to stream to the masses or they license someone to do it for them. Guess who is positioning themselves for that role? It may be a bumpy ride, but I wouldn't bet against Netflix.

<comment><USER8> "The good news for them is that it won't be any easier for competitors to get those rights at a reasonable price"

I'm not sure this is true. When you look at a company like Amazon or Walmart they have a lot of power to negotiate with that Netflix doesn't. Premium placement of a Studio's new products for example.

Studios make most of their money off the new items and very little off the older ones. Netflix exclusively sells the older items where as companies like Walmart and Amazon control the main distribution models for the newer items. That gives them a lot of power over the studios and a much better bargaining position.

<comment><USER7> This actually helps Netflix too. The last thing the studios want is to be held hostage by one or two major players that control all the distribution channels and can act as a choke point. Worst case, a viable Netflix gives the studios leverage when negotiating with Amazon & Walmart. Unless you see a reason that this will be a winner-take-all market, the studios need Netflix as much as Netflix needs them. Particularly because of the leverage of the other players that you mention. No?

<comment><USER8> I agree with the logic of your statement but I'm not sure it will work out that way. I've never understood why the studios didn't do more to help iTunes competitors.

<comment><USER9> I'm not well aware of any iTunes competitor with the number of paying customers apple has or had when iTunes first came out - I'm guessing they just went where the money was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wish Netflix could make a deal with someone like ESPN to stream sports events live. I'd gladly pay a premium to get ESPN without being forced to buy a "bundle" of channels I don't want from the cable company.

<comment><USER11> That seems to be more Hulu's territory. Netflix management has always been pretty good at staying within a tightly controlled niche (dodging Youtube or Hulu or GameFly or 5$ a pop new release type markets).

But yeah, the things you could do with sports and interactivity. Geeze. Money on the table.

<comment><USER12> I don't think it's money on the table. Sports leagues know where there bread is buttered and they extract a ton of cash out of their fans. The Netflix model is just an order of magnitude less profitable and would cannibalize their existing channels.

<comment><USER11> The money on the table reference was in regard to the kind of interactivity one could add to a sports stream: camera angles, betting, fantasy\gaming stuff, stats, alternate commentary, etc.

It really should be it's own thing. It's more than just a movie\tv show in it's possibilities, and so doesn't just plug into a Netflix model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In a lot of ways RedBox is more convenient than Netflix's DVD offering given all the locations (e.g. Wal-Mart, McDonalds). So, given the majority belief that another non-online format is not going to happen, I can see the transition to streaming being the only long way to go.

I just don't see the studios not cutting out the middle man for streaming. The desire to have only the channels I want in cable translates pretty well to buying streams from studios. HBO isn't exactly cheap on cable or satellite currently. I think Netflix will live on for studios that just don't have the amount of content needed to have a whole on-demand service. I just don't think the one-ring style service is going to happen.

<comment><USER14> The question isn't about quantity, but rather about quality. People are willing to pay for HBO because a lot of their shows are really good. What will most likely happen is that the stronger studios are going to run their own services, and the other not-so-great content will end up feeding into an aggregator. And at that point, its not clear if people will continue to pay for that content.

<comment><USER13> A single quality show does not make a service. HBO has a good chance, but it would probably provide an anchor brand to a WB service. You need the catalog size also. It is likely that quality shows that don't come from a company with an extensive catalog (e.g. creator-owned production) will be Netflix's best source of material.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When the netflix pricing scheme changed, I personally switched from the 1 disc + unlimited streaming to discs only - simply for the selection it offers. I'd rather have good selection and have to wait a day or two than have limited selection instantly available (and for movies specifically, I think most people would agree with me on that). I'm wondering how many people also went this route, and if this change combined with the recent increase in competition from studios has taken a lot of wind out of the sails of Netflix streaming.

I say this because in order for Netflix to making a compelling argument to studios to distribute through them over some form of in-house streaming, they need to have good numbers for their streaming subscriber-base, both in size and growth. When studios decide to pull their content or go their own way, then the product suffers and Netflix loses some ability to convince other studios that it would be dumb to go alone.

Forcing subscribers to choose now between streaming and discs may have been a bad decision in that forcing people to re-evaluate their subscription options in a time when they seem to be hemorrhaging premium content may have forced some people's hand who may have otherwise seen the potential in the streaming service and stuck it out.

On a related note, I also had the unpleasant experience of getting really into in a show that was on Netflix streaming, only to have it pulled by showtime after I had made it mid-way through the second season (of 9 seasons). There was no way I was going to start a new subscription, pay for showtime, and download / use whatever client they have just for access to this one show, so I stopped watching it, sadly. I think that experience has definitely had an effect on me as far as willingness to pay for Netflix (and potentially other services) subscription content as well.

</comment><comment><USER15> Won't the price increases more than make up for lost subscribers? (assuming they stop losing them soon).

As their streaming offering gets better, more people will sign up for a streaming only plan, which is actually cheaper than their old streaming+dvd plan used to be isn't it?

Now might be a great time to buy Netflix.

<comment><USER8> The issue isn't really profit as much as it is marketshare.

The flawed assumption that people seem to be making is that Netflix will continue to dominate because it was first to market. But that isn't necessarily true. Netflix has to deal with several very viable competitors entering the market including Amazon who is essentially giving a streaming movie service away to entice people to sign up for Amazon Prime (Amazon has found Prime users buy far more than average users so it makes sense for them to incentivize those subscriptions)

It's easier to hang on to an existing customer then it is to acquire a new one. So the market wants to see Netflix hang on to its DVD customers because those customers will eventually go to streaming and will probably stick with Netflix to do it. When those customers leave Netflix's service it makes them up for grabs again.

That's the problem the market sees. They're looking down the road to a future where Netflix has 4 major streaming competitors (Blockbuster, Amazon, Walmart and RedBox with its discount $3.99 plan). So they want to see Netflix hanging on to its existing customers now.

<comment><USER11> I'm agreeing with your analysis in general. What do you think the odds are of Netflix dropping prices again in the face of competition as they did in 2004? That's certainly marketshare over profit. I presume they'd discount the hybrid customers which are precisely those members that are 'in transition'.

<comment><USER8> I don't think the odds are that great (though I think it's what I'd do in the same situation). I figure Netflix still thinks they have the right strategy and they've already taken the hit for the customer loss. So why not ride it out and see where it takes them.

Truth is they've probably earned a little arrogance in this arena. People questioned their streaming strategy at first and we all know how that worked out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've been a Netflix subscriber for over a decade. Last night, I rented my first Redbox video. I don't see myself getting rid of my Netflix subscription, since Netflix has a reasonable number of unusual films I want. However, Redbox is the superior solution for 'normal' people.

Redbox is owned by Coinstar, and I'm really impressed with how they leveraged their understanding of supermarket-based kiosks to deliver media. They were able to expand their existing agreements with supermarkets, and both benefit from the relationship. Netflix is dependent upon the US Postal Service, or upon Internet Service Providers, and neither is a particularly mutually- beneficial relationship.

Since offering your own content streaming service really isn't that hard, media companies are control freaks, and most people don't care about obscure films, I just can't see Netflix being a mainstream solution for long.

By the way, the movie I sent back to Netflix on Monday never arrived. Another problem I'll (probably) never have with Redbox.</comment>


Apple developer intermediate certificates are expiring Feb 14, 2016 - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/support/certificates/expiration/index.html <comment><USER2> "Mac App Store customers running OS X Snow Leopard (v10.6.8) will be unable to purchase new apps or run previously purchased apps that utilize receipt validation until they install the OS X Snow Leopard update which will be available via OS X Software Update this January."

Note that Mac OS 10.6.8 is the most recent OS version for the Intel Core Duo Macs. Those are the first MacBook (early 2006), the first 2 MacBook Pros (January 2006, May 2006), two Mac Minis (February 2006, September 2006), and two iMacs (January 2006, July 2006).

It also affects people who keep Snow Leopard 10.6.8 for sentimental reasons. Apparently 1 in 5 Macs use Snow Leopard. Not being able to receive new app updates could be troublesome.

[http://www.computerworld.com/article/2487996/malware- vulnera...](http://www.computerworld.com/article/2487996/malware- vulnerabilities/apple-retires-snow-leopard-from-support--leaves-1-in-5-macs- vulnerable-to-at.html)

<comment><USER3> I've got an old Powerbook running 10.6.8 .. I won't upgrade, but instead will just install Linux on it. Its no longer worth the hassle of keeping up with Apple on these kinds of issues - better to just switch to an OS/environment where these kinds of fixes can be better maintained and won't result in apps being killed from my life.

<comment><USER4> How did you get 10.6 running on Powerbook? Afaik, 10.5 was the end of line for PPC Macs.

I do have a PPC Mac too, but with Nvidia graphics, so Linux is not a solution for me :(.

<comment><USER3> Ah, that should've been Macbook Pro, sorry about that confusion ..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I noticed this new certificate Apple issued is still using SHA-1 as its signature algorithm. I wonder why Apple didn't make the jump to SHA-2 based signatures.

<comment><USER6> They recently added support for SHA-256 (both full digest and truncated to 160 bits) hashes in their codesign system. I haven't seen it on iOS yet and suspect that it is only for OS X at the moment.

<comment><USER6> Also, a 3GS at least has HW acceleration for AES, SHA-1, and some sort of RSA bignum acceleration. Not sure what the new HW has but I suspect backwards compatibility may be a reason for holding SHA-1++ back on iOS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Can someone confirm that the intermediate certificate is actually expiring on February 14, or just that it won't be accepted after that date? The linked article just says the certificate is "expiring soon" and that developers will have to start signing with the new certificate before February 15. It's a nitpick, but I'm curious.

</comment><comment><USER8> Why do certificates need to expire? It causes a lot of trouble for everyone.

<comment><USER9> As Admiral Piett said, "It's an older code, sir, but it checks out."

Without expiry dates on certificates, we're stuck with trusting whatever we've issued forever. Lists of revoked certificates would grow forever, and work even worse than they do today. At least now, we can stop worrying about ancient certificates after they're expired.

Having certs expire and be reissued also ensures there's a continual path to upgrade to newer certificates: I suspect you'd have a much harder time retiring SHA-1 certificates if nobody had any regular-interval incentive to replace their certs.</comment></comment>