The Great Zero Challenge Remains Unaccepted - <AUTHOR> http://www.hostjury.com/blog/view/195/the-great-zero-challenge-remains-unaccepted <comment><AUTHOR> These people are asserting that 7 passes with random data is not necessary to irrecoverably wipe a drive.

At first glance, they seem to be making a credible point.

However, they say:

> You may not write any data to the drive or disassemble the drive.

I would think that those who are making 7 passes are assuming that an interested actor would be willing to disassemble the drive to recover the information.

Also, their incentives are rather weak:

> Should someone win, they get to keep the drive. They also will receive > $40.00 USD and the title "King (or Queen) of Data Recovery".

I _would_ like to find an authoritative source that users interested in irrecoverably wiping their data could use, but this seems to not be it.

<comment><USER2> What would count as 'authoritative'?

When this came up last, at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11370895](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11370895) , I found papers like [http://all.net/ForensicsPapers/2012-12-07-OverwrittenMagneti...](http://all.net/ForensicsPapers/2012-12-07-OverwrittenMagneticRecovery.pdf)

> To date I have found no example of any instance in which digital data > recorded on a hard disk drive and subsequently overwritten was recovered > from such a drive since 1985, when about 15% of the overwritten data was > claimed to have been recovered from an modified frequency modulation (MFM) > disk drive.

This in turn cites "Overwriting Hard Drive Data: The Great Wiping Controversy" \- [http://www.vidarholen.net/~vidar/overwriting_hard_drive_data...](http://www.vidarholen.net/~vidar/overwriting_hard_drive_data.pdf) .

There is even more at [http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/13674/is- it-poss...](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/13674/is-it-possible- to-recover-data-on-a-zeroed-hard-drive) .

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: PitchWhale – Create the perfect startup pitch in 30 seconds - <AUTHOR> http://pitchwhale.com <comment><USER2> Dang, no permalink. I sense a missed opportunity here :-)</comment>


NYTimes Opensources Their Deep Linking JS - <AUTHOR> http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/emphasis-update-and-source/#h[WtEIyw,2] <comment><USER2> I'm surprised to find this posted here. I developed this and given the community here I'd appreciate any feedback for future iterations...

<comment><USER3> I would add a convenient way for this to interact with already existing hashed links that are used for navigation.

Rather than the #p[...],h[...] how about #p=...&h=...?

EDIT: Or even #deeplink=p[...],h[...]

<comment><USER2> Its a fair point, and there were a number of ways it could have been done.

Given that there could be a long number of paramaters included for Highlighting I felt the [] gave a sense of belonging.

I like the #deeplink suggestion too, but in the end being as concise as possible was a factor.

<comment><USER4> I think the deeplink suggestion is good. If I stumbled across these urls, I might just think it was some evil tracking code or something and strip it off, deeplink is meaningful and gives me a clue that it does something clever. Great work btw.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Awesome, they just invented a small part of Ted Nelson's Xanadu project. Say what you will about Xanadu being vapour-ware but at least Mr Nelson designed it properly to handle problems like deep-linking and track-backs which the Web has to employ workarounds for.

</comment><comment><USER6> Speaking of NYTimes, Safari user stylesheet has a line to disable the annoying word definition popup when selecting text.

.nytd_selection_button { display:none; }

<comment><USER7> That's why NYT is never getting on my NoScript whitelist. I have a nervous habit of highlighting random text while I read.

<comment><USER8> Me too, and I would like to know if anyone has ever studied the trend so I can better develop my application for these users.

Wikipedia claims it does not exist:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulsive_highlighting>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> On Github, they say they'll eventually remove the dependency on PrototypeJS. The library is only ~10k now, hopefully that change won't increase the size too much.

<comment><USER9> You know what I would love to have the HTML5 guys add to the spec? Some way of keeping libraries like PrototypeJS and jQuery in the browser cache at all times, so that pages could just use them without worrying about the size.

Perhaps some kind of alternate src attribute on script tags, so you could list a local copy (for reliability) as well as Google and Microsoft CDN URLs, and the browser would go with the first one it had in its cache. And if individual browsers wanted to distribute jQuery (et al.) along with the browser itself, and define an URN for it, so much the better.

This is just something I thought up in the past few minutes, so take it with a grain of salt, but as a web developer, I would _love_ this.

<comment><USER10> Why isn't it sufficient to use the Google-hosted jQuery? It's likely to be cached.

<comment><USER11> 1\. a boatload of page view info you are sending off to google

2\. it's another dependency that you don't control

<comment><USER12> To your first point, is this a critique of the speed (pushing info up to Google) or to Google sucking in yet more information? If it's the latter I'm already in trouble because almost everything I do uses Google Analytics, but I can see the point if you're doing something else.

WRT your second point, there's a middle ground of pointing to Google's hosted version for speed and falling back to a local copy if it is not found.

You can see the technique in use within the Boilerplate HTML5 template - <http://html5boilerplate.com/> \- Scroll down to the index.html file, line 58.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Grats donohoe, well done. What is of particular interest to me here is the use of the Levenshtein distance algorithm. The reason this works well here is because you are comparing your supplied key against a constrained set. Applying the Levenshtein distance algorithm (or its variants) against a constrained set of small size in this fashion has virtually no performance impact as the time to complete is entirely based on the size of the set you are matching against. On the other hand, matching against a set of millions of records does get costly.

</comment><comment><USER14> I think v2 is trying to solve a problem it shouldn't have to solve. If the NYT made available previous (published!) revisions of their content, there would be no need to assign paragraphs with special IDs or the like. You'd simply say, "get me p2 for the story as it was on Jan 11 15:33". When you link to a specific piece of content, it's in the hopes that people will read or see the same thing you saw when you made the link. You don't want to be talking about different things, so revision-awareness would actually make more sense overall.

<comment><USER2> Absolutely.

But is that going to happen? No. Why? Many reasons come from an editorial perspective (which I'm not knowledgeable enough to get into - but a simple one is: corrections), however the big one is also technical:

Providing previous revisions is not trivial feature. It would be a huge effort. There is no way to justify it from the perspective of deep-linking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Pretty good. Did they do an analysis of the NYT archives to ensure that their First Three Words Last Three Words technique is "good enough"?

<comment><USER2> Yes. Also the 12+ page long articles you'd see in the Magazine section from time to time proved very helpful in this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I played around with this and got it so you can both highlight and have it move the view to the paragraph of choice. Seems pretty interesting.

An issue with it though, when sending the link to someone, and then they click it, browsers (Chrome here) turn the #h[TArTWw,1] into #h%5BTArTWw,1%5D which then seems to be ignored by the script.

<comment><USER2> I noticed that just now too. I'll investigate and see if I can get a fix in the next update.

<comment><USER2> Fixed it for now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I made something similar to this NYTimes.com feature, a few days ago: <https://github.com/alexbarredo/insidelink>

It's simpler, of course. It's in plain JS and as jQuery plugin

<comment><USER2> It looks like your version uses a numeric value as determined by the order of the P tag. This is what I had before.

The second version generates a Key for the paragraph so it can be moved anywhere in the page, and survive slight modifications if the text changes too.

Nice work though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Enterprise JS is 400 lines of code... 0 lines of tests. Kudos, NYT.

<comment><USER19> I'm suspicious of anyone who spends their time critiquing others' work so harshly instead of innovating on their own.

<comment><USER20> I'm suspicious of anyone who obviously doesn't think innovation is innovation without making sure your innovation actually works (with tests).

<comment><USER19> Since you and goldenthunder completely missed this, allow me to clarify that OP could have been critiquing the project's choice of variable names and I would have said the exact same thing.

My statement wasn't about tests in the slightest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't understand what's so awesome about this? Browsers have supported deep linking since forever. You can link to any specific id on a page and the browser will scroll to it when you open the page.

For example, I could have every paragraph an id say id="p5" and then link ad example.com/story#p5 and voila, deep linking.

Hoorah for reinventing the wheel :)

<comment><USER22> RTFM? :)

The difference is no 'href' tags. The 'tag' is automatically created based on the words in the paragraph, via Javascript, and decoded appropriately.

It is also slightly neat in that you can highlight a specific sentence (multiple sentences actually, see the little tutorial at the bottom).

I actually kind of like it, it would be a neat way to really highlight what you think is interesting in an article when sending someone a link. But doing it as a per site thing is crazy.. seems like it could be a good browser extension though. People who have it installed would instantly get a more functional linking experience. Imagine linking off to some documentation in a blog post for a coding problem, say to a Django documentation page, and when someone clicks the link they are not only taken to the specific part of the page that you are talking about, but the relevant stuff is actually highlighted. That'd be Neat (tm).

<comment><USER2> I thought about a plugin but then you are maintaining several and handling issues from readers who hits walls installed or uninstalling it...

My hope tis that this approach is equally unhelpful to everyone :)

Seriously, my hope is that if an approach like this is going to happen that we can keep the usage (syntax) consistent.

Further down the road I'd like the view to also show you what people in your network have highlighted, or on a more aggregate and subtle level, what everyone has...

<comment><USER23> That reminds me of <http://www.tynt.com/></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Build Your Own Apps: 3 DIY App Builders for Non-Programmers - <AUTHOR> http://www.ideatoappster.com/build-your-own-apps-3-diy-app-builders-for-non-programmers/

<comment><USER2> Has anybody used these? As a programmer, my experience with App Maker's in general has been pretty terrible.

Not to say something like this couldn't be awesome. When I was into making Games, I used to use Game Maker all the time and it worked really well. Really simple and straightforward, but I have yet to see something comparable for apps.</comment>


Show HN: Moving Minds – Shaolin Kung Fu for the Startupper's Life - Moving-Minds https://hn1.movingminds.academy/ <comment> Moving-Minds Hi everybody we've created this online course based on the ancient practices of Shaolin Kung Fu but geared towards our contemporary lives and problems.

We think it can help the startupper's life (and beyond) because:

\- trains both Body and Mind together in less than 10 minutes a day > no more need for an app for fitness and another for meditation

\- through quick exercises it trains your focus, discipline and resilience, all qualities that will help you perform better at work

\- it was created with love by startuppers with our own need in mind

\- the "Meditation in Motion" is a practice that will enhance the quality of your life across the board: improve Body, Mind and Spirit to lead a more fulfilling life and become your best self

Let us know what you think and if you have any suggestions for us. thanks the Moving Minds Team

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> wow it seems really a cool approach! I've always though that running a company requires a "monkish" life: you need to be very disciplined in your life to be successful. This could be an interesting way to improve it.</comment>


Turns Out Satellites Work Great for Mapping Earthquakes - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/04/turns-satellites-work-great-mapping-earthquakes/ <comment><USER2> The text doesn't mention any satellite-dependent technology that can provide the data. They just mention "geodetic data."

Here's one technology and the limiting aspects:

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

"Difficulties: A variety of factors govern the choice of images which can be used for interferometry. The simplest is data availability – radar instruments used for interferometry commonly don't operate continuously, acquiring data only when programmed to do so. For future requirements it may be possible to request acquisition of data, but for many areas of the world archived data may be sparse."

<comment><USER3> But how hard would it be to program the instruments to operate continuously? Naturally, you'd need to factor in instrument lifespan and perhaps budget for a "failover" unit, and then you'd need a reasonable storage array that could be accessed remotely; but from a technical standpoint, all things that can be done.</comment></comment>


Collection of awesome Mac applications and tools for developers and designers - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jaywcjlove/awesome-mac/blob/master/README-en.md <comment><USER2> Great list, I suggested adding:

> "The simplest way to try, install, and manage fonts."

* SkyFonts || [http://skyfonts.com/](http://skyfonts.com/)

> "The best Latin text generator for OS X. Incredibly quick and lightweight."

* LittleIpsum on the Mac App Store || [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/littleipsum/id405772121?mt=1...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/littleipsum/id405772121?mt=12)

> "CopyClip is the simplest and most efficient clipboard manager for your Mac. > Running discreetly from your menu bar, this app stores all that you have > copied or cut in the past, allowing you to quickly find that snippet of text > you've been looking for."

* CopyClip - Clipboard History Manager on the Mac App Store || [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/copyclip-clipboard-history/i...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/copyclip-clipboard-history/id595191960?mt=12)

> "Every time you want to copy content from one app to the other, compare > files side by side or multitask in any other way, you need all the windows > arranged accordingly. Magnet makes this process clean and simple. In just > one drag to the edge, you snap any window into left, right, top or bottom > half of your screen."

* Magnet on the Mac App Store || [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/magnet/id441258766?mt=12](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/magnet/id441258766?mt=12)

<comment><AUTHOR> The first two lines contain information how to add your recommendations (-> please open a pull request)</comment></comment>


CEO's INTEL Trades on NASDAQ - <AUTHOR> http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/insiders/krzanich-brian-m-872413 <comment><AUTHOR> I don't know how to read this, as Krzanich "traded" 889,878 shares 11/29/2017, but 11/01/2017 lists that he had 495,743 "Shares Held". Can someone explain this to me?

<comment><USER2> He exercised options before selling the 900,000 shares, so that his total was a bit more than one million.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: My former employer is harassing me for meeting with competitors - <AUTHOR> I quit my job. I grabbed coffee with founders of competing startups in our space to explore job opportunities with them. The former employer's lawyers wrote letters to me, as well as to the competitors, threatening that I am violating my IP agreements.
Should I find a lawyer? Any recommendations for specific ones?
Also, the CEO and I negotiated my return to the company after I quit. He gave me a verbal agreement to bring me back under certain terms. On the day I was supposed to be onboarded back, he called me and told me they won't be brining me back, and denied that we ever reached any agreement to bring me back.
Fwiw, I created a critical part of their proprietary technology. <comment><USER2> Yes, I think you should find a lawyer to review whatever contracts you may have signed with your former employer. The lawyer can tell you which provisions of these contracts (if any) are enforceable in your state, and possibly write a letter to your ex-employer's lawyers telling them to back off.

But how did they find out that you had met with a competitor? And how could they know that you're violating any agreement if they don't know what you discussed with the competitor?

> Also, the CEO and I negotiated my return to the company after I quit. He > gave me a verbal agreement to bring me back under certain terms. On the day > I was supposed to be onboarded back, he called me and told me they won't be > brining me back, and denied that we ever reached any agreement to bring me > back.

You could also ask your lawyer about this. But why would you want to go back to work for an employer who is currently threatening you with legal action?</comment>


BlackBerry claims Snapchat is using its tech - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/apps/2018/04/04/blackberrys-going-snapchat-now-whos-next/ <comment><USER4> Option a) work harder to make products people want and create value

Option b) sue the companies that do that

Hooray for patents.

<comment><USER5> BlackBerry was first to (mass-)market with many of these features, and validated that customers wanted them and would use them. You would assume that a startup-oriented community would understand that that's often the hard part, and that many good ideas are obvious in retrospect.

BlackBerry blundered e.g. by not opening up BBM earlier, but that wasn't a failure of the technology nor the product-market fit.

<comment><USER6> Good on them for finding something people want.

However, you're not supposed to be able to protect that knowledge with a patent. If I start making cheeseburgers where the buns are replaced by croissants, and it turns out to be so compelling that a billion people are hooked on it, should that be something that can be protected?

No, of course not. We want many entrepreneurs to be able to make these burgers so that everyone can have them at a sensible price, in whatever varieties are popular, and where and whenever they are in demand. Allowing one entity to have control over this "discovery" (cheeseburger + croissant = heaven) will mean that consumers cannot have any of those things until the discoverer has built up the business empire required.

<comment><USER5> _However, you 're not supposed to be able to protect that knowledge with a patent._

In general, IP laws are a recognition of the phenomenon that making something for the first time is difficult and/or expensive, but once it exists it is cheap to reproduce. This differs from tangible goods in that much of the value has gone into the sourcing and manipulation of physical materials.

Once again I find it bemusing that a startup-oriented community doesn't get this. The system is far from perfect in execution, I'll admit, but it's all that means that a small company can innovate without immediately being crushed by an entrenched firm with superior manufacturing and distribution capabilities.

Ultimately most anti-IP arguments boil down to "I want to be paid for what I create but I want what everyone else creates for free". That's not sustainable.

Also speaking of croissants and IP law you might find this amusing [http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2014/03/bakery- hit-...](http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2014/03/bakery-hit-with- cronuts-cease-and-desist-order.html)

<comment><USER6> > In general, IP laws are a recognition of the phenomenon that making > something for the first time is difficult and/or expensive, but once it > exists it is cheap to reproduce.

You are mixing up a number of things into "IP Laws". Some things make sense, others do not.

\- For instance, it's perfectly reasonable that people who make some product can do so under their own brand without other people pretending to be the same brand. We can't have some new entrant calling themselves McDonalds and selling Big Macs.

\- Patents are indeed meant to address the issue you are on about. But the "invention" of cheeseburger + croissant is not hard to produce for the first time. In this case the patent is pretending to be doing something difficult, but what it's actually protecting is the first person who happens to test some random market (what about chicken wings + marmite?). And that is the distinction you need to be thinking about. Another example of this was the lawsuit about the "rubber band" effect on UIs. In no way is it hard to produce the item in question, you just need to know that someone wants it. And the fact that there is a market for something should not be patentable.

> Once again I find it bemusing that a startup-oriented community doesn't get > this.

I doubt that anyone doesn't understand this. What's happened is a nuanced view has developed over the years.

\- People can see that IP is in the first place not easily attributable. Ideas are like nature: they mix together, things are added and removed by different people, new ideas are formed on top of old ones. You don't need to actually make a product to get a patent but if you're first at the PTO you can ride on everyone who does make a product. Doesn't seem right.

\- What was thought to be protecting the little guy is doing the opposite. If you're a little guy, most likely you are the employee of some firm that makes you put all your patents in their name. If you want to go on your own, good luck with the lawyers. If you look at your average success story here on HN, try to categorize them: The firm created some item that was patented and turned it into a major success on the back of that patent, or the firm found some market that was probably already not virgin, and managed to address it without particular importance of some patent.

\- Patent seem to be abused easily. I did a patent a few years ago and the day it got issued the guys I was working with started talking about finding a good patent troll lawyer. It seems the system has created an unhealthy culture.

> Ultimately most anti-IP arguments boil down to "I want to be paid for what I > create but I want what everyone else creates for free". That's not > sustainable.

No, they don't. If what is created is easily duplicated (eg general knowledge like the area of a circle) then why should it be paid for? I want to be paid if I'm going to paint someone's circular table, because I can only paint so many in my working life. But if I invented A = pi * r * r, which all the painters need, should I be paid?

> Also speaking of croissants

Yes, that was my inspiration.

Ultimately, where you stand on this depends this: Is it a question of recognizing what effort people have put in, "costs, investment", of invention, or is the important thing what consumers get out, "value"? And that is why the HN crowd leans the way it does.

<comment><USER7> "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Software patents do not further progress. Neither do retroactive copyright extensions. Our current atttude on IP law has shifted entirely to rent seeking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One problem with our patent system is that the patent duration of a multi billion dollar drug is the same as a trivial algorithm or design. Why not have 3,5,10,15 year patents that reflect the complexity/sophistication and cost.

<comment><USER9> Software should not be patented at all.

Math has not been patentable under any scheme until recently, where over a series of lawsuits the US courts have effectively made a subset of it (software) patentable.

And it all started thanks to seeing a computer operated manufacturing process as something patentable over the same process done without a computer...

<comment><USER10> I don't believe the math patentability rebuttal holds, otherwise it can be readily extended to the real world through assembly instructions for tangible inventions, especially with the advent of 3d printing.

I'm not saying the patent system is bug-free, but I am saying it'll be a lot harder to drive the kind of innovation we're used to seeing here with no patent protection at all (copyright only protects the implementation, and trade secrets are things you don't share e.g. as client-side code).

Full disclosure: I've got a few to my name. I don't think any of the inventors I know would've even bothered inventing the patterns they/we did if the protection didn't exist. Unpopular opinion, I'm certain.

<comment><USER11> 3d printing makes a physical invention, patentable like any other. The manner of assembly is not relevant.

Software is math and it shouldn't be patentable. I think very little good has come of that at all.

<comment><USER10> I'm sure I'm missing something, but where would the economic incentive to develop the majority of (specifically) client-side applications have come from especially in the era before the .com boom?

<comment><USER11> You still have copyright protecting your code. All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution. There's clones of every successful company, patents didn't change that. But most fail. It was easy to clone Facebook the website way back when or Snapchat the app. Good luck beating them at their own game though.

For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - <USER2> again.

<comment><USER10> I'd initially contested the idea of copyright protecting code in my above comment but decided to redact it to see which direction this conversation would take.

(Tangent: Trade secrets protect knowledge implemented within my spheres of trust, i.e. "my systems.")

Copyright protects the literal documentation/expression of knowledge, such as an algorithm, not the knowledge itself. As an example, reimplementing a novel algorithm in a different language or over a different framework will likely be enough to subvert copyright protection over the code itself.

Copyright will ineffectively protect novel algorithms, whereas patents do a good job of protecting these algorithms in well-exposed contexts e.g. client- side from unauthorized imitation and usage day zero (or, more realistically, day 30). Barring a tactical or strategic error in the approved patent — a wonderful example of this, if I recall correctly, is the Swype patent¹ which prompts the user to pick a word rather than guess one for the user — the patent will effectively cover the algorithm in any implementation for the statutory duration.

A separate issue: "All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution."

That's the use case that garners the most press coverage. The sort that's more prevalent and far less noisy is licensing, and this happens far, far more often, and generally with not so much as a peep in the press. In fact, this is one survival strategy used by some startups as they pivot when they've created novel technologies but have devised ineffective business models around them. This moots the following statement: "For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - think again." — it really depends on how the patents are acquired, such as through deferred equity compensation. I'd argue against doing so in cash, but doing so with equity could make sense especially if the startup's novel ideas are expected to be executed in untrusted (read: client, or "not my systems") environments.

My main argument is that software patent durations need to be cropped. Could be three years, could be five, but given the pace of software development, twenty is patently (ahem) anti-competitive in the software world. That's the argument I'll stand by unless anyone has a proposal to protect and incentivize the creation of novel algorithms without the use of patents.

Source: the numerous IP lawyers I've worked with during both my day job and consulting engagements. But I'm not an attorney, which means there's a nontrivial chance I got some of the nuances wrong, but I'm willing to attach my name to the overall message.

\---

¹—[http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,098,896.PN.&OS=PN/7,098,896&RS=PN/7,098,896) "The present invention then generates a list of possible words associated with the entered part and presents it to user for selection."

<comment><USER11> I agree that copyright won't be effective in protecting novel algorithms. That's what patents _should_ be good for. But mostly they end up being a tool used by extortionists who produce nothing, parasites basically making the whole system sick. In their current implementation, whether the patent duration changes or not, they're horribly broken. I suspect we agree there. That's typically common ground in the software business.

But I would go further and say that patents are largely a waste of time and money for startups. With some exceptions, the Swype patent being one. The things is unless you have a novel algorithm for which there is no substitutions, it grants you very little protection.

For example, I have a novel database index algorithm that uses SIMD instructions to do more operations in parallel. But if I patented it, it would largely be a distraction from the insanely complex task of building a full database product and a successful business model and sales channel around it. Sure that algorithm might give me an enduring performance edge over the competition, in the best case scenario. But whether my competitors copy that innovation or not, it's such a small part of the whole, and one for which there are plenty of substitutes - even if somehow mine happens to be the best (the odds are against that!) it's still a minor contribution and likely a waste of resources to patent.

You'd need something that's core to the business and which you can't substitute. If you have an invention like that, by all means patent it. By and large that's rare though.

And the whole system is so terrible, so utterly broken, so abused by bad actors and corrupt courts (District of East Texas, I'm looking at you!) It's impossible to write any substantial amount of code that doesn't infringe patents. So basically everyone infringes, and some have the bad luck that others will use that to extort money from them. I wish the whole system would die in a fire.

I've often wondered how I would react if that happened to me. I'd probably find the cheapest lawyer I could in the district hearing the case, and instruct him to draw the proceedings out to the maximum possible extent - <USER3> up the bill as high as possible for the bastards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If that's not rent-seeking what else is it?

A patent on showing a read-receipt? For chrissake, that tire-fire of Outlook Express had it!!!

<comment><USER13> But Outlook Express wasn't on a mobile phone, so, patent granted. /s

There are worse examples than than, like "email, on mobile", when it's dead obvious to anyone who knows about OSI layers.

Whether or not people agree on the legitimacy of software patents, I think we can all agree that the situation is completely out of hands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is the death rattle of a dying company.

<comment><USER15> With revenue growth in software, not exactly a dying company - [https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN1H41NM- OC...](https://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKBN1H41NM-OCABS)

<comment><USER16> From your link:

"The company's revenue fell 18.5 percent to $233 million."

That's dying. An almost 20% revenue drop, after nearly a decade of declining revenues and the death of your major product line.

<comment><USER15> Yes the total revenue fell, but I specifically mentioned software revenues in my comment which is growing - "revenue from its enterprise software and services business rose about 19 percent to $108 million".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What gets me about the patent system is that there seems to be no requirement for due diligence on the side of the patent holder. You'd think if BB cared about these technologies, they'd have sent a letter to the companies years ago before they amassed millions of users. They could have put out an ad saying that other companies are using patent protected tech and so you should use BB to make sure your service isn't disrupted. Or they could be making money now licensing the tech. For example, WhatsApp sold for billions. It'd have a very different value if they had to pay a per user license fee, which BB could have asked for years ago. I think a forgotten patent should be considered abandoned.

<comment><USER18> Suing early would make them not use their tech... waiting until their tech is entrenched so you can seek damages and future licencing is the jam nowdays. Its a legal grey area, but seems to work out more often than not.

<comment><USER17> I understand the incentive, but if there is an obvious violation and you ignore it for years, without even a letter to the violator, you should probably not be allowed to decide to enforce it after that tech has become entrenched. It should be on the patent holder to explain why they didn't complain when the problem was small. Trademark owners can lose if they don't stand up early with a crew and desist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Blackberry is getting comfortable at patent trolling. Non coincidentally, they also don't produce anything of value these days. Someone should sue them for protection racket.

</comment><comment><USER20> Lol. I didn't know their situation is _this_ bad.</comment>


"Peter Thiel is trying to save the world" - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/peter-thiel-is-trying-to-save-the-world-2016-12 <comment><USER2> Let's just note that this article is at least nominally about Thiel's philosophical background, rather than his politics per se -- and hence, not quite flaggable for the remaining 36 hours or so.

</comment><comment><USER3> Saving The World might be Thiel's biggest mistake.

</comment><comment><USER4> Neoconservatism reloaded?

<comment><USER5> I don't think so. As far as I understand it is accepted that neoconservativism endorses foreign intervention and democracy.

Thiel has been against these misadventures to 'reform' the Middle East and he isn't a fan of democracy.

That Leo Strauss was an influence on the neocons and Thiel doesn't imply he is a neocon. That seems like a category error. It is a common failure mode on both sides of the political divide to lump different but connected groups together.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you think my clients idea has any worth in project management? - <AUTHOR> A client came to me a while back with an idea to build a tool. I originally built it for the guy to use with his clients, however, he then decided to make the tool available for everyone - but feedback hasn't been favourable, most people say there is no value for the tool.
To start, my client is a business coach in the UK. He goes into companies that know what they want to do but don't know how to achieve it. Usually, this results in him producing an Object Tree (example here built using the tool I made: https://imgur.com/a/v6q0jyD). My client approached me to build a tool that allows you to drag and drop boxes into place, assign boxes to team members, set dates etc. You can export PDF's and print them out and you can also generate a Gantt chart. The system also sends you reminders when an object is due.
My business doesn't plan projects in this way, we usually load everything into productive.io. But, is there anyone out there that prefers to work in this more visual way?
Due to budgets when we start, we built a very basic tool (more of a prototype). Our team is willing to put the time and effort into re-developing ths tool if there are people that think there is a worth for this. For a start with a rebuild we could consider adding AI. Also, is there anything we can add to increase it's worth?
Feel free to ask questions if you need more information.
All options are on the table, including putting this to bed so please be honest. <comment><USER2> You really didn't describe the tool or its intended audience all that much. It looks like some kind of idea map. What is the innovation? Why would I pick this tool over any other such tool (there are many of them).

However, I think you can make something happen here. Perhaps you can find a specific use-case and specialize. When there are many competitors in a market the only real thing to do with a new product is to find one particular and popular use case and specialize the product for that use case. After that there is no need to worry about competitors from an innovation standpoint because there is nothing more you can do.</comment>


Windows 10 Ameliorated: Windows 10 minus spyware plus added stability, security - <AUTHOR> https://ameliorated.info <comment><USER2> I really wanted this to be viable for a daily driver, but the third party shell components and lack of DirectX for modern games kill it for me.

I wouldn't entirely trust a windows system with out update either.

<comment><USER3> There used to be a script that would turn the telementary data off in Windows 10. I forgot the link to it and didn't save it.

I agree no updates is hard to run when Microsoft updates Windows 10 every now and then and cancels access for older updates unless they upgrade to a newer version of Windows 10.

<comment><USER4> > There used to be a script that would turn the telementary data off in > Windows 10. I forgot the link to it and didn't save it.

O&O Shutup10 [https://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10](https://www.oo- software.com/en/shutup10)

<comment><USER3> Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Look, this might have its use cases for experienced user, but is really dangerous and harmful for the average user. It should not be pushed as a more stable secure version.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't advocate for its usage, and I'm not involved in the development of this project, but I am glad to see the changes applied; not because they are good changes to make for any or no reason, but because I am curious what others have done to modify operating systems, for general purpose and purpose- specific use cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> [https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1243421-windows-10-amel...](https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1243421-windows-10-ameliorated- ordered-to-cease-operations-due-to-ltt-video/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwkiU6GG- YU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwkiU6GG-YU)</comment>


The mathematics of parking cars - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/09/the-mathematics-of-parking-cars/

<comment><USER2> Thursday morning cynicism maybe but: Your mathematician makes 6 assumptions (maybe one of them realistic) to build a model and then thinks mathematics "knows" something about the world and its ways.</comment>


Schematical Framework - Helping you build Facebook Applications - <AUTHOR> http://schematical.com/ Schematical is an opensource Framework for building Facebook Applications. It comes fully equipped with a contest that you can set up on your Facebook Page and customize just like a Wordpress install. Please let me know if you would like to contribute. Other app types such as virtual gifts, polls, and quizzes are available upon request.<p>http://schematical.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Schematical is an opensource Framework for building Facebook Applications. It comes fully equipped with a contest that you can set up on your Facebook Page and customize just like a Wordpress install. Please let me know if you would like to contribute. Other app types such as virtual gifts, polls, and quizzes are available upon request.</comment>


Startup Culture Hacks - <AUTHOR> https://rockthepost.com/blog/startup-culture-hacks/

<comment><USER2> It's immature to "hack" company culture. There's only doing it right. Here's a good article by Zappos' culture coach David Vik: [http://bit.ly/Z84nHv](http://bit.ly/Z84nHv)

</comment><comment><USER3> Are these "Culture Hacks", or just common sense and decency?

<comment><USER4> Everything is a hack nowadays it seems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The best thing in the post is Launch Your Startup button that takes you to the registration form on rockthepost.com. Nothing new, really.</comment>


Self Dividing Numbers Using Python - <AUTHOR> https://ao.gl/self-dividing-numbers-using-python/ <comment><USER2> FWIW, this is A034838 in The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences - [https://oeis.org/A034838](https://oeis.org/A034838) , which also has implementations in Python and other languages.</comment>


Boeing to lay off hundreds more engineers - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-layoffs-idUSKBN17J1BI <comment><USER2> Hell, my company encouraged retirement by promising medical coverage, then one year later pulled the coverage on those who took the deal.

<comment><USER3> That's actually evil...

I find that the withdrawing of medical programs by a company is a pretty reliable indicator that it'll fold in a few years, since it's a common "exit- strategy" to earn a few last bucks before the up-top rats jump ship.

Been at two companies who were thriving, and both after only a few months stopped their medical insurance. After that, _dozens_ of people left over 1-2 years, and the company was massively haemorrhaging money due to customer dissatisfaction.

False economy.

<comment><USER2> Hell, a guy a fence with had surgery, then came to find out he had no health insurance as the company stopped paying the premiums and was POCKETING them, including his contribution. Several years later he finally recovered some of the medical costs in a lawsuit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So, the number of employees get's less every year[1] but the market value rises every year[2]. I'm wondering if the wealth distribution, or whatever you all it, is working right, here..

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/268992/change-in- employm...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/268992/change-in-employment- figures-from-boeing/) [2] [https://www.google.com/finance?q=Boeing&ei=uQf3WOngDM7GsAGJ9...](https://www.google.com/finance?q=Boeing&ei=uQf3WOngDM7GsAGJ9Li4Aw)

<comment><USER5> I'm not sure why you're conflating share price and number of employees with wealth distribution? (not to mention it looks from a casual glance as though it's been largely flat 2014-2017)

In many ways you'd _expect_ a company that dropped a lot of employees to improve it's profitability due to reducing costs, and if it's more profitable it ought to be worth more right? Obviously it's a trade off, ie no R&D means no new products means it's going to run out of things to sell eventually and that should reduce expected future cashflows and thus value etc etc.

<comment><USER4> Yes, just a casual glance. I usually don't really care about that. But from my point of view the share price says over a long period of time "this company is doing fine". The share price has been on a rise since many years. So, when the company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who did nothing except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees get screwed? That's how the market works, yes. But i don't have to be ok with it. Actually, all that stock exchange, share price, money-believing, self-regulating capitalism bullsh*t is just fundamentally screwed, in my opinion.

<comment><USER5> > So, when the company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who > did nothing except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees > get screwed?

You mean that the people who paid for the company to produce widgets profit when the widgets are profitable? Not the people who designed the widgets?

Thing is, if the widgets fail and the company goes bust the shareholders lose their investment. If it does well, they'll make money. They aren't "doing nothing except buying stocks" \- they're risking their investment.

If the company was funded by debt instead of shares, then the debt would be paid down at a fixed rate and then profits would go to the private owner. So even without "the market" the employees don't profit by design unless the company chooses that as an incentive system.

If, however, the company was owned by the workers then they would indeed profit from the widgets and suffer from the failure. Such companies do in fact exist. But they will still lay off staff when it's sensible to do so, and that may well increase profits which are distributed amongst those remaining.

<comment><USER6> I wonder if economic illiteracy leads to a disdain for capitalism or the other way around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> IIRC, the Washington workers are union while the South Carolina workers are not? (Though I don't know about the specific roles/titles involved in this round. But the article raises the open question about S.C. jobs.)

Also, I wonder whether and how much of this work is moving overseas.

P.S. Quick google reveals:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/these- workers-want-a-union-deep-in-trump-country-they-just-might-have-a-chance/)

[http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/1...](http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/14348/Machinists- Union-to-Trump-Bring-Boeing-Jobs-Home.aspx)

[http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/boeing...](http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing- aerospace/boeing-agrees-to-open-737-center-in-china-inks-300-new-jet-orders/)

The last two are talking about fit, finishing, and parts, and they cite the machinists' union. One might call that a bit apples versus oranges with respect to the OP. Nonetheless, at the time there was language (PR and corporate-speak) about no jobs leaving Everett and potential increased demand increasing headcount there.

<comment><USER8> I have a friend who's a long-time engineer at Boeing (in Washington). He'd always complain that union rules were strict to the point of ludicrousness, eg. if he got a new desktop computer he was prohibited from plugging it in himself; he had to file a ticket and get it plugged in by a member of whatever union had staked a claim to that task.

Not really related to the article, but yeah, I can't imagine that level of union-driven bureaucracy is good for productivity.

<comment><USER9> This isn't union - this is just how huge corporations work. I worked for Verizon and they did the same thing - everything was locked down and you had to file a Remedy ticket to get anything done (ugh).

<comment><USER8> I don't know... I work for a (non-unionized) company about half the size of Boeing, and we don't have anywhere near that level of bureaucracy, so I have a hard time accepting the premise that "that's just how things have to be." I'm sure there are a lot of contributing factors, but I don't have a hard time imagining unions contributing to process creep by mandating the allocation of tasks in a non-optimal way.

I'm no hardcore anti-unionist, but this particular situation seems like a very plausible late-stage union failure mode.

<comment><USER10> But your company is smaller. I work for a company smaller still and the amount of dumb bureaucracy is even less than yours probably.

Also, culturally the aerospace industry is very rule and procedure heavy, for good reason.

<comment><USER11> I've seen it in big and small (10 people companies), it just depends on having someone in HR that cares about shit like this and the authority to do something about it.

Sometimes you can't change a light bulb at a small company, sometimes at a big one you're first job is to assembly you're own desk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> No doubt they will also move more work to their Moscow Design Center: [https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing- spreads-77...](https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing- spreads-777x-design-work-to-charleston-mosco-392371/)

<comment><USER13> Given the troubles that the Russian aerospace industry has with fake diplomas, I doubt that Moscow is where they are moving those jobs.

[https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/fake-diplomas-fake- moder...](https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/fake-diplomas-fake- modernization-1118)

<comment><USER14> Linking technicans' vocational school diploma troubles in Komsomolsk-on-Amur and aerospace engineers hiring in Moscow is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

It's like linking Facebook performance to Obamacare website launch troubles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Man, I really feel for these workers. When, say, a back end Java developer gets laid off, it's usually not too hard to land on your feet, given the tons of companies that need these skills. If you're an experience aerospace engineer working on large commerical jets, where else do you go in the US besides Boeing and maybe Lockheed Martin?

<comment><USER16> >> If you're an experience aerospace engineer working on large commerical jets, where else do you go in the US besides Boeing and maybe Lockheed Martin?

You're kidding[1], right? Beyond the aerospace industry, I can think of more than a few places where the skillset of a talented aerospace engineer would be very much desireable.

[1] [https://www.artillerymarketing.com/fs/top-100-aerospace- comp...](https://www.artillerymarketing.com/fs/top-100-aerospace- companies-2015)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Shitcan 245 engineers...immediately posture to hire 345 more?[1]

[1] [https://jobs.boeing.com/search- jobs/engineer](https://jobs.boeing.com/search-jobs/engineer)

<comment><USER17> Because every engineer is the same. /s

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article mentions 'increased competition'. Is Boeing facing a hard time competing against rivals say Airbus? Are Boeing's latest planes less competitive or is there less orders in the pipeline all across the industry, including at Airbus? I wish the article went into more detail here, this would have been informative.

<comment><USER19> Unfortunately, hiring for aircraft programs these days is very Bang-Bang. A350 program starts, Airbus hires thousands of contract mech engineers. A350 program winds down, those people are let go. I think that Boeing is similar.

Lay-offs do not necessarily imply 'increased competition', I think that hasn't changed a whole lot recently. The model is just moving towards highly contractual work with limited managerial permanent roles for the cream of the crop.

<comment><USER20> > Unfortunately, hiring for aircraft programs these days is very Bang-Bang.

i'm given to understand that's pretty common across all of aerospace. get contract, hire, finish contract, fire. it makes for an endless supply of headlines, but isn't actually a surprise to the employees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Product is the stock price. Cost out so executives keep bonuses. Solid tactics

<comment><USER22> For a few years during the current CEO's reign, but how will the next CEO make their mark when the CEO musical chairs game continues?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> First they came for the janitors...

[http://www.vdare.com/letters/first-they-came-for-the- janitor...](http://www.vdare.com/letters/first-they-came-for-the-janitors)

<comment><USER3> My favourite bit there:

> people so willfully stupid that they will cut each other`s throats while the > bankers drain them dry.

Divide and conquer. Proven classic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Who else thinks slowing sales is probably due to a supply glut from low interest rates? I know low rates has meant its prime time to invest in capital goods, especially expensive ones. Perhaps they've sold new planes to everyone who wants them, and there's less and less companies interested in buying? Pure speculation, though.

</comment><comment><USER25> Until the people who painstakingly build the stuff are allowed to own the results of their efforts , aka worker ownership we will see more and more of this shit everywhere.

<comment><USER26> If worker ownership would produce superior outcomes it would prevail in the market. But in reality all practical experience shows that it does not. The old left excuse that workers are poor and can not start business can no longer works.

The solution to the problems of the world has never been and will almost certainly never be worker ownership of the means of production.

<comment><USER27> I don't really mind what you say (don't care about the issue), but I _do_ care when someone very confidently extends a trend into the future, here even into eternity, based on nothing but "it never worked before". That's just extreme intellectual laziness, which is fine, until you start commenting and pretend you know more than you do. There is way too little argument in your argument.

<comment><USER26> I said 'almost certainly' because after a 200 year trend that is a reasonable thing to say. Plus we have theories of economics of the firm that analyses the problems with these sort of organsiations.

So I feel reasonable confident saying 'almost certaint'.

<comment><USER27> > because after a 200 year trend that is a reasonable thing to say

I don't think you understand how history works. Don't know if this is merely risible or sad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > involuntary layoffs

> involuntary reduction

As opposed to what?

"Boss, 231 of us decided to voluntarily be let go, effective immediately. Yeah, we know, it's a bummer. We also decided to take three months severance pay at half salary. Hey, thanks for everything. Have a nice day!"

I sometimes wonder about what might lie behind the twisted language often used by reporters.

<comment><USER29> Never seen one myself but it's entirely possible for a business to solicit volunteers to be laid off [1] or take early retirement [2].

[1] e.g. [http://www.nyguild.org/time-inc-news-details/items/spots- ill...](http://www.nyguild.org/time-inc-news-details/items/spots-illustrated- announces-layoffs.html)

[2] e.g. [http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger- offers-...](http://www.wcpo.com/money/local-business-news/kroger-offers-early- retirement-to-2000-corporate-employees)

<comment><USER30> I had a friend who worked at a company asking for people to be voluntarily laid off. They paid for grad school, and this got said person out of owing them years of service in repayment. Saved someone else from being laid off, and said person was able to find a job they liked much better.

<comment><USER31> I think that is reasonable.

"Folks our company didn't do well this year, we can only sustain X at out burn rate. We are willing to extend Y offer until Z date for those of who are willing to volunteer for a lay off"

Much better than firing by force.

<comment><USER32> Would this not select for firing your best workers (who aren't worried about finding another job)?

<comment><USER33> It does. But if you do the opposite, the layoff is likely to still inspire those best people to start looking on their own if they did not already do so before. And they are the ones most likely to find something and follow through.

Layoffs often have an echo effect, where a wave of layoffs is followed by a wave of resignations. Open offers fold that second, unpredictable wave into the controlled first one. If the nature of your business requires a certain amount of workforce continuity, the added predictability of an open offer can be well worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Events like this highlight the fallacy that big company jobs are stable and secure, while startup jobs are risky. I think the Expected Value of a big company salary stream is probably slightly higher than that of a series of startup salaries, but the difference isn't nearly as large as people fear.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is a byproduct of the market DESIGN in aerospace. By having a duopoly rather than either a monopoly or wider competition, you're forcing the margins down to near zero. This means that there is always a CLEAR replacement option for every product made by Boeing or Airbus, and the customers (the airlines) know it. If you had more players (embraer, gulfstream, bombardier, china?) you could have better competition, but there are few large body jet providers in the market. Granted this problem stems from the airplane companies own strategy of trying to get airlines to go single model (all 737s for example) to save on repair/maintenance.

Economic theory wise its a fascinating market issue because you have clear view of the buyers and the incentives in the marketplace (also both big players get huge govt subsidies).

<comment><USER36> I think you might be underestimating the impact of slackening demand. Emerging market airlines put in a ton of orders over the past 10 years, now we're seeing them slash airfare prices and/or cancel orders due to continued pressure. You can also point to state-owned/supported enterprises in the Middle East and China which are terrible allocators of capital and have therefore encouraged the glut. Nevermind the strategic imperative of the U.S. and Europe to have exclusive access to a producer of worldwide transports during times of war.

There are many examples of duopolies who do just fine. I think you are ignoring the negative influence of ambitious countries in this industry.

<comment><USER22> Just FYI there are still markets out there [1] and Boeing is going to try to take advantage of them [2].

[1] [http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-airlines-snap- story....](http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-airlines-snap-story.html) [2] [http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/06/21/482955544/...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2016/06/21/482955544/boeing-says-it-has-agreed-to-sell-passenger-jets-to- iranian-airline)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I would have thought there would be hiring spree instead given upcoming large spending in defense and Boeing would be in strong position to capture good portion of it. Why this isn't the case?

<comment><USER38> Uncertainty. Trump seems to flip his public stance on issues after having a 10 minute conversation with someone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> All these jobs will be replaced by cheap Indian H-1B visa holders very soon.

</comment><comment><USER40> As opposed to 'Boeing keeps on hundreds of staff they no longer have a need for'?</comment>


Intel preps 'Android x86' for netbooks and slates - <AUTHOR> http://apcmag.com/intel-preps-android-froyo-x86-for-netbooks-and-slates.htm <comment><USER2> Does it mean we'll be able to run the Android SDK directly on the netbook and test apps natively instead of using a simulator that takes 10 minutes to boot and is slow like hell?

As the SDK is based on eclipse, I'm not sure the performance boost will be that impressive :)

EDIT: I have nothing against eclipse, I just haven't tried running it on a netbook

</comment><comment><USER3> HTTP Error 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address of the client has been rejected.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately APCMag.com is not currently available in your country for legal and commercial reasons.

Wow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> They given up on MeeGo ?

<comment><USER6> Why? Intel makes money moving chips, and two Atom-capable mobile OSs are better than one.</comment></comment>


[Google removed India from the list] Indian app developers CANNot sell paid apps - <AUTHOR> http://www.pluggd.in/indian-app-developers-cannot-sell-paid-android-apps-297/

<comment><USER2> I wouldn't be surprised if this is the Indian Government's fault. I remember Google saying something about not being able to offer paid apps in all countries before.

<comment><AUTHOR> I too believe, its due to "Indian Government"</comment></comment>


Songkick: Live Music Lovers Will Love This (from YC summer '07) - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/22/songkick-live-music-lovers-will-love-this/

<comment><USER2> NICE.

VERY well done. It will be interesting to see how they flip the recommendation algorithm [since they seem to get it about real humans knowing best].

ALSO:

They should make a li'l widget for bloggers that crawls the posts and broadcasts upcoming tour dates for the artists being covered.

You're welcome (...although I'm sure they are on this already ;-)

(or, they need to bust out the API. if ever there was a service in need of an API ASAP...)

</comment><comment><USER3> Very cool.

Any chance readers with sites can get it on the ticket adsensing side of things a little early?

</comment><comment><USER4> Congrats Songkick!

</comment><comment><USER5> good work guys, glad to see you up on tc.

</comment><comment><USER6> brilliant! well done guys.

</comment><comment><USER7> that is one slick site, awesome :)</comment>


H1-B Administrators Are Challenging an Unusually Large Number of Applications - <AUTHOR> http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotYourRightsOnline/~3/BBKiVzJMtrw/h1-b-administrators-are-challenging-an-unusually-large-number-of-applications <comment><USER2> Isn't the H1-B program ripe with abuse? I've read dozens if not hundreds of comments here and reports from all over where teams were laid off in favor of H1-B counterparts.

If that's really the case, challenging the applications is the first deterrent to this sort of behavior. I doubt anything will eliminate 100% of the abuse but if we can cut it significantly, I'd call that a win.

<comment><USER3> ive heard of this rumor but ive never actually seen it in action. having hired h1bs before, i'm skeptical that anyone but a massive corporation could do something like this.

the expenses, rules, process would prohibit most teams from accomplishing and maintaining this. and a corporation large enough to pull it off likely wouldn't derive enough benefit to actually make it worth it given the risk of exposure from either internal or external whistle blowers.

i have no doubt there's fraud in the immigration system, (america is pretty cool after all), i feel like the fraud problem takes shape in different forms than, "mass layoffs in favor of h1b labor." honestly, i'm more worried about he use of

<comment><USER4> It's not a "rumor". Disney layed off over 100 IT staff and had them train their Indian replacements [1]. Southern California Edison layed off 400 and had them train their Indian replacements. [2]

[1] [https://www.computerworld.com/article/2915904/it- outsourcing...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/2915904/it- outsourcing/fury-rises-at-disney-over-use-of-foreign-workers.html)

[2] [https://www.computerworld.com/article/2879083/it- outsourcing...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/2879083/it- outsourcing/southern-california-edison-it-workers-beyond-furious- over-h-1b-replacements.html)

<comment><USER5> The jobs aren't getting transferred to H1Bs, they're getting contracted out to TCS and Infosys who are known for abusing the program by "lending" out their employees as contractors.

They're akin to the predatory hiring agencies that provide workers to Amazon's warehouses. Good for Amazon's bottom line and the agency, not so much for the employees or the community.

imho, increasing base salary requirement and mandating that employees either work on-site only or are free to jump ship to any company (visa is not associated with the employer) would fix majority of the issues.

<comment><USER6> Isn't this a side effect of adding more regulations onto full-time workers? Seems like if the overhead for a full time employee keeps going up and the regulations keep getting more strict, we'll see more that risk and cost outsourced more and more to companies that specialize in circumventing things and keeping the extra expenses as low as possible.

The intent behind these regulations, whether healthcare or immigration control, is really beside the point. I'm wondering if these things are really enforceable in the long run.

On top of everything else, as has already been mentioned, the rules seem to provide competitive advantages to large companies (or at least those willing to outsource to them) over small ones. This probably decreases the level of innovation, dynamism, and entrepreneurship in the economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Young, European, High-skilled worker here, who've been working on core Kubernetes products for three years. Got several job offers for key infra positions in various companies @ 200-250k+. Trump administration came in, decided to RFE+NOIR my H-1B with a bullshit reason, had to go back to my country, which is not my really home anymore whatsoever (wife/friends here). So yeah, that just happened. It's not only about abuses and 'Indians'.

<comment><USER8> Heart breaking story, really (from a heavy Kubernetes user btw).

Would you mind giving more details about what happened exactly? Why did you have to go back? What was the reason why they didn't renew your visa (I'm assuming it's a renewal problem since you mentioned 3 years)? And is there something that is being done by your company or yourself to get your US life back, or you just "gave up"?

I mean why the hell would a person with a 250k+ offer be kicked out, assuming you didn't commit any crime? Isn't the offer itself a proof that you're desperately wanted here and it should invalidate any RFE?

<comment><USER7> Sure! It is not about renewal, it hit at a different time.

TD;LR (if I remember the details correctly among all the overall bs):

\- Changed work location,

\- Company notified immigration and joined a check to the amendment,

\- Immigration returned the notice because they claimed they did not need such check,

\- Company re-submitted the amendment right after, and proved by the way government indeed required a check at the time of submission but might have changed conditions,

\- Immigration submitted both a RFE and a NOIR within two days intervals (pretty unfair already imho) claiming H1B petition was violated because government figured (tax filing and flight records) I moved and company failed to tell immigration in due time,

\- Company argued that they did indeed notify immigration promptly but that they discarded the initial amendment due to the check,

\- Immigration decided to ignore completely and revoke H-1B regardless.

Documented personal achievements and publicized projects should have been way enough to convince any legit immigration officer that my contribution to the country was strictly positive. My personal thoughts? They only care about sending these filthy foreigners back to where they come from (as opposed to 'home'), and they take any covert opportunities to do so.

Company did fill a new petition, but attorneys highly doubt that I am still counted towards the cap. We will have an answer in a few days. Otherwise, we would have to wait a year for the next lottery, at best.

Truly sad and rather stressful event for my wife and I anyways. And she is currently 'stuck' in her PhD (few years to go). Also, because it's been a few years I have not been to the country where I hold nationality, I am treated as a non-resident expat and several rights (such as health insurance, bringing my foreigner wife on a VISA, etc), at least for now. To regain access to these, I would need to stay here for a while, rent a place and find a job.

And finally, the cherry on the 'deportation' cake: company did not tell me about any of these (back and forth took a few months..) until I found out myself just two weeks before immigration took final decision of kicking me out. Might have been a blessing in disguise though.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for your detailed explanation. It's so horrible. I wonder how long it will take for the US system to realize what a big mistake mistreating highly trained stem workers is.

Best of luck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Finally, a nice uncontroversial subject amenable to logic and data.

You either believe:

1\. That a person is good for the country because they work, earn, spend and contribute to productivity.

2\. They are taking a job that would have otherwise gone to an American, and are transferring money from laborers to the corporation.

It seems to be a matter for economic theory. What do studies show? Does a worker produce as many high paying jobs as they displace?

It seems odd that we aren't pulling out references, debating over statistics and methodology and so on. There is an actual answer to the question: does immigration add to productivity or reduce consumption. (Both you say? Great, show me a study!)

<comment><USER10> > It seems to be a matter for economic theory

No, it's mostly a matter of disagreement on fundamental values, not about whether the factual effects of the policy are in line with or opposed to an agreed set of values.

<comment><USER9> That's just false. That would be true only if the "factual effects" were agreed upon.

Let me give you an example: Pro immigration advocates claim immigration will increase US jobs. So do anti immigration activists.

<comment><USER10> > That would be true only if the "factual effects" were agreed upon.

No, he fact that there is a conflict of values which includes a fundamental disagreement on which facts are relevant and how the same facts would weigh in desirability is true independent of whether there is agreement on the facts of the economic effects of immigration (there isn't, but the fact remains that the dispute on policy is _largely not about facts_ , but goals.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Article linked from the post is on Bloomberg [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/trump- s-h...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/trump- s-h-1b-reform-is-to-make-life-hell-for-immigrants-and-companies)

<comment><USER12> Can we have the slashdot link replaced with this? The guidelines say to submit the original source. There's no paywall on Bloomberg.

<comment><USER13> That bloomberg article was already shared and heavily discussed actually: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15646456](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15646456)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Duplicate of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15646456](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15646456)

Lots of discussion over there.

</comment><comment><USER15> Slashdot comment section seems to be on the same level as newssite comment sections.

</comment><comment><USER16> Why is that everybody talks about H1B abuse when it involves bringing Indians from India by companies like Infosys, TCS etc, but nobody mentions about how students from India come to study in US, join fake consultancies and get fake experiences and resumes? These students are more eager to get a visa sponsor and they will be willing to settle for a lower salary. I have seen so many such cases. If they loose a job, there are consultancies who will keep them in payroll in exchange for money while they look for another job (otherwise you have to leave US immediately). And some of the companies I know actually prefer hiring those than bringing people from India because they are already in US and can work for 1-2 years in OPT while the company can take its time to file h1b as opposed to wait hoping to get the lottery.

[http://www.firstpost.com/world/18-more-andhra-students- sent-...](http://www.firstpost.com/world/18-more-andhra-students-sent-back-to- hyderabad-from-new-york-airport-2568678.html)

[http://www.hindustantimes.com/education/25-indian- students-a...](http://www.hindustantimes.com/education/25-indian-students- asked-to-leave-us-varsity-as-they-lack-coding- skills/story-p6EuIdMSu9McwNUZc5ZYMJ.html)

[https://splinternews.com/hundreds-of-indian-students-are- bei...](https://splinternews.com/hundreds-of-indian-students-are-being-denied- entry-to-t-1793854926)

[https://www.murthy.com/2017/08/03/h1b-workers-denied- entry-b...](https://www.murthy.com/2017/08/03/h1b-workers-denied-entry-based- on-perceived-inconsistencies-in-resumes/)

<comment><USER17> There are also cases of applying "future green cards". That is, applying for green cards when the beneficiary is residing in India, or working with another employer in the US.

These kind of body shops which are setup solely for applying future greencards are prevalent in New Jersey. They have their back offices in Hyderabad India.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nobody needs heavy-handed censorship or directly intervene or override anything. A bureaucracy not run entirely by a computer is bound to be a failure because as long as there is some dude at the top with clearly expressed opinions those will find their way into decisions immediately.

<comment><USER19> What makes you think a computer run system won't be subject to biases (in particular of the implementors)?

<comment><USER18> Bureaucracy isn't the promise of a system free of biases. The promise is that of a pure function: \forall a,b: a = b -> f(a) = f(b)

What's the point? The point is that there is a clear, rational audit trail for "why was this decision taken" with a computer system. You can challenge that. You can't challenge an overpaid gov admin whose primary motivating factor in making decisions is pleasing his superiors, no matter how removed.

<comment><USER20> Highly recommend you check out the book "Weapons of Math Destruction" by Cathy O'Neil

Very accessible set of case studies where algorithmic management of traditionally human-run bureaucratic processes is biased and destructive.</comment></comment></comment></comment>