100 Year Dow Jones Industrials Chart - <AUTHOR> http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/12/100_year_bull_b.html

<comment><USER2> that article is a scam.

To illustrate it, I've redrawn the green and red bars differently to show that, lo and behold, there are another 15 years of bull market in our future.

[http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=5uo9q8&s=4](http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=5uo9q8&s=4)

This type of graph manipulation is a well known trick. No reputable journalist or economist would do something like this.

<comment><USER3> Huh? I have no idea what your point is, but Barry Ritholtz is definitely a reputable economist.

<comment><USER4> Spluh? What kind of reputable economist pulls a howler like this:

 _What will be the catalyst to get them back into equities? My best guess is a sustained move upwards._

...umm, yeah. And what causes a sustained (or any) move upwards? ....people "getting back into equities".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Two words: covered calls.

<comment><USER6> what about them?

<comment><USER5> _Assuming_ that we don't have a bull market that rips higher, you can use covered calls to get an extra 1-3% in premium on your positions. Per month.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not sure I agree with the analysis and reasoning, but I definitely think we're due for a decade or so more of mediocre equity performance, in addition to the lackluster decade we've had.

The bull market of the 1980s and '90s came from the entrance of middle-class Americans into the stock market. Before 1980, equities were considered risky (and were so, compared to bonds and annuities) and were seen as a "rich person's game", but this changed once people became educated about the "equity premium", which may no longer exist, and diversification. The influx of new investors allowed the markets to rally, rejuvenating Wall Street, an industry that had been fading up to that point.

Given the economic problems the U.S. currently faces, I think we're looking at a decade or more of mediocre equity performance. S&P/dollar isn't terrible, but S&P/euro is pathetic. The erosion of the U.S. middle class is a troubling sign, and I don't think we'll see the next bull market until this trend is reversed so decisively that a new middle class is being _created_. That point seems to be rather far off, in my estimation.

<comment><USER8> But the 21st century should give rise to a new middle class in China and India who will become a part of the global market.

<comment><USER9> Equity returns were pretty lousy during the height of the industrial revolution in the 19th century. Stock prices only loosely correlate to general growth. The 1950s were boom years with lousy returns, and stocks shut up during periods in the 80s and 90s when the economy wasn't fantastic by historical comparison.

Stocks just haven't been all that great a way to make money, historically.

<comment><USER10> _The 1950s were boom years with lousy return_

I don't know about globally, but it looks like prices tripled during the 1950's in the US. And that's not counting dividends, which were a bit higher at the time. Or did you mean something else?

[http://leduc998.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/dow- jones-1950-1959...](http://leduc998.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/dow- jones-1950-1959/)

In fact, I seem to remember a William O'Neill book claiming that the 50's were more speculative than the 60's. He argued that if you just treat prices as earnings and some multiple, you can demonstrate that returns in the 1950's were mostly multiple expansion, and in the 60's they were mostly earnings growth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Perhaps a clearer picture: <http://www.itulip.com/realdow.htm>

<comment><AUTHOR> I would be suspicious of inflation adjusted prices, since they do not adequately account for deflation caused by technological development. For example in 2007 inflation adjusted dollars a round trip by steamer to Europe was $2000 dollars <http://equator.eftours.com/2008/05/transatlantic-t.html>. I have flown to London, Madrid and Paris from Washington D.C. for prices ranging from $600 to $800 dollars. By comparison the trip cost 30% to 40% of the 1925 cost and took less than 10% of the time. Assuming that a dollar buys less over time is not quit accurate.

<comment><USER9> Hedonics are in fact used in inflation data. More likely abused. It's really quite a small number of technology heavy things that have shot up in quality in great excess over the price increases.

And what about declines in quality? Vegetables have a fraction of the mineral content they did decades ago. Many food items have substituted artificial ingredients for relatively healthy natural ingredients. Many services at hotels and on airliners that were once complementary are now charged for. A great many houses built in the last ten years will have to be torn down in less than 20 years they were made so poorly. There are many examples of declining quality and these adjustments are never made.

<comment><USER11> Do you know any data sources for these things? I'm doubtful of the mineral content claim unless the fraction you mention is something like 9/10. Housing stock that is on average lasting for much less time is also suspicious to me. The biggest reconciliation issue is that we're much much wealthier and healthier than we were decades ago so I'm not sure there are broad meaningful declines in the quality of most things.

<comment><USER9> You're confusing individual purchasing power with measures of inflation, which is about the value of money.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Latte Dock v0.6 – fresh air - <AUTHOR> http://psifidotos.blogspot.com/2017/04/latte-dock-v06-fresh-air.html <comment><USER2> Awesome !!! I'm gonna ditch GNOME in order to try this amazing dock. It make me feel confident to go back to KDE Plasma.</comment>


I Am Hiring. Without Resumes or Puzzles - <AUTHOR> https://blog.leantaas.com/i-am-hiring-without-resumes-or-puzzles-2ac6f11002c0 <comment><USER2> This is going to get deleted because it violates HN rules (only YC companies can post jobs, except on the monthly "Who's Hiring" thread). However, your philosophy is great, and I look forward to finishing the article.</comment>


The fight against sexism is not a free pass - <AUTHOR> http://antirez.com/news/64 <comment><USER2> I definitely wouldn't have reacted if I was personally involved in this. However, I do think it's worth pointing out how masculine pronouns can wear a girl down over time / create general awkwardness (ie: Send your "web guy" over).

I'm generally not bothered by subtleties, but then I realize that what's subtle to me as a woman is entirely invisible to men.

If the guy prefers masculine pronouns, it doesn't make him a sexist exactly. But it would imply that he doesn't experience the subtle discomfort in his everyday life. So, it's worth pointing out. In a chill way, if possible.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Everybody has his fight

Shouldn't that be "Everybody has their fight"? I guess antirez is sexist. /sarcasm

<comment><USER4> > Shouldn't that be "Everybody has their fight"?

Of course not. Only men have legitimate fights. When a fight is only being conducted by women, it must be something trivial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> <sarcasm>"to reject a pull request that eliminates a gendered pronoun on the principle that pronouns should in fact be gendered would constitute a fireable offense" \- nice place to work, congrats Joyent employees.</sarcasm>

There's one practical problem with this approach though. If you start aligning everyone against a single doctrine and prosecute deviations, you'll quickly lose the ability to innovate. Start sending people to jail for having an opinion different from the Central Committee of the Communist Party and you'll end up not only with engineers in jail but with an industry 100% copied from someone else. Ask me how I know.

<comment><USER6> Good thing nothing like that is happening or likely to happen, then, just good old social repercurssions for bad behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Do we know if it was more than what the commit said? The reverse said it was a policy violation to have him commit it directly. It didn't _actually_ say anything about being a he-man-woman-hater.

</comment><comment><USER8> Never mind those generations of discrimination. We men will tell you what is an acceptable commit and that's that. Offended? Tough luck. We run the world! It's a meritocracy don'tchaknow??!!

(But don't publicly shame us! We're too threatened a species! we're just innocent victims of tradition! Who got this way through our own hard work! Oh no the womenz are attacking!!!!!!!!! Poor us!)

</comment><comment><USER4> This article misses the point. Before it goes on to speculate about hypothetical situations, it says:

> The reality is that probably Ben is not a sexist, maybe he believes simply > that "him" does not make a difference in sexism. Everybody has his fight, > and changing "him" is not the Ben fight

And that's okay. It doesn't have to be Ben's fight. The problem is that Ben denies this fight to others. The problem is not that Ben doesn't work to improve gender equality, the problem is that he rejects and reverts other people's work to improve gender equality.

And I can fully understand that this would be a firing offense in some companies. Rejecting and undoing other people's good work is seriously not cool.

<comment><USER9> but apparently ben didn't revert the commit on the basis of its content, he reverted it on the basis of a bad process (lack of review).

So we should criticize "people who don't accept these commits", or "people who revert commits because of bad process", but the case "people who revert these kind of commits" is not valid.

<comment><USER6> He initially rejected it on the basis of its content, and then reverted it on a basis that didn't hold up to scrutiny, as one the first comments on the revert commit demonstrates. Seems like that meets both your criteria?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> [http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001175517/0cb3ef6e1d30edc00...](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001175517/0cb3ef6e1d30edc0038eaa58f90b507c_xlarge.jpeg)

<comment><USER6> You might be missing the bigger picture of witch hunts and the feminist movement if you're trying to draw parallels like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> So far as I can tell, it's a fundamental of all forms of feminism (though especially radical feminism) that yes, everyone must make fighting sexism and supporting feminism their #1 priority, over and above the actual goals of whatever businesses or groups they're involved in, and that anyone who doesn't is a women hater. You get stuff like Atheism+, where a bunch of feminist activists went into the atheist movement and declared that from then on, it must revolve entirely around their form of feminism, and that it didn't even matter if members were actually atheists so long as they supported that kind of feminism. Radical/non-intersectional feminists even tried to do the same to groups fighting against other forms of discrimination such as racism and homophobia.

<comment><USER4> No, not everybody has to fight sexism, just don't defend sexism when others fight it.

Really, what makes sexism so vital that it needs to be defended?

<comment><USER11> Errrm, sexism certainly doesn't need defending. Unfortunately, as we've seen here _anything_ that gets in the way of feminist activism gets portrayed as defending sexism. For instance, reverting feminist commits for not having the proper sign-off? Totally sexist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Gender neutral pronouns _suck_ in English. Fix that before you start firing people over not using them.

<comment><USER13> We recently added 'hen' as a gender neutral pronound in Swedish, to go with 'han' (he) and 'hon' (she).

<comment><USER14> The impression of that change in the US media seemed to be "oh my God, look at those overly politically correct Europeans inventing words to be politically correct" (when they noticed it at all).

What was the impression on the ground in Sweden?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Ok, even though I think the singular they is awkward, I can understand the fight for removing gendered pronouns.

However, something I've been wondering for a while now is: how does this issue manifest itself in other languages? Are there similar movements? How does it work in languages where every noun has a gender?

<comment><USER5> Miserably if you apply the same rules. But I can't imagine a Russian female software developer being offended by Russian "he" in the documentation. Every occupation has a gender too and 'software developer' is 'male', though you can produce the female gender from this word, but in looks very awkward in the text - if you use 'femalized' words it means you actually make a point. We also have 'neutral' gender (like "it" in English), but you usually can't use it instead of male or female unless you're writing satire :-) There're even different female forms for 'male' occupations depending on whether the female is the professional or wife of the professional. So all the documentation I can think of uses the 'default' gender which is usually male. And I'm yet to see someone offended by that, male or female.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It is so incredibly, profoundly frustrating to watch (mostly) male nerds grapple with sexism. Guys (and I mean that specifically and gendered-ly), you don't get it. You kinda can't, and I say that as a cis male person. I don't get it, either, except maybe intellectually, and even then only occasionally.

To get a little meta for a moment, I think a lot of the disconnect that happens in these discussions (to, admittedly, stretch the term a bit) comes from the fact that nerds are already deeply familiar with Othering. We know what that shit feels like, man; we've been Othered all our lives.

Consequently, when we see an instance of gender-based Othering that seems trivial to us (witness all this foofaraw over the gender of a pronoun — it's different by _three whole letters_!), we tend to rank our perception of that triviality over the Othered party's experience. After all, we know what Othering feels like, and saying "him" instead of "them" sure as hell doesn't feel like that. _Ipso facto_ , it can't be Othering, and is therefore just those damned misandrists trying to make trouble again.

But that's exactly the thing you need to understand if you want to approach and engage meaningfully with feminism (in the "women are people, too" sense, which is how it's used by _most_ people): your perceptions of how Othering should feel _don 't fucking matter_ if you aren't the party being Othered in that specific circumstance.

Just like an unpopular, male nerd might, in some ways rightly, object to a popular, pretty, smart girl bemoaning being treated differently for being "nerdy", because she's never had the experience of being Othered for her unpopular, male nerdiness, a male nerd can't legitimately claim, "That's nothing!" when presented with a case of gendered, grammatical Othering. He's not the Other there.

So, no, it's not reasonable for a male person to reject a gender-neutralizing pull request on the basis that the gender-based Othering that it's correcting is "trivial". It may _seem_ trivial to him, but he isn't in a position to legitimately judge its triviality. That's not to say it's necessarily a firing offense, but I know I'd, personally, be uncomfortable working with someone who consistently manifests Ben's attitude towards women and gender issues.

<comment> vezzy-fnord _your perceptions of how Othering should feel don 't fucking matter if you aren't the party being Othered in that specific circumstance._

This is the exact same attitude that leads to such things as affirmative action and pampering.

You also make the fallacious assumption that all "nerds" (what a vapid and pointless label) have been socially ostracized during their lives, thus begging the question.

Your entire argument basically revolves around accommodating to the feelings of others, consistently. There are cases where this should be taken into account, but it is not a rule of thumb. Sometimes a triviality is a triviality, a ridiculous expectation is a ridiculous expectation.

I think this is the main reason of our present misfortune: we just can't handle getting offended. If we stopped being so emotional about the most minor of annoyances, we'd be much happier. In some ways, technology has contributed to this. We now have too much convenience, and not enough annoyance. It has made us brittle, weak and sensitive.

<comment><USER16> This stuff is less about being unable to "handle getting offended" than it is about being unwilling to tolerate people who behave offensively.

I don't think it's okay to use the word "gay" pejoratively, even when there aren't any queers in the room. I don't think it's okay to make rape jokes, even when there aren't any women around. I don't think it's okay to behave or speak in a way that is deliberately and hurtfully exclusive of anyone, for any reason, at any time.

To me, being deliberate and mindful about Othering is less about being "accommodating", and more of a useful means to help keep me from being "That Guy" in any of the countless, subtle ways that I might be — because we all do it, even the people you think of as the typically Othered, no matter how hard we try not to.

If you want to call that pampering, that's on you. I call it courtesy and decency, personally.

<comment> vezzy-fnord _I don 't think it's okay to use the word "gay" pejoratively, even when there aren't any queers in the room._

That's the whole point of an insult.

 _I don 't think it's okay to make rape jokes, even when there aren't any women around._

I don't think you understand how comedy works. In many ways, it's a coping mechanism. The jokes we laugh at are often quite depressing or disturbing if you try to elucidate their underlying subject matter, but they're presented in such a manner that we can be humored by and cope with the dark side of life.

Not making jokes of X type is just censorship and idiocy. Comedy has no boundaries.

 _I don 't think it's okay to behave or speak in a way that is deliberately and hurtfully exclusive of anyone, for any reason, at any time._

I can agree with that, but the way you put it is excessively vague.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is there a scientific basis for wanting to remove gendered pronouns?

<comment><USER6> Is there a scientific basis for insisting on gendered pronouns if there's no shortage of people telling you that they're offputting and exclusionary?

<comment><USER18> If we did whatever 'people told us' we wouldn't do anything, this alone isn't a reason for action.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you actually look at the joyent blog post and the github commits its pretty obvious Ben was a dismissive prick with a bit of an agenda since this goes beyond just not accepting a pull request. I think firing someone over this would probably be a bit much but he definitely deserves to be called out for being a jackass.

<comment><USER6> If I was a company that was represented on github by someone who managed to antagonize the community I was hoping to be working with on my open source product, I'd probably fire them too and hire someone with better qualifications re: getting along with people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is yet another display of people discussing the bikeshed:

[http://blog.jooq.org/2013/12/01/the-open-source- bikeshed/](http://blog.jooq.org/2013/12/01/the-open-source-bikeshed/)

And

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson's_law_of_triviality)

</comment><comment><USER21> We'll run out of tar and feathers at this rate.

<comment><USER6> I kind of hoped we'd run out of sexists first.

<comment><USER22> Cast your net wide enough, and you will find that at a certain point some people will perceive an injustice and will begin _turning themselves 'into' sexists_, just to spite you.

I am spartacus. Or if you prefer, Giles Corey's refusal to plead.

Begin firing people for using "him" instead of "they", and you will "radicalize" many formally apathetic people.

<comment><USER6> Hey, no one's getting angry because someone wrote 'him' instead of 'they' in the docs. The issue is that someone inisted that this must not be changed, for no good reason, pointlessly antagonizing lots of people.

If you're running an open source project and someone you pay is driving off its community, you'd probably feel justified in not giving them money anymore.

<comment><USER22> > _for no good reason, pointlessly antagonizing lots of people._

Read the actual source, don't rely on editorials.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> When the original blog post showed up on HN, I couldn't understand why it was penned. As best I could tell, here's what happened:

* Party A submitted a pull request for a minor change to the libuv docs

* Party B (who can signoff on changes) declined it for being an extremely minor change

* Party C merged it after getting signoff from Party D (who can signoff on changes)

* Party B reversed the change under the impression than neither he nor Party D had signed off on it

* Joyent would fire Party B for this

It just so happens that the minor change was removing two masculine pronouns into favour of gender neutral ones.

I can't reconcile the blog post on Joyent with what actually happened.

Blog post [1]:

        Ben is not—and if he had been, he wouldn't be as of this morning: to reject a pull request that eliminates a gendered pronoun on the principle that pronouns should in fact be gendered would constitute a fireable offense for me and for Joyent.

The pull request wasn't rejected on any pronoun principle [2]:

        Sorry, not interested in trivial changes like that.

And again:

        Especially when that poor behavior transcended into the gobsmackingly inappropriate as Ben tried to revert Isaac's commit

The actual commit message [3]:

        @isaacs may have his commit bit but that does not mean he is at liberty to land patches at will.  All patches have to be signed off by either me or Bert.  Isaac, consider yourself chided.

Unless bnoordhuis was aware the patch had been signed off on (in which case reversing the commit is a dick move), all he's doing is following procedures.

[1] [http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a- pronoun](http://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun)

[2] [https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29538...](https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015#issuecomment-29538615)

[3] [https://github.com/joyent/libuv/commit/804d40ee14dc0f82c482d...](https://github.com/joyent/libuv/commit/804d40ee14dc0f82c482dcc8d1c41c14333fcb48)

<comment><USER23> I'm replying to my own comment to attach an opinion to it (I want the original comment to remain neutral). But, maybe we can't have women in IT because people like Bryan Cantrill can't avoid attaching themselves and company to even the most trivial gender issues and posting inflammatory blog posts about it?

I'd wager that there are less women in IT because of behaviour like Bryan's and a company like Joyent that will host his views than there are because of declined pull requests.

<comment><USER24> From what I've seen, this is the result of polarised thinking. There are lots of issues upon which campaigners are unwilling to accept any compromise on any level.

Case in point feminism. Women have put up with a lot over the years and I can understand someone being angry and having the courage of their convictions as a result.

In a way, I respect that. It's their prerogative to try and bring about change. Refusing to enter into dialogue over certain issues will certainly not win anyone over who isn't already on their side, but admitting that things aren't black and white is admitting that they could be wrong.

But mixing take-no-prisoners thinking with the workplace and you can end up with a very poisonous atmosphere. You always need some flexibility of thought, however strong your views, because sooner or later a situation will come up which requires clarification and discussion. Not everything is black and white, and sometimes there are mistakes and misunderstandings. I think the error bars on that github activity are wide enough that we can't be certain.

This blog rant reflects very badly on Joyent. I think it shows that Bryan Cantrill has exceptionally poor judgment. Bryan says "we believe that empathy is a core engineering value". That seems a bit hypocritical given his behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm sorry to invoke Godwin's law on this, but this is beyond absurd...

Stating that defending that pronouns should be gendered is a fireable offense is more than just ridiculous political correctness, it's criminalizing opinion. It's the Holy Inquisition.

<comment><USER26> You can only invoke Godwin's law after someone else draws a comparison to the Nazis. You cannot invoke it on yourself prior to drawing a comparison to the Holy Inquisition, no matter how far beyond absurdity the situation may be.

<comment><USER22> The shrill objections that people raise when people draw parallels between things in history that are not strictly equal in _all_ respects _( "Do you really think this is equivalent to torturing people for being jewish?!?")_ are the same.

It is a shame that people have to preface legitimate comparisons to historic events with these sort of disclaimers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Out of sheer curiosity, since the Joyent's blog post had such a big emphasis on "empathy", but wouldn't sociopaths/ psychopaths be even more likely to be not sexists? Because they would be an assholes to everyone anyway, regardless of gender :-). (I'm sorry, this is probably really wrong to be joking with, it's just that the whole situation is completely bizarre and incomprehensible to me, so weird questions just pop up).

<comment><USER22> A clever psychopath can put on the mask of an empathetic person when it suits them. Think Ted Bundy as an extreme case (of course most psychopaths/sociopaths/whatever are not serial killers).

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Things that are obvious: 1\. Gender neutral language is obviously and undoubtedly preferable. 2\. The changes would have been incredibly easy to implement, the work was already done.

I can't think of a good reason not to accept the pull request. It all seems like such a simple problem getting blown way out of proportion.

<comment><USER29> There's a more subtle issue at play: accepting the pull request could be seen as "admitting" that the original phrasing was offensive. Perhaps they didn't want to do so because they disagreed with the premise. Accepting the patch isn't a neutral action, it also means implicitly accepting a certain world view.

The patch itself comes across almost as bullying: accept our view, or be publicly shamed as a misogynist.

<comment><USER28> I wouldn't even call it offensive. I don't get where that's even coming from. It's not offensive, it's just simply incorrect phrasing. It's poor English if you will.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Nice job by Joyent. A lot of people will feel that this firing is an overreaction, but this is how civil rights movements work. You inconvenience the apathetic until they realize that apathy is as unacceptable as anything else.

This is the only way it can change the developer community. Don't be a sexist and you won't run into this problem.

<comment><USER31> I hear you, but not being sexist can be pretty hard. I always felt that obviously, I wasn't sexist: I like working with women in the workplace, I always figured we make software for everyone so it's probably best if everyone makes software, and so on. I've been fortunate to have female co-workers who I felt made terrific colleagues, both skills-wise and socially.

And yet one day one of them pulled me aside and explained to me what exactly I was doing that was making being at her job harder. It wasn't something I did intentionally, it wasn't because I thought ill of her, it was just that I didn't think much at all. I behaved differently toward her (and, I guess, other female developers) because I had a set of assumptions I automatically brought to bear against male developers I wasn't sure applied to her, and it affected my behavior in ways that kept singling her out and making her feel uncomfortable.

One of the most embarassing, humbling and in retrospect, valuable moments in my professional life.

I'm happy it went that way instead of a complaint followed by me losing my job. I think a lot of male developers don't want to be sexist, but we need to learn what that actually means in practice, and it's not as intuitive as you make it out to be. Wasn't for me at least.

<comment><USER32> for the benefit of others could you outline what "set of assumptions" might get people fired? your post is incredibly vague...

<comment><USER31> Sorry - I wasn't saying that I'm sure I did something I would have gotten fired over, the point was more that I don't think just any instance of sexism should be treated as a fireable offense, because sexist behavior can be unintentional and due to lack of experience. "Don't be sexist and you won't have problems" as the OP put is what I _thought_ I was doing, but wasn't.

My post is vague because it's about subtle behavioral stuff. Basically, when I interacted with male developers, my behavior toward them was based on projecting myself into them automatically. Like, say, the level of expectations I leveled against them, how competitive I would be with them, how aggressive I might be toward them was based on how I myself respond to being challenged and my own career path/experiences and things like that. I unintentionally behaved differently toward female developers (not necessarily _worse_ actually, but _differently_ ) just because that automatic projecting would not happen, and it would end up singling them out.

Learning about that has improved my interaction not just with women but also men, actually. I make a much bigger effort to learn about the individual now.

I'm sure all this came a lot easier to others, or maybe they just had the right sort of experiences much earlier (I wonder if it would have helped if I had any siblings, say). But for me is something I can identify as "needed to learn that".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Oh dear God. This is what we've sunk to? Saying we'd love to fire some "asshole" because he chose not to pull a pull request changing two instances of "him" to "they"?

First, let me get it out of the way that I actually agree with the pull request. In this day, the personal pronoun "they" makes a more inclusive pronoun that just "him". Zed Shaw's suggestion of "you" is also a good alternative, particularly if you're wanting to be less formal.

That said, let me note that many of us were taught in school that using "he" here is the preferred pronoun. And that's just one reason why I can imagine why someone would reject this pull request. Because as much as I agree with the PR, I have the ability to conceive of other perspectives. We have no idea why Ben chose to reject the request.

1\. Maybe he thought it was incorrect grammar. I disagree, since there's a strong history of singular, third-person use of "they" in English. But it's what we were taught.

2\. Maybe he's overwhelmed with issues and pull requests, and thinks this is too trivial of a matter and doesn't want to encourage this kind of contribution to the project.

3\. I can think of about 3-4 other valid reasons, but I won't bore you.

Bottom line, this has all the characteristics of a witch hunt. Joyent is OK with taking away a man's livelihood because he chose not to accept a two-word commit, and one that didn't even deal with code? Not only that, but to publically call him an asshole?

I'm all for making small steps toward gender equality like this one, but calling someone who doesn't share that opinion vulgar names and wanting to fire them is an altogether inappropriate move.

<comment><USER34> I am just afraid there is going to be a retaliation against Ben. Remember what happened early this year at PyCon? Honestly, people need to stop acting like animals and stop bash him out. There are other contributors who can rule him out and we don't need those hash comments.

Sexism is not about woman. When we call a country "she" we are making a female description of what a country is: nurturing her citizens. And since there are more and more single fathers we should be allowed to call a nation "he" instead of "she".

I often write in HN with the phrase "but your average uncle joe..." and this is sexist. So one day I will be asked to write "your average auntie Mary" or better yet "your average consumer."

Freedom of press should be honored. If I were an author and I like to write with "he" instead of "they" I should have that freedom. Yes, the project is owned by contributors. So like I said, let other contributors rule him out.

And why do we have sexism in the first place? Because we all assume to have some roles in this society. Today women want the same rights that men do, but there are also rights that men don't get easily (or assume to have less). For example, raping a woman is a big crime but raping a man, have you ever heard of that? Sure. But to some people that's less severe than raping a woman. I am just stating the obvious. In some countries, raping a man is a less severe crime. And law is making a sexist decision.

I believe in people's performance over gender.

All points from either side will draw to the same root cause: we want to be superior. We want to demonstrate that we are superior. We don't really want to be equal, we just want to be superior. If you think about it a moment - that's really where sexism lies. Because there are fewer woman in engineering, we ought to demonstrate our success and ability too.

I have bias, yes, because I am a man. Who doesn't? But I see performance. My sister is very capable and more capable than I am. I always look up to her.

And yes, the solution is to make gender neutral but we are looping between anti-sexist and feminism. There is often a confusion between what a feminist, a sexist or an anti-sexist person would do... We need Yi-Yang logo here.

\-- EDIT --

I just thought this is a legitimate question to ask: any difference between an anti-sexist and a feminist? Do feminists prefer gender neutral or do they prefer to have "she" instead?

<comment><USER2> Saying "your average uncle joe" does not ring sexist to me? You're drawing a comparison, to whomever you want to, and not making any radical assumption about a specified group of people.

As for your rape anecdote... I hope you'll give the mechanics of that a bit more thought? And also consider the type of physical injury. (Many rape victims suffer damage to their internal organs and/or lose the ability to conceive.)

<comment><USER35> Male prison rape is a joking matter in many places. "Pound me in the ass prison" is well-known in the hacker community.

Think before you react.

<comment><USER2> To state the obvious: female rape jokes are everywhere, all the time. Both are terrible, of course.

<comment><USER35> Indeed. However, you tell a rape joke about women and someone _should_ (and very likely will) tell you that it's not funny.

Comments like,"Don't drop the soap," are so benign in our culture that you would have to be in a hypersensitized environment to be concerned about repercussions of any sort.

How many people feel as if justice is served when a male prisoner is raped to death, à la Jeffrey Dahmer. In fact, many would not call Dahmer's homicide a rape, but switching genders would absolutely qualify it as such.

I'm sounding as if I'm on a soapbox about this, but I'm not defending female rape in any way or the power imbalance of gender in most of the world.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Replace Your HTML with Webscript in Web Applications - <AUTHOR> https://mudgen.github.io/webscript/docs/ <comment><AUTHOR> I am the author of this new library. I am really interested in any feedback or questions.

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately I can't even see anything about the library because /webscript/docs/ renders as a completely blank white page. Viewing the source, it appears that an empty page _is_ the correct rendering because you aren't actually serving any content - the <body> tag is empty save for a few <script> tags!

Given the submission title I assume you have intentionally replaced the HTML content with some sort of Javascript based template and/or dynamic generation. Running Javascript has risks; if you want me to run your program written in a Turing complete language (which are inherently undecidable; see the halting problem), I need to have a reason to accept the risk of run an unknown program. A blank page doesn't count.

After looking briefly at app.js, it appears you are using a html-tag-like DSL (domain specific language) similar to HAML/Pug/Handlebars. This type of tool can make development a lot easier, but you need to render them server side! Send the client HTML, and progressively enhance into other features when they are supported!</comment></comment>


Screenhero (YC W13) Gives WebEx And Screen Sharing Apps A Run For Their Money - <AUTHOR> http://m.techcrunch.com/2013/02/11/screenhero-yc/

<comment><USER2> What are the chances you would make this an app work for UX research usability testing?

With the following needs:

2 users:

UX researcher (myself)

UX study participant

Requirements:

\- Easily send the app to a participant (via an email link) - (you do this?)

\- Share my screen with the participant - (You do this)

\- Give the participant access to mouse and keyboard - (You do this)

\- Allow me to talk to the partipant and the participant to talk to me (like Skpye) - @todo

\- Record the video of the session - @todo

\- Record my voice and the participants voice - @todo

\- Sharing is not laggy (like go to meeting)

Currently WebEx is the only app that can do all of the above (that I know of). I would love to stop using webEX. Participants find it impossible to get started.

<comment><USER3> Doesn't Morae do all of the things you listed as well? (Built specifically for the role you mention)

<comment><USER2> Morae is expensive and I don't trust the company that made camtasia, we found it to be very buggy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Protip: "Revolutionary" in the first 5 words of a video is a total turnoff. Just say who you are and what you do plainly. If you're revolutionary, your product will speak for itself. No need to tell people you're great.

<comment><USER5> Fair point. We wanted to express our excitement, but maybe it came off sort of generic. Our video is a work in progress-- thanks for the tip!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just tried this last week and have to say that I'm thoroughly impressed. Great work guys! Worked really smooth, even smooth enough for people to see animation hiccups in some apps we were building. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER7> Available for Mac. Windows coming soon.

Hmm.

</comment><comment><USER8> Curious about the whole "sharing apps" thing. Does this service violate any TOS with say, Microsoft Office?

</comment><comment><USER9> Anyone else getting a 404 for the dmg?

<comment><AUTHOR> Which page are you trying to get the DMG from? What link is it giving you? It's working for us from every page we've tried.

<comment><USER9> Hey sorry for being so slow on coming back to you - it's working now. Thanks so much for following up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So.... Anyone heard of teamviewer?

</comment><comment><USER11> Powwie is my hero! Congrats guys!

</comment><comment><USER12> Great work guys.

</comment><comment><USER13> _yawn_ <http://wwww.multimouse.com>

<comment><USER14> world wide web _whoops_ ... try <http://multimouse.com> ... also, looks like ScreenHero is for mac and coming to PC soon. Multimouse is for PC (Windows) only. So your yawn isn't so well placed, and really just makes you sound like an ass.

<comment><USER15> And still no-one covers the Linux desktop. Sadly, GoToMeeting is about the only thing keeping me from converting. And despite multiple attempts, I've not found a viable replacement.

<comment><USER10> Did someone say Teamviewer, no seriously. Just try it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How To Be Goliath In A David Market? - <AUTHOR>

What's your thoughts ?<p>Thanks! <comment><USER2> Could you explain what the question means? What is a "David market"?

<comment><AUTHOR> In enterprise, Apple is David. The Goliath in enterprise is Microsoft, and if Microsoft wants Apple's market in mobile enterprise, where apple is the Goliath and Microsoft is David, I would like to know the weaker side of these Goliaths, so that I can target them, All Goliaths will have some weak point where davids can target them, I see hundreds of startup companies around the world playing the role of David. Thanks!</comment></comment>


Ask: Do you still find any benefits in using handwriting? - <AUTHOR> Pros: Some say that because we write slower than we type, it allows for deeper thinking as opposed to faster thinking, which could be beneficial. Also, because it's harder to edit one is more careful while writing (deep thinking again). Privacy can be an advantage as well, one can keep handwritten notes private in a physical way.
We all know the pros of typing, easy editing/copying/email and overall functionality.
Discuss <comment><USER3> Meetings! I always make sure I have a pen/pencil and notebook/piece of paper when I show up for an in-person meeting.

Maybe it's just me, but if I'm trying to explain an idea to someone and they're busy tapping away at their keyboard it really bugs me. Are they making notes on what I'm saying? Or are they checking in on HN? Ditto for the rare occasion when I'm in a dull meeting with a laptop - it's really difficult for me not to browse my inbox should a message show up, and then I think about a reply, and then I'm lost...

I find physical handwritten notes in a meeting is less distracting for both the speaker and the listener.

<comment><USER4> Maybe it's just me, but if I'm trying to explain an idea to someone and they're busy scribbling away on their paper it really bugs me. Are they making notes on what I'm saying? Or are they doodling?

But really, I agree that handwritten notes can be less distracting. Interestingly, typing notes on a touch-screen tablet can be less distracting, and the single-app limitation helps avoid external distractions as well.

<comment><USER3> That's an interesting point about the tablets - I don't think that would bother me so much. Maybe my laptop paranoia is related to the screen being hidden... Not that I would (or probably could) look at someone else's screen as they type, but having a horizontal note taking surface seems less like you're hiding away from the conversation. Or maybe I'm just over thinking it now.

<comment><USER5> The tablet/phablet/even phone bothered me as much.

I had a manager always checking his emails when we we're in a meeting. It makes the meeting more painful for everyone involved, as the person you're talking too is focusing on something else.

Doodling or scribbling does not bother me, as if someone is doodling, either they don't need to be listening, or it helps them process the info.

As for someone typing the minutes of a meeting, you can easily tell if they are doing their job, or checking in on HN, so that doesn't bother me at all either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Whenever I see someone's good handwriting, I carry an instant good impression for the person. Throughout my school days, me and my friends used to compete how we can control our handwriting - trying out many wild ways - slants, curls, curves, et al ad we loved it. It was never academic but felt really good and satisfying. We've also seen other schools whose students had really good handwriting. Love them, appreciated them and we would secretly try to be better than them.

I guess that paid off in the long run. No many people really give much importance to handwriting, more so these days but I feel nice writing and still try to write as much as I can (always have few notebooks with me at all times + a bunch of pens and pencils). Besides the appreciations I usually get, I like the fact that people admire that I dedicate to writing too besides my involvement with technology and that I stayed in touch with the art of writing.

I'm trying to inculcate a similar habit with my kid - write beautiful, and master the intricacies of handwriting - it is lovely, sweet, sophisticated, classical and clean.

:-)

</comment><comment><USER7> I've taken notes in many math, engineering, and computer science classes, and after that I've attended many design meetings, schedule meetings, and brain storming sessions. In these settings typing doesn't work well and there is a distinct advantage in having good diagramming and math notation skills.

I find typing better for prose and prefer to program in a text editor.

I've had this discussion several times with the people running my children's schools (grade levels between 6 and 12). They have always been big on pushing technology in the schools and moving away from simple pen/pencil and paper.

My kids grew up with computers, iPads, and cell phones and so did virtually every other kid in these upper end schools. They didn't need to be pushed to use keyboards and didn't need instruction in typing, my daughter has typed faster than I can for years. But the schools, and many parents, were obsessed with the idea of being modern. I tried to explain that low resolution touch screens were inappropriate for taking math notes past simple fractions, but of course, I couldn't change their minds.

I felt the use of technology in the schools often hindered instruction and learning. Naturally, there is a place for it and I was happy that my senior was required to prepare her math projects using Sagemath and LaTeX.

<comment><USER8> _In these settings typing doesn 't work well and there is a distinct advantage in having good diagramming and math notation skills._

My take on this is that I can definitely type faster than I can write, so anytime I'm just trying to transcribe _words_ then I want to be on a computer. But, I have never found any setup on the computer that lets me draw pictures as easily and well as I can draw with pencil and paper. Maybe now that touchscreens are so ubiquitous that would be different, especially using a stylus or something. But there's still the issue of having to stop and fire up a separate program or something, and possibly dealing with having to do extra work to merge your written docs and your diagrams into one document.

* I tried to explain that low resolution touch screens were inappropriate for taking math notes past simple fractions, but of course, I couldn't change their minds.*

Yeah, math is another interesting area. I've tried taking notes in math classes using OpenOffice Math in the past, but I never got to a point where it felt natural. Mostly I still prefer pencil/paper for taking math notes, or doing "scratch work".

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm going to be incredibly unscientific here.

I think it depends on how well a person is able to translate intelligence into writing. Taking myself as an example: I am extremely bad at the written form - my intelligence significantly drops as soon as pen touches paper. However, I don't suffer this penalty with typing. It might have something to do with this:

> Some say that because we write slower than we type, it allows for deeper > thinking as opposed to faster thinking

I would say that I'm a subconscious thinker, I draw conclusions and don't always know why. I would rather rephrase that to:

> Some say that because we write slower than we type, it allows for deeper > thinking as opposed to _fluid_ thinking

Handwriting is better for deep thinkers, typing is better for fluid thinkers. To each his own. Maybe where you are going with this is that people aren't handwriting when they should be: I could really agree with that.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have an easier time remembering things I've written down.

Actually, that's not entirely correct: I remember more of the tohughts I had when writing something down. Which might actually be more important. (Except when those thoughts are "this is boring, please kill me")

<comment><USER11> I feel that the symbols we draw when we write on paper have more impact than pressing buttons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> when I write on paper I can instantaneously use scale, spacing, font size, font style, text orientation, illustration, flow charts and more to impart a lot more information into a space than I can do just bashing out on a keyboard, I love computers, I love paper too, I think a union is the best of both worlds but a portable paper equivalent is still a way off.

</comment><comment><USER13> We obviously type more than we write now, but I've always found the implicit suggestion of abandoning writing, or engaging in the hypothetical of having to pick only one, a bit of a pointless discussion. While it's not an exact analogy, I would say it's like walking and swimming. Both can get you somewhere, but just because we do one a lot more than the other doesn't mean we don't need both.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's true for our generation, but future generations might lose the hability to do both as we move to a 100% digital era.

<comment><USER13> That's kind of the reasoning I'm rejecting. In the year 1915, Americans could on average tie 100 knots (can't cite the source, but yes it was something I once read), and I'm sure many more were a bit more seafaring and horse riding. As we developed cars and planes and clips, all those skills have receded. They aren't gone, we can all tie our shoes and swim in a pool, but these are physical actions, I doubt we'll ever lose them. And yes, kids are dumb, but eventually they become adults who understand that writing has a place in their lives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I keep a small notepad and pen next to my keyboard. I write notes on it, but I rarely review them. The act of simply writing notes helps me remember them.

On a related note, BIC is actually doing PSA style radio ads and has a campaign website to "save handwriting": [http://bicfightforyourwrite.com/](http://bicfightforyourwrite.com/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Handwriting can have huge benefits. The NSA can't read it the instant you write it - in fact I don't think anyone can read mine except for me. I don't even need an key or passphrase to protect it.

<comment><USER8> _in fact I don 't think anyone can read mine except for me._

I have an even better setup - _nobody_ can read my handwriting, including me. So it's literally Write Only Memory. Not sure what the applications for this are though...

<comment><USER4> Often taking notes increases recall and understanding, rather than the value of simply having the notes. So the value is in the process of writing, rather than the written end product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think much more clearly when writing on paper than when typing at a keyboard. I can get into a mindset, and the pen and paper don't ever distract from my frame of mind. If I try to think through something at the keyboard, I often drift and my attention ends up on the machine itself.

I have no idea if this is by nature of the medium, or because I grew up in the 70's and 80's without consistent computer access until I was in my early teens. I also lived in a tent for a year, and wrote in a journal every night; I think that has influenced my writing mindset significantly.

So, if I'm very clear about what I want to write, I can use a keyboard. But if I'm still sorting through some ideas I'll grab a pen and paper. I even draft important emails with a pen and paper. Usually drafting a quick sketch or outline is enough, and I do the wordsmithing at the keyboard. Whenever I'm at a loss for words, though, I push the computer aside and sit quietly with a pen and paper for a little bit.

</comment><comment><USER17> Like others have mentioned, I still do handwriting in a notebook, mainly because it's easier to sketch a diagram with a pen and paper than it is to do it digitally.

Pros of handwriting/pen+paper:

        - Extremely high "resolution" (can fit a lot of information in a small space)
        - <USER2>
        - Direct input: tools rarely "get in the way"

Cons of handwriting/pen + paper:

        - Editing is cumbersome
        - Storage/retrieval is annoying (no search!)
        - Sharing/collaboration is not as good as digital

I'm still dreaming of something like the Microsoft Courier Concept [0]. We've gotten a lot closer since the concept came out (e.g., the MS Surface), but I think we're still not quite at the point where a digital notebook can feel just like paper + pen.

[0]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIgNfp- MdI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIgNfp-MdI)

</comment><comment><USER18> The constant need for combining text with small sketches makes pen and paper a useful tool. Less to do with handwriting, more with the flexibility pen and paper offers.

Write my diary by hand. Makes it pretty much unhackable and it's a good way to start the day. Habit I guess.

</comment><comment><USER19> > Some say that because we write slower than we type, it allows for deeper > thinking as opposed to faster thinking, which could be beneficial.

My understanding is that studies showing this apply primarily to _note taking_ , like in a class. When people take notes by typing they tend to copy what is said verbatim, whereas writing notes forces people to summarize and therefore internalize more of the information.

As for me, my handwriting is atrocious, I use it so rarely, and it's so much slower than typing for me that I get frustrated whenever I write things.

> because it's harder to edit one is more careful while writing...

Typing allows for easier editing and refinement, so I think it wins out overall :)

</comment><comment><USER11> Warning: All of below is anecdotal and non-scientific.

I think the benefits depend on what you are trying to achieve. I do some amateur poetry in two languages - English and Hindi+Urdu. In both cases, I have found that I lose my chain of thought if I am typing on computers (tried ipad, iphone also) than writing on a paper. The stream of thought is just much more fluid and connections are easier to capture while writing on paper. It could be that I wrote more as a child/teen than typed. There is something about mistakes on paper, you crossing them out by running a line through them. You do not lose what you wrote, but you know thats not what you wanted. So, it affirms where you want to go as well as what you do not want to write. I think the ability to edit and remove what was previously written makes me lose the chain of thoughts in this case and I have to start afresh.

I have also seen that when I write letters to people in the family and friends, I am generally more content in what I have written, even if something is scribbled or there are mistakes in it. Of course, that is personal and thus the value for me and the people who I send them to (well, I can hope).

Lastly, I write all my task list (esp. the big ones). I do not type them, not on my phone, not on my computer. A quick shopping list is a different thing but the goal-list is something on a paper for me or it never feels concrete.

</comment><comment><USER20> All through high school and most of college, I took notes on my laptop. Once I got into grad school, I gave that up and started taking notes in a notebook by hand; I was the only person in the CS department who took notes by hand, but it helped me to recall information, made it easier to review my notes later, and gave me the freedom to draw whatever diagrams I needed.

Also, writing notes on post-it notes or on a whiteboard are basically what makes completing any project that takes longer than a day possible for me.

</comment><comment><USER21> If I'm trying to pay attention to something I'll use a notepad to jot down a tiny note about whatever happens to pop into my head so I can get back to paying attention without my wandering thoughts distracting me. People probably expect I'm writing down something related to the conversation/meeting but often it is unrelated, it's just a trick to keep my mind from exploring while I want to stay focused -- I often don't look at what I wrote down afterwards. I learned this trick from a therapist.

I also journal, but the benefit of handwriting there is the opposite of what you've described -- I think harder when typing because I exercise the ability to edit, which is counterproductive to my goals when journaling. I journal to gain an understanding of what's happening in my head, not to produce a work of lasting value, so just writing down what comes to mind instead of spending a bunch of effort trying to perfect my thoughts does a better job of capturing this.

Finally, I also use a notepad when trying to think through a particularly sticky problem. The free form nature is liberating and being able to be physically separated from a computer is useful in cases where I badly want to dive right into implementing the solution but need some space to make sure I fully understand the problem first.

</comment><comment><USER22> Even though typing normal text is faster, noting by hand doesn't use as much brain resources so it's possible to listen and note at the same time. Keying occupies abstract mind to the point you cannot process words with the same depth of understanding. Thinking / designing is also MUCH easier in front of a plank page than in front of screen & keyboard.

Therefore I am working on an app for note taking:

A bit like if google docs had a baby with OneNote

\- vector graphics/drawings created by freehand / writing [http://write- live.com/d/dba21681-8d3f-4fbe-8b4b-e5c1983df934](http://write- live.com/d/dba21681-8d3f-4fbe-8b4b-e5c1983df934)

[http://write-live.com/d/8f9b7846-a7b9-4e5c-b704-dad9aa87d14e](http://write- live.com/d/8f9b7846-a7b9-4e5c-b704-dad9aa87d14e)

\- unlimited* levels of zoom [http://docs.write- live.com/WriteliveServer/webview.html?d=34...](http://docs.write- live.com/WriteliveServer/webview.html?d=3483c3de-b329-4af1-97d7-2d7f27d96ad1)

\- draw on a tablet, view on tablet / web [http://write- live.com/d/538254c5-7d31-41f2-83bb-bcd0a7cee7ab](http://write- live.com/d/538254c5-7d31-41f2-83bb-bcd0a7cee7ab)

</comment><comment><USER23> Not really. I took notes by hand in my engineering classes in college, and on my laptop in my non-engineering electives (where I didn't need to write equations or draw diagrams). I didn't notice a significant benefit to handwriting in understanding the material. I still had to spend time reviewing my engineering notes afterward. If anything it was possibly more distracting trying to maintain legibility and neatness on top of paying attention to the prof.

</comment><comment><USER24> I use notebooks and pens for all of my note-taking.

Pulling out a laptop is too slow, cumbersome, and not practical in all situations. My notebooks are slim and discreet.

My notebooks do not need to be recharged.

My notebooks are designed to hold ink and can last for hundreds of years in the right conditions. Physics won't change much in that time. Computers and file formats will.

My notebooks can be easily recycled when I do not wish to keep them anymore. My laptop is expensive to recycle and there is a non-trivial amount of materials within it that are not recoverable and must simply be stored somewhere...

A pen and paper is the most intuitive interface we have for recording thought. It's entirely free-form and adapts to how I wish to use it without any programming or maintaining complicated digital formats. It exists as a single artifact.

I won't be interrupted mid-stream by a hardware failure, power-outage and I won't lose my work to corruption.

My notebook doesn't phone home to the NSA (yet) or the cloud.

With a good method of organization I can find my notes without much difficulty. Sure I can tag, search, and sort through the streams of bytes I write out on a disk but I rarely find use for such functionality. I'm sure I can keep a database of my books if this becomes an issue.

My thoughts exist in a physical artifact. This gives me a sense of permanence and will certainly leave evidence of my passing when I'm gone. Someone will have to pick up that stack of books and do something with it. Digital files can simply be deleted. Time-stamps and some bytes in an archive don't seem to have the same effect.

</comment><comment><USER25> For solving complex problems, yes.

On my own personal projects, I get very limited time. For these, I go straight to the keyboard and put in as many characters as I can.

However, every now and then I come across something beyond simple. Going in without a well designed plan ends up costing me time. Here, I take out my notebook and start sketching diagrams. I've tried this with various digital alternatives, but analog still works best for me.

</comment><comment><USER26> For anything important, I take notes and draw by hand, and I don't print (never learned how to, due to a slightly unusual upbringing, and all previous attempts to learn have ended with a mash of cursive and unjoined lettering since I'm so damned slow at printing), I write in cursive. No tablet, as of yet, has been able to replicate the feel of pencil on paper in a pleasing fashion; nor (and this is the important part) can a filesystem replicate flipping through a notebook of engineering grid paper to get to the topic I want.

Also, despite ~20 years of typing practice, for coding and other reasons, my handwriting is still an order of magnitude faster than my typing (I can see how people who only print would have slower handwriting, though, certainly). I don't use shorthand or anything, just if I want to get my thoughts down fast and accompany them with a sketch and/or reference them later, they must be handwritten.

I'd never code on paper, however; that's a terrifying thought. I definitely take notes and whatnot if needed on paper or on a whiteboard while coding in a text editor, though.

</comment><comment><USER27> One strange benefit I have found for note taking on paper has nothing to do with technology or memory or privacy.

I have noticed that when I am discussing a project or issue with someone and I take notes about what they are saying, they feel notably more confident and happy with me, going so far as to report to my superiors how they appreciate that I'm doing it.

While I may or may not ever refer back to the notes I take, it clearly imbues the benefit of making the other party feel important. That's very useful to me.

We only get push-back on having laptops up during meetings; there seems to be a perception that it is distracting to the meeting. However, there are times when taking typed notes is superior to hand-writing (and vice-versa), researchers suspect. [0]

[0] [http://www.fastcompany.com/3044907/work-smart/how-typing- is-...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3044907/work-smart/how-typing-is- destroying-your-memory)

</comment><comment><USER28> Many times I prefer hand-writing because it's likely I need to add some kind of sketch (drawing, diagram, etc).

</comment><comment><USER29> Most of the time I'm typing, but definitely yes! I mean, just ask these guys! [http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-29/mathematicians- mourn-l...](http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-06-29/mathematicians-mourn-loss- their-dream-chalk)

</comment><comment><USER30> Hell yes. Except when writing long documents keyboard it is, of course.

However, I find retrieval and sketching, not to speak of mathematical formulas and diagramming, much easier from a physical notebook.

I've not yet found a digital medium superior to that of a physical notebook for doing 'notebooklike' things.

<comment><USER31> I think OneNote does a great job of replacing my notepad. I use it to take notes on everything I learn and might need for later. Great for documenting processes and throwing lots of screenshots into. Way easier to find things later then some random page in my notebook.

I also use it for a daily log of my tasks and what I need to accomplish. Used to use a notebook for both these things, but I find it easier/faster to jump into onenote and back into what i am working on then

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I still write a variety of things. I've found it improves my ability to recall the things I write

> Some say that because we write slower than we type, it allows for deeper > thinking as opposed to faster thinking, which could be beneficial. Since > writing takes longer, I tend to mull over what I'm trying to communicate and > condense it. This is likely why I remember it better. However ....

> because it's harder to edit one is more careful while writing Absolutely > not! Given a half pages written text I would likely have no less than a > dozen clear markups where I revised or edited a thought.

I certainly don't want to write everything, or produce professional quality hand-written text, but I find benefit in actually writing things down

</comment><comment><USER33> I do. The direct interaction with the pen, the aspect of drawing helps me immensely: I can pull that _image_ from my memory much easier. Therefore, if I need to remember something, I'll write it down, instead of typing it.

Also, for communicating I find writing/drawing (whiteboard) a very handy tool (in the toolshed). There is the potential problem of bad handwriting, but I fix that by forcing myself to not being hasty.

Finally, there is the aspect of authenticity; that seems to be important: Many cafés and shops arguably use it to appear more humane.

The carefulness aspect I don't see myself. I can think while typing, whereas while writing my attention seems to be caught more by the task at hand.

</comment><comment><USER34> I tend to program with a pen and a pad of graph paper at my side.

I tend to program in a 'distraction-free mode', where my IDE covers the whole screen. I still need a place to take notes, to hold my to-do list, and to make simple diagrams of dependencies.

</comment><comment><USER35> There was a discussion where most people prefer physical books for technical books where as ebook for pleasure book.

With physical book I write in the margin, for more explanation, clarification, or errata that I believe the book may have.

</comment><comment><USER36> I find that when I write things down, even if I never go back to my notes, I remember and process the information in much greater capacity. Sometimes at SCRUM I'll even write down other people's updates that I deem important just to solidify the information better. It doesn't help that my handwriting from the time of High School was virtually unintelligible which caused me to adopt fountain pens and a form of cursive which fixed it somewhat.

</comment><comment><USER37> Sure, for quick sketches and formulas. Also I use pen and paper for collaboration a lot. I would love to replace pen and paper to something digital, but it would still be handwriting. Is there any good touch interface where I can input subscript and superscript heavy formulas (like tensor algebra)? The touch interfaces and styluses that I tried were quite poor for this kind of precision, I didn't try any recent one though.

</comment><comment><USER38> The main benefit to me is accessibility. I have a notepad I like to keep with me, so I can take and review my notes no matter where I am without lugging my computer around and fumbling with the power cord.

Writing things by hand is just generally more pleasant too. There's no pain involved with writing, while I've never found a setup for typing on a computer that doesn't cause some level of wrist or shoulder pain.

</comment><comment><USER39> The main advantages of hand-writing for me (and I noticed this a lot when I was going through The Artists Way), was that it slowed me way down (my mind would try to race past how fast I could write but I would have to remain present), and also that I would entirely focused on the task, because Facebook or another website wasn't just a click away.

</comment><comment><USER40> so for weekly planning I surely use paper. I use a pad sort of designed for this and then modify it slightly to make it last longer: [http://imgur.com/vmoQhYG,6RKCKV7,EqJgFLr,6fJgCn3](http://imgur.com/vmoQhYG,6RKCKV7,EqJgFLr,6fJgCn3)

For projects, future ideas, thoughts of things I might do some day, I use a notebook and designate a few pages per item. I also click in pages, printouts, etc for that idea to remind me of things.

[http://imgur.com/vmoQhYG,6RKCKV7,EqJgFLr,6fJgCn3#1](http://imgur.com/vmoQhYG,6RKCKV7,EqJgFLr,6fJgCn3#1)

[http://imgur.com/vmoQhYG,6RKCKV7,EqJgFLr,6fJgCn3#2](http://imgur.com/vmoQhYG,6RKCKV7,EqJgFLr,6fJgCn3#2)

[http://imgur.com/vmoQhYG,6RKCKV7,EqJgFLr,6fJgCn3#3](http://imgur.com/vmoQhYG,6RKCKV7,EqJgFLr,6fJgCn3#3)

</comment><comment><USER41> One of the best things I did for myself is to buy a copy of Write Now and improve my handwriting.

I can't think of a faster way of combining drawings and thoughts than paper and pencil.

Now I just need to teach myself shorthand to minimize the speed difference between typing and handwriting.

</comment><comment><USER42> What You Miss When You Take Notes on Your Laptop:

[https://hbr.org/2015/07/what-you-miss-when-you-take-notes- on...](https://hbr.org/2015/07/what-you-miss-when-you-take-notes-on-your- laptop)

</comment><comment><USER43> All the time.

The days of long-form writing are definitely over, but I think noting things down will remain a constant for many years to come.

For me, I find it helps me think more abstractly and plan my thoughts better, because it's just more fluid to scribble ideas down.

</comment><comment><USER44> I write my daily task list in a small Moleskine every day. I can't add or remove items like I can with a digital task list, and I'm stuck looking at it on that page for the rest of the week, so I'm often reminded to finish it.

</comment><comment><USER45> Here is a video about a Master Penman, describing his experience and the benefits of writing by hand.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvSyQDu49pI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvSyQDu49pI)

</comment><comment><USER46> A pencil and a blank piece of paper can do so much more than just write individual words. I can get an idea down faster with paper, and those diagrams are more descriptive (easier to pick up again in 2 weeks).

</comment><comment><USER47> I like to keep notebooks, but usually for personal notes. For work, it can be useful for situations when it's important to establish rapport (meetings, interviews)

</comment><comment><USER48> No. It's getting worse and worse.

Tho the quality of the thinking when hand-writing and when typing is different. For that, currently, it is irreplaceable.

</comment><comment><USER49> i still use a notepad for my daily tasks and random note taking. i feel like there's not a single good note taking app for phones -- most of the don't sync to other platforms or, when they sync, the interface is god awful (i'm looking at you evernote and your editor that works like shit).

also, i feel like whenever i write something, it's easier to remember.

</comment><comment><USER50> I'm way faster at typing and it's a constant distraction writing it on paper and going back to my thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER51> I've tried pretty much every to-do app out there and none of them beats a sheet of paper next to my keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER52> I always architect things first on paper. Can't beat it to draw diagrams and things alike.</comment>


Javascript encryption - <AUTHOR> http://www.vincentcheung.ca/jsencryption/

<comment><USER2> John Walker made that already at least 6 years ago:

<http://www.fourmilab.ch/javascrypt/>

Moreover, Walker's code is public domain and he discusses security aspect, whereas the op link appears not to care about such things.

<comment><USER3> Similarly with Movable-Type's implementation: <http://www.movable- type.co.uk/scripts/aes.html>

<http://www.movable-type.co.uk/> contains several very useful resources for implementing JS crypto.

<comment><USER4> ... which, implementing JS crypto, you should never do.

<comment><USER3> If your goal is to share state secrets, then no, I wouldn't suggest using JS for crypto.

If your goal is to no longer be low hanging fruit for attackers, then yes, I would recommend it.

<comment><USER4> The terminus of your argument admits to using ROT13 as a cipher. Surely there's some attacker ROT13 bars. While you're at it, Base64 the "ciphertext". There are professional pentesters that can't recognize Base64 on sight! And if you want to get really tricksy, swap the Base64 alphabet around. That'll hoist that fruit up higher.

In reality, no credible cryptosystem accepts the flaws I'm talking about.

<comment><USER5> That's true, but I'm not sure everyone should be quite so defeatist as you with respect to implementing crypto. It has and can be done, after all, it just requires care beyond "hey, my PHP script outputs some HTML." The same goes for many, many aspects of programming: design, object lifecycle, memory allocation, error handling, etc. Programming is hard, and implementing crypto is no different. The difference is that mistakes are not immediately obvious and that they can be severe. But that, again, is the case with many things.

<comment><USER6> If there's anything I've learned so far after observing the security world for a few years, it's that implementing crypto is _very_ different. I think that this mindset from programmers -- "crypto is just like programming" -- is what causes them to constantly, and almost without fail, screw up their password storage systems, their authentication mechanisms, their crypto functions, and pretty much everything else security-related.

Software development in general tolerates (and in some ways even encourages) "acceptable risk". Programmers don't often try to _prove_ that their functions are correct and free of any potential errors. In security-related programming, you can't take the same approach.

Implementing crypto is very, very different. If you're "iterating" the design of your crypto functions, you're doing it wrong.

<comment><USER5> The reason people screw up password storage is because they don't know they are supposed to think about it. If they flipped the "oh, this is important" switch, the result would be better. But at the end of the day, their bosses are asking them for shiny widgets, not a secure backend. So they are doomed to fail.

The same goes for the non-security things I've listed. The problem is much deeper than getting crypto wrong -- most programmers today get _everything_ wrong. That's why I think if you're the type of person that can think about programming, it's not too unsafe to implement AES in Javascript and use it. You know what the weaknesses of Javascript-based crypto are, and you know how to implement crypto. In that case, why not do it?

Remember: most non-crypto software is massively incorrect. If we can trust people to implement crypto, why can we trust them to be programmers at all?

<comment><USER6> I think I see where you're coming from, but I still disagree: I've seen way too many examples of otherwise competent programmers still stuck on, for instance, the notion of using salts with fast hash functions for password storage. Hell, MtGox had a post just the other day about their all-new _triple-salted SHA256 password storage!_ Somewhere that day, there was a faint groan from the dismally small set of people who are knowledgeable in password storage and are interested enough in Bitcoin to have read about that.

The difference between bugs in non-crypto software and bugs in crypto software is that bugs in crypto software can have much more severe and far-reaching consequences. So, while I might trust a programmer to write decent non-crypto software, I would prefer not to trust them with writing crypto software.

edit: actually, there's more to it than that, on second thought. Crypto also requires a greater depth and breadth of expertise. The math knowledge required for general programming is trivial by comparison; about the worst it usually gets is vector-based math, or simple calculus, or big-O notation. But to understand crypto well enough to implement it correctly requires a much greater knowledge of mathematics -- something which most programmers don't have.

> _You know what the weaknesses of Javascript-based crypto are, and you know > how to implement crypto. In that case, why not do it?_

Because I (the rhetorical "I" in this case) know what the weaknesses of JavaScript-based crypto are. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Relevant: [http://rdist.root.org/2010/11/29/final-post-on-javascript- cr...](http://rdist.root.org/2010/11/29/final-post-on-javascript-crypto/)

The killer for me has always been #7 on Nate Lawson's list: Auditability. How do you tell that your browser is using the right copy of the code to do the crypto?

<comment><USER8> This is an excellent article on this subject. The author (Nate Lawson) is thorough in his argument. His conclusion is "I am certain JS crypto does not make security sense."

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Could anyone explain what's the use case for encrypting text on a web page using JavaScript? I don't understand how this library is useful except for situation when used in Chrome extensions like the one used by LastPass.

If this lib is used on a page to decrypt/encrypt user data before sending to the server, theoretically it's possible for the host to steal private key simply by injecting a JS code that copies user's private key.

<comment><USER4> It's worse than that. Among many other things, it's possible for any attacker with an XSS bug in any component of the DOM of that page (cached or fetched fresh) to steal keys. Modern browsers provide no way to verify the whole JS runtime to ensure that no function that your crypto depends on has been backdoored, but every JS implementation allows functions to be overridden.

It's the worst possible environment to implement crypto in, and you should never do it.

<comment><USER9> XSS is in your own control (as a site owner/developer), and it is less likely to happen than the user machine being infested with malware to begin with. And the malware infestation threat has never stopped anyone from advocating native (non-browser) crypto, right?.

<comment><USER6> Your argument here looks like, "other things have vulnerabilities, and JavaScript has vulnerabilities, so it is equivalent to other mechanisms."

If that is your argument, then the conclusion is wrong, because JavaScript implementations are vulnerable to everything that everything else is vulnerable to, _and then some_.

There is _nothing_ that a JavaScript implementation actually protects you from.

<comment><USER9> That's not my argument at all. My argument is that the probability of a well- designed site having XSS (p1) is much less than that of a user's machine being infested (p2). When you start using both, as you say, we end up with compound probability of a breach p1+p2, which is strictly worse than p2, but if p1<<p2 we are not losing much to begin with, and it maybe justified if we're gaining as much or more elsewhere.

In other words, global optimization may require local pessimization.

E.g. if we gave the user ability to store secret data without the key ever leaving his possession, he might be more likely to use the service and stop storing his secrets in a notepad file. However if we don't guarantee that the key will not leave the user's possession, the user may decide not to use the service.

<comment><USER6> > _...and it maybe justified if we're gaining as much or more elsewhere._

Except that, in terms of real security, we aren't. That's the whole point. You're right in describing it in the way you did, but then you get to this point where there's this implicit assumption that JavaScript-based crypto gains you something. Which, maybe, leads into your next point...

> _E.g. if we gave the user ability to store secret data without the key ever > leaving his possession, he might be more likely to use the service and stop > storing his secrets in a notepad file._

OK, but this is a different problem. The _correct_ solution here is a true client-side app or a browser add-on (and even then ... ehhhh). Otherwise -- and this is a point that I don't feel like I can emphasize enough -- you are giving your users a completely false sense of security. You're selling a service by saying that "we'll store your secrets for you and you don't even have to ever give us your key, so it's more secure than keeping them in a notepad file", but that's demonstrably false.

> _However if we don't guarantee that the key will not leave the user's > possession, the user may decide not to use the service._

Also a different problem. _You can't sell security this way._ All you're doing is taking advantage of people's ignorance. If everybody understood the security risks of JavaScript-implemented crypto, and you sold _the same service_ \-- "we use JS so you never have to share your keys" -- then the users would decide not to use the service!

To reiterate:

1\. Server-side encryption is a real protection from accidental or malicious data leaks (db dumps);

2\. SSL is a real protection from MITM and eavesdropping (mostly, with caveats);

3\. If the server software gets compromised, you're pooched no matter what.

So, again: JavaScript solves _none_ of these problems.

The only thing that JavaScript does, is add more problems.

<comment><USER9> >You're selling a service by saying that "we'll store your secrets for you and you don't even have to ever give us your key, so it's more secure than keeping them in a notepad file", but that's demonstrably false.

Now, aren't you getting carried away? Physical loss of a laptop will compromise the notepad file, but not the client-side encrypted data. Malware on the laptop will compromise the notepad file 100%, but any crypto-based solution will only be compromised if it's been used during that time. Fire/flood/theft will deprive the user of his secrets altogether.

Seriously, are you claiming that a notepad file is more secure than a server- based storage with client or server encryption? That's an extraordinary claim.

<comment><USER6> Yes, I am making that claim.

Especially since:

1\. That notepad file can be encrypted on the laptop; and

2\. "Web app" programmers so often get security really wrong. This entire thread is just one of a huge number of examples of that.

Honestly, any hosted solution that relied on JS for encryption or authentication would encourage me to keep storing secrets in text files on my laptop.

Here's a fun, easy way to understand why hosted solutions are rarely a good idea for storing private data:

\- Make a chart with four columns;

\- Column 1 is "Unencrypted local storage"; column 2 is "encrypted local storage"; column 3 is "remote storage with JavaScript encryption"; column 4 is "remote storage with SSL + server-side encryption";

\- Under each column, write down a list of every method you can think of that that particular system could be broken. Take your time and be creative.

\- Cross out any methods that all of the columns have in common.

\- Compare the results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Be careful: if you are using a javascript library to encrypt data, you get protection from eavesdroppers, but not from man-in-the-middle attacks. If I can alter data that you send/receive over the wire, I can simply modify your aes function calls to xor the data with a predictable sequence that I generate. The only way to prevent this that I have thought of is to store the site (which has presumably already been acquired over a secure channel) locally on the client's machine, and make AJAX calls over the encrypted channel for fresh content.

<comment><USER6> > *...if you are using a javascript library to encrypt data, you get > protection from eavesdroppers..."

Nope. Replay attacks. Piece of cake.

The number of things that JavaScript does better than SSL is 0.

<comment><USER10> I don't think you know what you are talking about. If your authentication is implicit in the decryption of the messages, replaying that data will accomplish nothing.

For example, if I share a secret "password" with my server, I can do this in javascript using any symmetric cipher:

        ToServer: "My name is oconnore"
        ToClient: cipher(iv1, "(C1) Hi oconnore. Use this! iv2=rng()"++msghash, "password")
        ToServer: cipher(iv2, "(C2) Thanks, give me my data please!"++msghash, "password")
        ToClient: cipher(iv3, "(C3) <Some data>, and iv4=rng()"++msghash, "password")
        ...

If an attacker repeats any of these messages, the client/server will discard them based on the counter. Of course, for real use you would need to use public key crypto to avoid storing passwords in what is essentially plaintext, but I thought this would illustrate how replay attacks are a non issue.

Of course, as noted before, all this is irrelevant if you are sending your code over a channel vulnerable to MITM...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What does this offer over SJCL?

And for those asking in the thread, JS encryption is useful in that you never have to trust a server with your plaintext.

<comment><USER12> If you are running javascript on a page from a server, you are trusting the server with your plaintext.

<comment><USER13> Seems like browser extensions would be the way to go.

Here's the SJCL demo: <http://bitwiseshiftleft.github.com/sjcl/demo/>

<comment><USER14> SJCL has a bug in their RSA implementation. We're using a good bit of their code with a few changes for our web client. The idea being that we don't want to store passwords, so the webclient stores an encrpyted private key and everything sent to the server must be signed.

The users id is a sha256 hash of their public key and all we keep are the public keys.

Working so far in FF and Chrome, not even trying it in IE

<comment><USER15> Are you at liberty to disclose what you're using this for? i'm interested in learning about legitimate use cases for SJCL.

<comment><USER14> The auth system for a stock/asset exchange.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Looks like a nice implementation. But I would feel more comfortable if it had some tests to show that the AES test vectors all pass.

</comment><comment><USER17> Snakeoil</comment>


Reinventing the Small Wind Turbine - <AUTHOR> https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/06/small-wooden-wind-turbines.html <comment><USER2> previous: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20071836](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20071836)

</comment><comment><USER3> Hit archive.org so we don't run the batteries down... [https://web.archive.org/web/20190718210140/https://solar.low...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190718210140/https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/06/small- wooden-wind-turbines.html)

(For real, it's running on solar with a battery backup: [https://web.archive.org/web/20190714175801/https://solar.low...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190714175801/https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/power.html))

</comment><comment><USER4> Version without needlessly butchered images:

[https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/06/small-wooden-wind- tu...](https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/06/small-wooden-wind- turbines.html)

<comment><USER5> For reference, the reason they serve low-quality images is explained here: [https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/09/how-to-build-a- low...](https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/09/how-to-build-a-lowtech- website/)

<comment><USER6> It's literally virtue signaling. They're reducing quality in a highly inefficient way because it's more conspicuous than doing it the sensible way (compressing their highly wasteful PNG images as JPEG). You can compress the images to _smaller_ than their dithered images with perfectly acceptable quality (and it wouldn't surprise me if it used less energy to decode too, because JPEG decoders are so heavily optimized). But if they did that nobody would be able to see how "eco-friendly" they were.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think true, and the other part is also pretty far fetched.

But the folks who run that website are the real deal and not "virtue signalers." They're running experiments and creating great content, not trying to get some social currency you hypothesize.

If you'd can demonstrate data suggesting a better encoding, they'll redo the pictures. They optimized for size.

<comment><USER6> Small (non-expanded) color images: total 4.6M

Dithered images: total 284K (but it's only showing 9 images, not the full 11)

Small images, resized from the big source images using Imagemagick's -distort resize (default settings) operator to 16bit per channel PNG, then encoded to JPEG with mozjpeg -quality 70 and default settings: 273K with all 11 images, or only 236K if I make it a fair comparison by deleting the two that are missing from the dithered version.

My JPEG encodings: [https://imgur.com/a/Gi12HRl](https://imgur.com/a/Gi12HRl)

There are visible artifacts, but nothing I'd call intolerable. Filesize is significantly smaller than the dithered versions, it's full color, and it preserves details destroyed by the dithering (e.g. the support wires in [https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/wood-turbines- nepa...](https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/dithers/wood-turbines-nepal.png) ). The dithered versions are sharper, but the website throws away that advantage by resizing them with the browser's default resizing. I think most people would call the re-encoded JPEG versions higher quality than the dithered versions.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're not here to convince me, you should explain it to them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "To make a comment, please send an e-mail to solar (at) lowtechmagazine (dot) com." \- seems about right.

</comment><comment><USER8> What can we do about the noise pollution? Last time I was around a windmill the bigger one made an annoying woosh-whop noise and the small ones an annoying high pitched noise. Fixing the noise will help getting them accepted in more urban areas.

<comment><USER9> The noise mainly comes from the tip of the rotor blade [1]. Reducing the noise from these tips is an active research topic and some progress is established [2]. However, it seems difficult to maintain high efficiency when attempting to reduce the noise levels. In any case, scientists and engineers are trying to tackle it!

[1] "Noise Pollution Prevention in Wind Turbines: Status and Recent Advances", [https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/6/1104](https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/4/6/1104)

[2] "Reduction of Wind Turbine Noise Using Optimized Airfoils and Trailing- Edge Serrations", [https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.38888](https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/1.38888)</comment></comment>


Microsoft's Kinect: The New Mouse? - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/microsofts-kinect-the-new-mouse/?ref=technology <comment><USER2> I'm I the only one concerned about concentrated pin-point beams of UV light being shined into my eyes for hours-on-end when using Kinect? I know we can't _see_ the UV light, but that doesn't mean it can't hurt our optical wetware, right?

If it were in our visible spectrum, how bright would it be? As bright as a flashlight shining in our eyes? Brighter than that? Less bright?

Obviously I know not what I talk about and this is all FUD, but I haven't seen it addressed anywhere.

<comment><USER3> I think they are using IR, not UV.

<comment><USER4> Indeed it is IR, [http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/11/tonights-release- xbox...](http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/11/tonights-release-xbox-kinect- how-does-it-work/).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Kinect is a very interesting piece of technology. Because it is REAL. You can buy it, you can use it. Of course, it is not the end of the mouse and keyboard as we know today, because it is just the first step, but it is here, not just a prototype in some lab.

That said, I don't think it will replace mouse and keyboard, because the way we interact with our computer is based on the periphery, the mouse and keyboard. Without mouse buttons, we can't click on something that good (there are possibilities for clicking with a gesture, but it sucks, at least at the moment). We can't type text with gestures, perhaps we have to dance letters? :) So in order to use motion based computer interaction on a daily basis, we need to invent some new interface link between the computer and our body. The Kinect is a very first but also a very good step in the right direction, because it is here, it is open, and it is not too expensive to use it. And it is a lot of fun to play with :)

</comment><comment><USER6> Not this kinect, because it reduces the human hand to a stumpy block. No recognition or awareness of fingers. Pretty understandable.

However, this means that I can't yet point at my projector and snap my fingers to send a mouse click or other signal. I have to wave my other arm or shout.

When they crack this, then we will see some really amazing UIs.

</comment><comment><USER7> I believe the "new mouse" is not gesture-based control like the Kinect, but rather eye tracking such as tobii.com. Gesture-based control is great for certain things like controlling a TV or similar, but simple fatigue will be the problem in using it for more "typical" computing scenarios. Just try and stretch your arms in front of you for two minutes, you'll see what I mean. Eye-tracking on the other hand, can very well be used for standard computer use, and it's an amazing (dare I say magical) way of interacting with a computer. This is given the right software naturally, as a standard eye- tracked mouse cursor is not really that great. In any case, the next 5-10 years will be interesting in terms of UI and peripheral development.

</comment><comment><USER8> I don't understand all the hype. The playstation eyetoy had similar functionality (as far as I can tell - not having tried the kinect) at least two years ago. Is it really that much better?

<comment><USER9> There are significant technological differences. EyeToy is primarily a camera. Kinect is a camera coupled with two IR emitters that project a dot pattern on the room. The presence of the dot pattern and Kinect's ability to interpret the dot pattern projection on to 3-dimensional surfaces drastically improves the Kinect's "perception" of a 3D environment when compared with EyeToy. EyeToy relies primarily on motion detection algorithms that interpret a composite, 2D image.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> _Microsoft views Xbox-Kinect as a potentially big, new technology platform that others build on, extending its reach and reinforcing its value — a rerun of the Windows-Office story._

</comment><comment><USER11> So Microsoft finds itself with a surprise hit on its hands and the marketing machine goes into overdrive.

I guess it's fortunate that our schools are broke. It's the only thing that would prevent them from wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on Kinects. It's obvious they would revolutionize how teachers teach students cursive writing skills.

Just think, gym teachers could insure that every student has a fluid jump shot.

</comment><comment><USER12> So how long until they are integrated into displays then?</comment>


Psst Need the Answer to No. 7 on the Physics Exam? Click Here. - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/education/18cram.html?_r=1&hp <comment> barry-cotter Summary: There are a ton of sites based on helping students study/cram for college. Some professors don't like it because they can't reuse the exact same questions over and over again every year. Others think it's more or less an extension of a study group, and if there's a problem with people just copypasting answers and such it can be got around by placing less weight on assignments/homework and more on exams, where they really do test just what you actually know.

/summons lawyer Apparently one of the sites Cramster, offers worked solutions for even numbered problems (free) and odd numbered (pay $9.95 a month unless you add content yourself) This seems legally dubious to me, on the basis that it's derivative work, like fanfic, so I imagine if one of the big university presses or publishing houses went after them they'd have to pull all that.</comment>