Saab wins Brazil jets deal after NSA spying sours Boeing bid - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/18/brazil-jets-idUSL2N0JX17W20131218 <comment><USER2> Claiming that the NSA scandal is the primary reason for the Saab win is an overly US-centric view.

While there's evidence that Boeing's chances were hurt by the NSA revelations, it's not true that Boeing was a clear favourite. Both Saab and Dassault had presented strong bids and were considered serious contenders, particularly as both offered much higher industrial participation and technology sharing than Boeing and as such had the support of Brazil's aviation industry. That cannot be underestimated, and it's why Boeing was at a disadvantage even before the NSA story broke.

The Saab Gripen met Brazil's FX-2 requirements, it has a lower operating cost than the Rafale or Super Hornet, Saab has agreed to transfer a massive amount of technology and Sweden has committed to investigate a quid pro quo acquisition of Brazilian KC-390 tanker transports. Boeing could not match all that.

<comment><USER3> _Claiming that the NSA scandal is the primary reason for the Saab win is an overly US-centric view._

From TFA: "Until earlier this year, Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet had been considered the front runner... "The NSA problem ruined it for the Americans," a Brazilian government source said on condition of anonymity."

Does it remain a "US-centric view" when _Brazil_ is the party saying, "Because NSA"?

<comment><USER4> Not exactly, but consider that Brazil gains leverage simply by saying Boeing was in the running, even if they weren't. e.g., Brazil wants the NSA gone, but they don't have any means to apply the necessary pressure. Point at an already failed Boeing deal, and tada, now you have a pressure point.

Or possibly Brazil had promised to go with Boeing, but recently decided Saab was a better deal. Backing out would cost them whatever political capital is traded in smoky rooms. Now they can point to the NSA and save face.

International relations are complicated.

<comment><USER5> It's always surprising to me when people believe anonymous government sources, when the statement is in that governments interest. Government personnel are paid to act and speak in their governments interest, which includes lying, exaggerating, provoking, etc., and in my experience when that source is anonymous and when the statement is advantageous to that governments interests it's probably not true, or not the whole truth. It lets that government publicly disavow knowledge of the potentially inflammatory statement (we don't want to hurt US relations!), while simultaneously telling the opposite story with deniability (we want our citizens to think well gladly hurt US relations!).

For all we know this "leak" is being used to legitimize something else entirely, perhaps the Brazilian military is unhappy withy the decision and this story exists to deflect criticisms from domestic sources: we picked the unpopular aircraft because the NSA would use Boeings aircraft to spy on us. Or we want to send a message, etc.

Welcome to world politics, where the truth is rarely what people say it is.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, the Brazilian military had openly declared the Saab Gripen as their favorite after months of technical studies and tests.

On the other hand, the NSA spying on Brazil's president and on some large companies (sign of a commercial use of NSA's resources, not just defense as is otherwise claimed) may have contributed to the souring of some relations used to lobby for Boeing, therefore weakening it's position and enabling Saab to break the deadlock.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The French bid was turned down by the President herself after major set backs in the current France-Brazil partnership building a nuclear submarine for the Brazilian Navy.

Not mentioned here is the fact that old conspiracy theories surrounding the explosion that destroyed the Alcantara launch pad and killed the cream of the crop of the Brazilian space program, have recently been resurrected and it's believed plausible by some members of the Brazilian government although not widely publicized. Some blame the French for possible sabotaging it.

Over the years the Brazilian secret service (ABIN), have arrested several French spies around Alcantara - the latest case was that a French spy posing as kitesurf instructor. Other cases include water buoys found at sea near the Air Base loaded with electronics, also blamed on the French.

EDIT: added a few sources (sorry portuguese only)

[http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/poder/137424-suspeita-de- sa...](http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/poder/137424-suspeita-de-sabotagem- fez-brasil-investigar-franceses-em-alcantara.shtml)

[http://www.metro.org.br/jose_alves/os-cacas-militares-e- as-b...](http://www.metro.org.br/jose_alves/os-cacas-militares-e-as-boias-de- alcantara)

[http://jornalpequeno.com.br/2013/11/22/governo-confirma- cont...](http://jornalpequeno.com.br/2013/11/22/governo-confirma- contraespionagem-em-alcantara-para-apurar-sabotagem/)

[http://www.planobrazil.com/dez-anos-depois-explosao-de- fogue...](http://www.planobrazil.com/dez-anos-depois-explosao-de-foguete- ainda-trava-setor-espacial-brasileiro/)

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

<comment><USER8> > old conspiracy theories surrounding the explosion that destroyed the > Alcantara launch pad

I have to point out the VLS launcher has a seriously weird all-solid-fuel design. I am not a rocket scientist, but, as an engineer, I have to wonder what the hell those rocket scientists knew no other spacefaring country did since nobody launches satellites on all-solid-fuel rockets. They cannot be controlled after lit (the VLS used all-solid-fuel-with-oxidizer and not solid- fuel-with-liquid-oxidizer).

When you are doing something nobody else is doing it the same way you are (in special the people who have been successfully doing it for decades) it's time for you to question your own wisdom.

<comment><USER9> > _I have to point out the VLS launcher has a seriously weird all-solid-fuel > design. I am not a rocket scientist, but, as an engineer, I have to wonder > what the hell those rocket scientists knew no other spacefaring country did > since nobody launches satellites on all-solid-fuel rockets._

Sure they do.

For example, NASA's LADEE mission was launched to the moon in September 2013 on a Minotaur V: a five-stage all-solid rocket.

Last month, India just launched a Mars orbiter using the PSLV: a 4-stage rocket with only the second and fourth stages being liquid. The first stage was solid, and had 6 solid rocket boosters. Thus, it launched entirely on solids.

And of course, there are lots of liquid-fueled rockets with solid boosters on liquid-fueled rockets. The French Ariane 5, for example, has one liquid core stage plus two solids. The solids produce 92% of thrust at liftoff. Solids are great at producing thrust.

The American Titan IIIc rocket took this configuration to its ultimate conclusion. It was launched solely on the solid rocket boosters. The liquid- fueled core stage did not even ignite until a couple of minutes into the mission, i.e., although it was at the bottom of the stack, it actually served as a second stage.

If you're talking about spacefaring nations that avoid solids, you're really only talking about the Russians, Chinese, and Ukrainians. They only use solids on military missions, and stick with liquids on civilian missions. They get the necessary thrust by clustering lots of engines together.

The Chinese moon rover, for example, was launched on a Long March 3B with a total of 8 engines ignited at lift-off -- 4 liquid-fueled engines in the core stage, plus 4 liquid rocket boosters. Yes, that's right, even their strap-on boosters are liquid-fueled.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for pointing that out. Still, all-solid doesn't look like a very popular choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Boeing builds spy satellites for the US gov and their "Boeing Defense, Space & Security" division is deeply embedded in the intelligence community.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/washington/11satellite.htm...](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/washington/11satellite.html)

[http://ctovision.com/2010/09/new-boeing-intelligence- collabo...](http://ctovision.com/2010/09/new-boeing-intelligence- collaboration-center/)

</comment><comment><USER11> I can't help but get the feeling, especially from the way things are cited in the article, that the NSA spying was not the cause of Boeing's bid souring, but rather that the decision was used as an opportunity to put some pressure on the NSA. Good on them either way. The economic impact is just one of the ways this program hurts Americans as well as foreign nationals.

<comment><USER8> The F/A-18 had the higher cost of all three final options. Also, the lack of a full technology transfer program (only the Gripen NG proposal had it, including local production) and the possibility of backdoors in any of the multitude of unauditable software systems that fly the planes sealed its fate.

The Rafale was closer, but the high cost of maintenance did it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Switzerland made a comparable decision this year selecting the Gripen [1] which beat the Rafale, and Eurofighter (Boeing retracted the bid for the Super Hornet).

The decision happened long before the NSA revelations and I think that shows that the Gripen has things that speak for it on its own.

[1] [http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing- it...](http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing- its-f-5s-04624/)

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm Brazilian. Here's my opinion:

The reason they mention it was the NSA is because the government wants to capitalize on the anti-american commotion (and it's working).

The _real_ reason is that Boeing is a competitor to Embraer, so transfer of technology would be limited. Boeing simply had a worse, more expensive offer.

<comment><USER14> I wouldnt say "anti-american" but "anti-NSA"..

And its pretty deserved, and im saying that also as a brazilian, cause: would you trust in the software, hardware and firmware of those after all we know about the NSA revelations? worse yet , if you think you dont have access to the source code, or to modify any part of it, as a pure blackbox..

Would you trust your country safety and security to something that its very likely to be a trojan horse(somehow), after all we know now?

How can you trust your defense to something or somebody you cant trust at all?

(and lets not forget that Embraer was on the NSA espionage files too)

So, this is not "anti-american", but a pretty wise decision.. forgeting all the politics involved in the case.. Its pretty rational

<comment><USER13> First, the Boeing offer wasn't even top 5 anymore. The only companies still on the bid were Dassault and Saab (favored by the military). Then, out of the blue, they come and announce... "we finally settled on Saab instead of Boeing _because of NSA_ "... Give me a break.

Dilma is crazy to boost the government's image, internal and worldwide, making our country look like a bastion of freedom and democracy, when we both know it's none of that (unless you work for the government).

I agree with everything said about NSA, but we can't be naive to the fact this is going to be used as a PWMD (Political Weapon of Mass Destruction) to justify _anything_ from now on.

<comment><USER15> They're just passing the political bill for the USA to pay, of course it wasn't the reason for the deal, things aren't that simple. But politics is everywhere, the USA is always trying to get it's way, has used spying to cut deals, spies on everyone, etc... I'm all for all countries everywhere playing this card every time they can, why not?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Gripen is simply the most cost effective choice of aircraft.... It already uses a lot of American technology, so backdoors probably exist, but it is a newer design than the old airframe of the FA-18, and it's easier to service than the Rafale. The IAF had conducted multiple tests during their MMRCA competition, and Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen came out as a equally matched, with some saying that the Typhoon was an inferior plane. In the end, Rafale won the Indian competition because of intense lobbying by the French, with their Premier paying a visit to India to clench the deal.

Saab was very open for transfer of technology at that time, and I imagine it still is, which would be one of the biggest factors in their favour. There have also been some rumors about the less than stellar performance of the Rafale in recent conflict situations which I'm sure also contributed to the deal.

<comment><USER17> I agree with everything you said, but a minor correction: the Rafale has not been exported yet, India has yet to acquire it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Maybe Saab won because they had a better offer. And maybe Boing usually wins these deals because they have the backing of large intelligence agencies. Who knows.

<comment><USER19> Could be. A popular theory is that in Norway Saab lost due to diplomatic pressure from the US.

"In the fall of 08, we invited a number of USG officials to visit Oslo to make the public case on why the F-35 is an excellent choice, and the private case on why the choice of aircraft will have an impact on the bilateral relationship (see refs A,B)."

[https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08OSLO670_a.html](https://www.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08OSLO670_a.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The U.S. has played dirty against the Saab Gripen before. See the Norwegian section of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Gripen#Failed_bids](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Gripen#Failed_bids)

<comment><USER21> Not to mention also killing off Canada's Avro jet company.

<comment> r-s I was actually taught about Avro in Canada in grade 5. Would have been about 1998 or so. I Some very interesting stories about the company, and hundreds of conspiracy theories as well. Very interesting company to say the least.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't see how NSA scandal should affect this deal. You dont snap such major deals because you want to insult someone. That is childish. However if Brazil believed that US manufactures might help NSA in planting backdoors, malware into their equipment they could have simply stated it more publicly and done even greater damage to American companies.

The weapon manufacturers + US government nexus has changed world politics over last 50 years. In case of India and Pakistan, US has provided fuel to the conflict just to make more profit from this. Sooner or later the developed world is going to see through the US policy of benefiting from conflict. China is already self dependent in heavy arms manufacturing, India is slow but reaching there. In probably next 20 years, US monopoly on defense equipment will end.

<comment><USER23> I'm pretty confident in 20 years those countries will be 15 years behind USA weapons.

<comment><USER24> Really? Back in 1999 I could not have imagined that although in 2008 Georgia would invade S. Ossetia with the blessings of the USA, will get slapped by the Russian army that way and the USA will just ... do nothing about it.

Nor that in 2013 an NSA employee will be in Russia embarrassing the USA like this, without the USA doing nothing.

It's not that Obama is _good_ and G. W. Bush is _bad_. It's more that the times are A changin'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Good, this clearly isn't going to change because of moral reasons. The only way the US government is going to change direction on this is if it hurts them where they really care, which is "their" pocketbooks. "Their" in quotes because really it's the pocketbooks of the companies that give them millions to re-elect them.

</comment><comment><USER26> A while back I came across this wiki article which is relevant

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial_espionage)

<comment><USER27> Thanks i had no idea.

Long story short: while totally denying its existance the pact of USA, UK and many other countires spent billions of dollars to built sattelite- communication interceptinig facilities... while 99% of world's traffic moved into fiber optic undersea cables by 2006.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The lavabit case warns against using proprietary American software or services that use it or simply cloud services located in the USA. We know that the NSA will issue a gag order and demand that the software or service provider installs backdoors without telling his foreign clients. If US-based technology companies want to be considered as potential candidates, they will have to surrender the entire source code for the software and the full design specifications for the hardware, and pay for non-American experts to fully inspect it. Otherwise, no foreign company in their right mind will buy their gear any longer. The NSA-inspired breach of trust pretty much signifies the beginning of the end for US-originated technology exports to the rest of the world.

</comment><comment><USER29> I consider this to be a good thing. Boeing is going to run to their lobbyists screaming bloody murder. The lobbyists will then ensure that the right palms are greased, the right fundraisers are held, and the right golf invitations are issued. Suddenly, there will be movement on the issue at the highest levels of government.

It is sad that this is how it works, and that it takes evidence of a large corporation losing money to be the catalyst for change. But at least it will work in our favor for once.

</comment><comment><USER30> Just so you know, FRA and NSA are best buddies. FRA is the Swedish equivalent to NSA. [http://www.svt.se/ug/fra-part-of-top-secret-hacker- project](http://www.svt.se/ug/fra-part-of-top-secret-hacker-project)

</comment><comment><USER31> Mirian Leitão is anti-governist and one of the main economical commenters of Brazilian media. She says that it was the NSA that kept Boing off the deal: [http://oglobo.globo.com/economia/miriam/posts/2013/12/18/com...](http://oglobo.globo.com/economia/miriam/posts/2013/12/18/compra- de-cacas-preco-afastou-franceses-espionagem-afastou-boeing-518571.asp)

<comment><USER32> "kept Boing ..."

It's Boeing, with an 'e'.

Mnemonic: "Boeing planes don't go boing." :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> In b-school, we talk a lot about political risk - mainly in terms of emerging economies. The US government's actions are resulting in events that will heighten investor perceptions of political risk here too.

</comment><comment><USER34> Whatever Brazil loses in capability, Rouseff gets back in her relations with her neighbors. I guarantee there's isn't a head of state in South America that hasn't sent her an 'ataboy. Brazil even further establishes itself as the country that matters in South America. That's worth 36 planes that will never fire a shot in anger anyway...

<comment><USER2> The Gripen NG does not appear to be any less capable than the Super Hornet, with the exception of being single-engined as opposed to dual-engined.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Well this is interesting. Everyone including the Americans are up in arms about the NSA thing....right up until it gets blamed for a lost bid. Some weird psychological bias at work here though I can't quite put my finger on it.

</comment><comment><USER36> Sounds like Brazil went with the low price leader (French comments were interesting) and didn't miss a chance to stick it in the eye of the US with a couple of anonymous quotes. If you follow the other logic it's pretty depressing "Yes, you had the better technology and were the preferred choice but we went with an inferior product because of spying and no that wouldn't make us feel really stupid if we get into a war with a neighbor who outguns us in the skies because they have better product at least we stuck it to the US in 2013!"

<comment><USER19> A third possible explanation could be (I do not know enough about US-Brazilian relations to know if it is plausible):

Before we thought you were an ally we could trust, so we were going to buy your overpriced jets to strengthen the friendship. Now that you have showed your true face we are going to go with the lowest bidder instead.

Saab has lost several bids due to countries buying worse planes from the US for diplomatic purposes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> India snubbed America in 2011 by not giving the 11 billion $ fighter jet deal, even though Obama lobbied for it.

Bad US behavior does impact their business . Expect similar action for the Indian Diplomat arrest case

</comment><comment><USER38> While it's a good opportunity to take a political jab at the US, the F-18 was never a contender.

Both the Rafale and Gripen are much better choices. The Gripen especially, it's probably the best performing plane per dollar in the world - and has a lot of advantages besides sheer performance...

</comment><comment><USER39> In other news: "Army officials claim that their ammunition stocks are going to last for just one hour of war"

[http://www.brazildefence.com/army-officials-claim-that- their...](http://www.brazildefence.com/army-officials-claim-that-their- ammunition-stocks-are-going-to-last-for-just-one-hour-of-war-133/)

[http://www.brazzilmag.com/home/113-august-2012/12921-one- hou...](http://www.brazzilmag.com/home/113-august-2012/12921-one-hour-of-war- thats-all-brazil-has-ammunition-for.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> As the article clearly says, this was an off-and-on deal rolling for years.

"Fan fact" the Brazilian government has been seating on this project to renew the aging Air Force's fleet since 1994.

And in 2001/2002 the contenters were (in no specific order):

        - Sukhoi Su-35
        - Eurofighter Typhoon
        - General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin F-16
        - Mikoyan MiG-29
        - Saab JAS 39 Gripen
        - McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet
        - Dassault Rafale

</comment><comment><USER40> > A U.S. source close to the negotiations said that whatever intelligence the > spying had delivered for the American government was unlikely to outweigh > the commercial cost of the revelations.

This to me is the most interesting quote. Although vague, you just have to wonder how much of this spy data goes to companies? Anyone can understand that the US has an interest in maintaining the importance of their own corporations around the world.

</comment><comment><USER41> This is sickening. I live in Canada, and this directly affects a friend's family of mine considerably.

Both my friend and his father are full time factory workers at a company called "Goodrich". They machine landing gear primarily for Boeing jets.

This means less available-overtime at the very least (which many of the workers rely on), and possibly lost wage increases in the future. Who knows.

<comment><USER16> I sympathize with you, but Boeing never had a chance if one goes purely by cost: benefit comparisons.

The only way they could have won this is if they lobbied enough for the Brazilians to look past the significant shortcomings of the Boeing aircraft. And I think even then their lack of cooperation when it comes to transfer of technology and offsets would have sabotaged the deal.

Brazil already has a very reliable civilian aircraft maker in Embraer, and they are looking to bootstrap them into defense through transfer of technology. Boeing never would have done that.

<comment><USER28> Distrust is a very strong motivation to reject a bid. If Boeing had won the bid, the NSA would have armed themselves with a FISA court order, mandating Boeing to install malware in the fighter jets, along with a gag order forbidden Boeing to tell Brazil. Due to their massive internal audit problem, the one or the other rogue NSA contractor would end up selling off a copy of the specifications describing the backdoor to crime syndicates, who would then be able to blackmail the Brazilian government. To cut a long story short, it has now become impossible to buy any American technology product which contains proprietary software or hardware. It must now all be open source and open design and then reviewed by non-American experts at the expense of the American company trying to sell its gear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Sweden sent five JAS39C Gripen to Libya as a part of Operation Unified Protector in 2011. I was told that they performed well in the surveilance role with their "spaningskapsel" (surveilance capsule?), providing intel to the coalition. If anyone has any insight in how well Gripen as a platform performed during that op, please share.

</comment><comment><USER43> As I remember the F/A-18 was always considered a front runner for political reasons (pressure). It caused a lot of commotion among those who really understand about aeronautics.

And it's clear that the last choice was a political one also.

</comment><comment><USER44> perhaps Brazil is just growing into its own. The BRIC countries are all maturing, and perhaps, with that comes a more independent - non US dependent - stance.

</comment><comment><USER45> Didn't Saab go under? Or was that just their automotive division?

<comment><USER46> Only automotive, which was a separate company under GM stewardship. Same as how Volvo Cars (under Ford) went bust, but Volvo Trucks is still going well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> The end of US tech dominance is at hand.

</comment><comment><USER24> off-topic:

I am thrilled to read incredible insightful comments in posts like this. HN intrinsic value is incredible.

</comment><comment><USER48> This is fodder for wankers. Delude yourself if you like, but it only strengthens America.

</comment><comment><USER49> That's fine as long as we keep Lockheed planes to ourselves. Nothing beats the F22.

<comment><USER50> This is the plane that asphyxiates it's pilots remember...

[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/air-force-confirms-air-supply- pr...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/air-force-confirms-air-supply-problems- for-f-22-jets/)

<comment><USER7> "Fun fact" two of the worst accidents with the Saab JAS-39 Gripen were blamed on software faults.

Sources: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#cite_ref- FOO...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#cite_ref- FOOTNOTEEden2004389_228-0)

[http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1989/1989%20-%2...](http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1989/1989%20-%200734.PDF)

<comment><USER51> Yeah, Pilot Induced Oscillation. It was actually the same pilot too. Not to blame him though, of course.

Looking at the statistics though, the Gripen has been in very few accidents compared to other fighter jets.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Elon Musk says he will put millions of people on Mars - <AUTHOR> http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/elon-musk-says-he-will-put-millions-of.html <comment><USER2> I'm such an Elon Musk fanboy. If he can do even 20% of what he's claiming to be able to do, the human race will be so much further along that we are now - and I might get to go to space. Rock on, Elon.

<comment><USER3> Seconded. They based Tony Stark in the new Iron Man movies on this guy. I think I'm doing important work, then I read his wikipedia entry and weep at my insignificance.

<comment><USER4> "Goodbye," said the fox. "And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."

"What is essential is invisible to the eye," the little prince repeated, so that he would be sure to remember.

"It is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important."

"It is the time I have wasted for my rose--" said the little prince, so that he would be sure to remember.

"Men have forgotten this truth," said the fox. "But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. You are responsible for your rose . . ."

<comment><USER3> Still, I don't think it's wrong to be inspired by and compare yourself to people with epic achievements. Newton had his three laws figured out by my age, Alexander had conquered most of the known world and Zuckerberg was a multi-billionaire.

I'm content with my lot (as far as humans go I'm doing OK), but it doesn't mean I'm not inspired to do more.

<comment><USER4> "Still, I don't think it's wrong to be inspired by and compare yourself to people with epic achievements"

You're half right. Being inspired and challenged by the works of others is a great thing. But you should avoid comparing yourself to others since you'll frame it in such a way that you are either completely superior or completely inferior to the other person.

<comment><USER5> Many great geniouses DID compare themselves with others a lot (they pick a single "nemesis" and spend a great deal of energy trying to prove themselves better). E.g. Newton and liebniz.

Plus, you don't have to frame yourself as "completely" anything, when comparing to others. You can focus on being a better mathematician, or a better business person, or simply a better human being, without automatically implying the other is "completely inferior"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Factual error: Falcon Heavy is _not_ the biggest rocket to fly since the Saturn V -- that category includes both the US Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle) and the Soviet Energiya/Polyus and Energiya/Buran stacks.

Falcon Heavy's payload exceeds those carried within the Space Shuttle (or Buran) payload bays, but if you include the orbiter vehicle itself in the payload either shuttle had a bigger payload into LEO. And Energiya in launch vehicle configuration (as when it was used to launch Polyus) carried nearly the same payload as the Saturn V.

(I hate these overblown claims. Why not just stick at saying "Falcon Heavy has the biggest payload of any commercial launch vehicle, ever" and leave it at that?)

<comment><USER7> Edit: Never mind. wolf550e and cstross are right. If Falcon Heavy flies it will be the 3rd largest rocket (in terms of payload) that has ever flown behind the Saturn V and the Energia.

\----

I think you're being a little nit-picky. "Largest" is not exactly a precise term but would generally apply to length and width; not exactly the best way to classify launch vehicles.

Payload capability is the important attribute of a launch vehicle and is generally how vehicles are ranked. Using the word "large" for payload capability may not be precise but it is not factually incorrect.

Payload capabilities:

Ares V: 160 metric tons (cancelled)

SLS (Smaller Ares V): 130 metric tons (in development)

Saturn V: 125 metric tons (retired)

Energia: 100 metric tons (retired - one successful flight)

Falcon Heavy: 54 metric tons (in development)

Space Shuttle: 24 metric tons (retired)

Delta IV Heavy: 22 metric tons (in operation)

Proton Rocket: 21 metric tons (in operation)

The Falcon Heavy may end up being the most capable launch vehicle in operations if the re-incarnated Ares V vehicle (SLS) NASA is developing gets canceled again.

(added Energia)

<comment><USER6> You missed:

Energiya: 100 metric tons (retired)

Ariane V ES: 21 metric tons (in operation)

Ariane V EAP: 27 metric tons (in development)

... And I'm not sure what the Chinese have got, but it's certainly man-rated and they're planning a manned space station mission early next year, so it's unlikely to be less than 10 metric tons to LEO and could well be a lot more.

<comment><USER7> Forgot about the Energiya. To bad it only flew successfully once. Had the Soviet Union not crumbled around the same time things may have been different.

<comment><USER6> Energia flew twice -- once with a Polyus military payload aboard, and once with an unmanned Buran test flight.

The Polyus mission failed because after it separated from the Energia stack it rotated through 360 degrees rather than the intended 180 degrees and instead of inserting itself into orbit it executed a de-orbit burn. _Very_ expensive software error!

The Buran flight -- the Buran shuttle was carried as a payload slung on the side of the Energia launcher, without engines of its own -- was a complete success.

Alas, Energia cost a ton to fly and when the USSR ran out of money it was the first program to be cancelled. However, part of it (the strap-on boosters) remain in service as the Zenit launcher.

There were plans for an extended Energia ("Vulkan") with a 200 ton payload to LEO, presumably for lunar and translunar manned exploration missions. I suspect it would have worked, if the USSR had the money and the motive to build it, given that it was a modular design based on an existing flying stack. More here:

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

<http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/energia.htm>

[http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/vehicle_ener...](http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/launchers/vehicle_energia.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Even if Elon Musk is totally wrong, it is the vision that is important. The vision of creating a thriving Mars colony where millions of humans can live and work will drive incredible improvements in our technology, by inspiring thousands or even millions of people all over the world to study science and engineering.

Mr. Musk, thank you for being brave enough to give the world a vision of a brighter future.

<comment><USER9> The ability to think big is indeed rarer than it might first seem, and the ability to actually try to accomplish those big dreams is even rarer. We need people like Musk and Aubrey de Grey who dare to try to change the world for the better. The worse that can happen is that we make some progress but the ultimate goal is still out of reach for a while... Sounds better to me than not even trying.

<comment><USER10> The difference between Elon Musk and Aubrey de Grey could not be larger.

<comment><USER11> That's unfair. You may be right, but they are similar in the way MikeCapone mentioned: they are both pushing the limits of science and technology in pursuit of a grand, incredible vision. Perhaps one of them is doing it completely wrong, but like MikeCapone said: better than not even trying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Musk seems to be ignoring the fact that getting there is the easy part. You then have to survive on a frigid alien planet with almost no atmosphere, no food in the environment, essentially no available water and no human infrastructure. Are there really millions of people who would sign up for the world's most expensive method of committing suicide?

<comment><USER2> This is a great point, but it doesn't mean that the problems you mentioned are insoluble.

Earth is actually quite an inhospitable planet as well. We survive on it because of our technology - Mars may be no different.

I think there are thousands on this planet who would be willing to give it a shot if they thought there was even just a slim possibility of success.

<comment><USER13>
      > Earth is actually quite an inhospitable planet as well.

Perhaps in some light this may be true, but compared to Mars, Earth has a natural atmosphere that we can breathe, water we can drink, and produces plant life that we can eat. I'd call that downright hospitable.

<comment><USER14> Where do you get your water and food? Do you subsist on a foraging diet and drink water only from nearby streams.

Technically speaking, the carrying capacity of the Earth under such conditions is low. Prior to the advent of agriculture and modern sanitation the human population was naturally limited. First by the availability of food, then by the problems of disease inherent in city living. The technology to live the way humans do today is only about a century old. Our food and water typically are the products of industry and technology. Mars would up the ante a bit but in essence would be little different. The norm on Earth is not free roaming foragers living naked out of doors.

<comment><USER12> Actually, most of the water we drink does come from relatively nearby (particularly relative to hauling ice from the poles). There's a reason the Sahara is not densely populated. Likewise for our food.

Most of Mars' water is at its south pole, which is so cold that much of the water ice is actually buried under a layer of "dry ice" — frozen carbon dioxide.

Basically, anywhere you are on Earth, you're closer to nutrition and fuel than you would be anywhere on Mars. And the reason why can have diets that don't involve foraging is because we've grown so numerous. That's also something that isn't true on Mars.

<comment><USER14> My point is that the norm for folks living in the developed world on Earth is for their food, water, and housing to be obtained via a very technologically advanced and typically world spanning industrial supply chain. The amount of effort and technology that goes into something as simple as buying a single hammer at the hardware store or turning on the faucet and getting fresh drinking water is stunning. The difference between what's required to support a Martian civilization and an Earth civilization is not so much a difference in fundamentals as it is merely a difference in degree. And possibly it's less of a difference between, say, living in New York city today and living on Mars in 2030 than NYC today vs. NYC in 1800.

As far as water, the largest deposits of H2O on Mars are near the poles but it exists in enormous quantities at nearly every location on Mars a few meters below the surface.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> For anyone interested in the idea of humans colonizing Mars, I can thoroughly recommend Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars Trilogy (starting with Red Mars).

It's a great future history of how we might end up there and what it would take for us to ferry millions over (essentially, that we find enough minerals for it to be in bigcos interest to do so).

<comment><USER15> Wholeheartedly second that recommendation! Red Mars was a really fun Hard SciFi read!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The book "The Case for Mars" makes a similar argument (that getting to Mars using mostly Apollo-era technology has always been possible, we just lack the political will).

More importantly it makes a compelling argument that we _must_ do this, because civilization requires a frontier.

<comment><USER17> > getting to Mars using mostly Apollo-era technology has always been possible

It's not (yet) possible to shield astronauts from enough space radiation to keep them alive during the 9-month trip to Mars.

<comment><USER8> > It's not (yet) possible to shield astronauts from enough space radiation to > keep them alive during the 9-month trip to Mars.

I'm sorry, but this is not true. See for example <http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-general-03w.html>.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The problem is not getting there, it's that _there's no reason to be there_. Even the least hospitable places on Earth are far, far more hospitable than Mars. Combine that with the fact that there's no economic potential on Mars, and it just doesn't make sense.

Look, you won't find many bigger proponents of space colonization than me, but it has to make sense. By all means, colonize the moon and use its helium for fusion energy. Build foundries in space and start melting down asteroids. But don't try and stick a million people in a place that very explicitly does not want people just because we _can_.

</comment><comment><USER19> The lack of a decent magnetosphere on mars is probably the biggest issue we have to tackle if we are going to send people there. It would require some pretty significant infrastructure on mars to shield us and all of our life resources. We would never really live ON mars. We would live inside of containers that happen to be somewhere on/in mars.

[http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at- nasa/2001/as...](http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at- nasa/2001/ast31jan_1/)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Magnetic_f...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Magnetic_field_and_solar_radiation)

<comment><USER20> How important is the magnetosphere, really? Earth's magnetic field is rather fickle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Who has studied the effects of low gravity on a growing child? That's of course a rethorical question: nobody has.

So I can see people spending some years in Mars, similar to those who work in oil rigs. Hell, I would have done it myself! But a full-blown colony? Rising a child on half the gravity with unpredictable effects is a different animal.

<comment><USER22> > Who has studied the effects of low gravity on a growing child? That's of > course a rethorical question: nobody has.

There's a first time for everything. We should be able to answer a lot of questions by raising small mammals on the ISS.

<comment><USER23> > We should be able to answer a lot of questions by raising small mammals on > the ISS.

I'm very curious on why this has not been done yet (or has it?)

<comment><USER24> My guess is that it's too messy and too time/resource consuming to do cleanly.

<comment><USER21> Also the ISS is in microgravity. IIRC Mars has something like half the Earth's. Moon would be a better testbed.

<comment><USER22> Mice are small enough that you could probably simulate Martian gravity with a smallish centrifuge. Plus, if they don't have any developmental problems growing up in zero gravity, you can probably safely assume that 1/3 Earth gravity is going to be OK.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> This is just a blog post quoting a NewScientist article which needs a login (!!!) to read it. Anybody got a cached version?

[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228433.000-ill- put-m...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228433.000-ill-put-millions- of-people-on-mars-says-elon-musk.html?full=true)

<comment><USER25> [http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/announcements/illputmi...](http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/announcements/illputmillionsofpeopleonmarssayselonmusk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> What a damn fine time to be alive.

</comment><comment><USER27> Great guy. I know he can do it. Millions of people on Mars is the right goal. Along with melting the poles, establishing a CO2 atmosphere, using plants to convert CO2 to O2 and thereby terraforming the planet. Mars, here we come.

<comment><USER28> Hmm. A bunch of people commenting here don't seem to realize that the reason that Mars has such a miserably thin atmosphere is because it has a terribly weak magnetosphere which is insufficient to prevent solar radiation from stripping away the atmosphere.

So, you can generate as much atmosphere on Mars as you care to imagine, but gradually it will all dissipate away into space, unless you construct networks of structures to contain it.

The most common theory I've read on this is that a massive impact on the Martian planet a few billion years ago not only ejected a lot of its material but also changed the magnetizing dynamo effect of its core (or halted it altogether, not sure). The sun then gradually blew the atmosphere off of the planet.

I'm a huge fan of efforts to colonize Mars; this is just one of the challenges of doing it that I know of. Terraforming in the sense that most people imagine is unfortunately not possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Time for some name-dropping. My father operated on his mother-in-law. Yeh, that's right. Connected ;)

On a serious note I have heard just how unbelievably driven this guy is. He picks absolutely enormous challenges and just goes for it.

A truly great hacker.

</comment><comment><USER30> Mark your calendars for SpaceXs next launch (to the space station) on feb 7.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is awesome. Not because he will put people on Mars in 10 years for $5B (because he won't - it's way harder than that) - but because he can say that, and people _listen_ (and discuss on HN).

</comment><comment><USER32> All I ask is that one Dragon serving the ISS has the Pan-Am logo on it and is designated the Pan-Am Space Clipper.

Whould be immensely cool.

</comment><comment><USER33> Given th current state of the Space program and the outlook for the next 30 years or so....

It pains me to say that Elon Musk will not be able to put Millions of people on Mars in his lifetime.

Barring some game changing discovery, Millions o human beings (unmodifed Genetically identical to humans in 2011) will not get "put" on Mars by the millions in the next 30-40 years.

<comment><USER34> He is not relying on the Space program...

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> i think is not my idea but why not first send self-replicating machines on mars wich will mine for materials. and then send human when it is all prepared. or another stage of self replicating machines?

<comment><USER36> I guess the problem is that we don't have self-replicating mining machines, as far as I know. We do have ~7 billion self-replicating machines, though, many thousands of which would sign a giant pile of waivers just for the chance to live on Mars.

<comment><USER35> yea but humans are not very predictable so if humans are sent we can't predict very well what will happen to them, and mission to colonize mars. in case of machines this would all be computed even before it started.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Lets start with congress

</comment><comment><USER38> Anyone else find it strange that halfway through the video one of the lyrics is "We should not be afraid to die"?

>_>

</comment><comment><USER39> Yes, but when will he put people on Uranus?

</comment><comment><USER24> I watched the second video. When I saw the launch rocket flip around and use its propulsion to come to a graceful, upright landing, my jaw dropped. That's simply not what rockets do in my lifetime of casual observation. Is it really possible to store enough propellant to boost the upper stages into space, and still provide a cushioned landing? Is that really doable?

<comment><USER40> It's what the Lunar Lander did, though it's a bit easier to do on the Moon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Humanity is already a blight on the face of the Earth. Maybe we should be restricted to fucking up just one planet?

</comment><comment><USER42> Populating a new world needs many women, not so many men. (If you want to populate somewhere, I'm your man.) I'm not going unless there is a ratio enforced. Which would pretty much that mean very little competition in terms of seduction. That enforcement seems unlikely.

<comment><USER43> Oh, dear. Can we send you to Mercury, with no women, men, animals, or indeed any sort of multicellular organism?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to learn Computer Networking for everyday computing? - <AUTHOR> The question is focussed towards day to day networking concepts that developers encounter on a daily basis. I find myself at a loss when we discuss concepts like encryption, DNS, LDAP, SSL, setting up digital certificates, etc. I am not sure if some more devs feel that way. Maybe it's because I did not focus during my networking classes in college? I don't know.
Note that I am definitely aware of basic principles like LAN, IPs, etc. It's just that sometimes networking talk eludes me when it comes to advanced or even medium level concepts.
About my job profile -> I am a big data engineer working regularly with AWS, Spark, etc. but this is much recent, earlier I had been a .net engineer. So, you could say my interaction with the linux world is much recent. Note sure if the context helped :)
I would really appreciate to be pointed to helpful(but practical) resources or share if someone felt like this and did something about it. Thanks again! <comment><USER2> Beej's guide is the best I've ever read ([http://beej.us/guide/bgnet/](http://beej.us/guide/bgnet/))

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting! But this seems to be a run down of low level socket details rather than a lay of the networking land I am looking for. Thanks for the suggestion though!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> CompTIA Network+ book should provide a good base for networking. Search YouTube, it's a great learning resource. You could probably get a complete education in every topic you mentioned.

<comment><AUTHOR> CompTIA Network+ is a great suggestion it seems! Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ccna ccnp ccie</comment>


Ask HN: Is anyone studying for technical interviews? - <AUTHOR> Just moved to the Bay Area and have just started studying for technical interviews.<p>1. Does anyone want to do mock interviews / study with me / team up in some other way? Email me: firstname.lastname@example.com and I'll create a group. 2. Any unconventional advice/tips for studying or the interview itself? <comment><USER2> No.

If you want me for a skillset that I have then interview me on that.

If you think that dumb white board questions are relevant, then there is a 50% chance that I will get it right. Your loss if I get it wrong. You know that job isn't going to be related to some algorithmic crap. (At least it doesn't waste too much of my time - compared to some pretty hefty take home tests I have done).

After 15 years, there is too much stuff to study for its likely a waste of time. I know the stuff that I know well. I won't bullshit any claims about stuff that i don't know.

<comment><USER3> Same. Shoot, I've been pulled into the boss's office before and told not to use terms like "big O" on the job because they confuse the junior devs. And I've never needed to balance a tree or reverse a linked list or any of those things since college. It hasn't stopped me from getting projects done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm super interested in creating an intensely detailed mind map of what you need to answer these tech interviews.

I always hear that the interview process is broken and we need a new system etc but I would imagine we'd want our new coworkers to know how to create an array, and maybe create pointers to it and maybe adjust pointers based on a condition and given an arbitrary algo be able to apply the above skills to a particular set of conditions. And I've always wondered how much better it would be if there was some type of consistent grading to these interviews. Anyway if that's something you're interested in exploring I'd be happy to chat.

<comment><USER5> iMindMap is a pretty good software. I am using it to build mindmap for iOS interviews. I am also thinking of creating algo related one in future. There seems to be around 50-60ish main patterns in coding problems that are being repeated in almost all of the problems i've seen so far. If you can learn those you can use them as lego bricks to build your solutions. Interview problems have obvious constraints of time, whiteboard space and difficulty. If you master problems that fall within those constraints you can pass any interview.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> One unconventional tip for code challenges comes to mind. A candidate used it on me and it was worth a ton of points in my book.

Instead of just doing the challenge ask the interviewer what they want you to optimize for? Performance? Shortness? Readability? Maintainbility? Make it clear there are tradeoffs to each and that the tradeoffs you choose often matter more than the code itself.

As a plus you also get insights into what the company values.

</comment><comment><USER7> Aside from reading "Cracking the Coding Interview", I recommend trying out challenges at Hacker Rank, or LeetCode (or anything similar). Do it with the online editor, or even use their questions as practice for whiteboard questions. Whatever you do for a whiteboard, try transcribing that as submission to see how close to real code you wrote. Some companies you interview care about that.

</comment><comment><USER8> Hey, I work at Karat and we offer free mock interviews for anyone working on their technical interviewing skills: karat.io/practice

We're also always hiring interviewers. If you love interviewing and/or are looking for well-paying, remote work, shoot me an email at email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER9> My highest recommendation is [https://www.pramp.com](https://www.pramp.com)

Also, being able to intelligently explain

        * top 10 algorithms of all time
        * top 20 "popular" technologies

Sign up a for an online judge [1] and do a couple easy to medium questions each morning.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_judge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_judge)

<comment><AUTHOR> Great - thanks for sharing

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Highly encourage practicing with interviewing.io

I'm not affiliated with them, just really like what they are doing.

<comment><USER11> Echoed. I got into their system and was able to get some real interviews through the platform as well.

When you get in, they give you three "guaranteed" interviews that you can schedule essentially any hour of the day with at least 24 hours notice. I _suspect_ that they pay their interviewers for these interviews (hence the guaranteed nature of them), but don't quote me on that. After those three interviews, your available interview slots drop off dramatically; currently there is a two week wait period. If you do well enough (appears to be top 10%), they will start acting as a recruiter; you can have real tech screens through their platform anonymously, and "unmask" and go onsite if the screen goes well.

I'm not sure what the filter is for letting people in but I suspect it's fairly manual right now, especially if they're paying interviewers for the three guaranteed slots people get. Keep in mind that Gainlo charges $100+ _per interview_ for the same service. I actually got better feedback from interviewers on interviewing.io than the one interview I did from Gainlo (YMMV of course).

Google remote onsite on Friday!

<comment><AUTHOR> Good luck for the onsite :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What position will you be interviewing for?

<comment><AUTHOR> Software Engineer (general) and iOS Engineer

<comment><USER13> I made a service that sends you 1 iOS interview question per day. It includes both technical and experiences questions. It is still in "early alpha" and not exactly polished, but I take feedback and try to improve it.

[http://interviewq.io/](http://interviewq.io/)

The purpose is to get a question per day and it is up to you to see if you can answer it or not. If you cant answer it, then you've identified something to study / think about.

<comment><AUTHOR> Signed up. Cool idea!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tech, telecom giants take sides as FCC proposes large public WiFi networks - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/tech-telecom-giants-take-sides-as-fcc-proposes-large-public-wifi-networks/2013/02/03/eb27d3e0-698b-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story.html?hpid=z1

<comment><USER2> This FCC proposal to deploy nationwide FREE public wifi networks if successful will be a huge boon to all citizens as well as entrepreneurs/startups. As you would expect the cable and telco monopolies are fighting it hard consequently it is critical that as many people as possible contact the White House, the FCC and their reps in Congress to voice strong support for this proposal. Not only will it help break the cellphone and broadband monopolies cable and telcos have that completely eliminates competition and choice in these markets but it will generate significant economic growth, jobs and overall wealth creation across the country.

</comment><comment><USER3> I explained Super Wifi about a year ago.

[http://everythingsysadmin.com/2011/12/superwifi-better- than-...](http://everythingsysadmin.com/2011/12/superwifi-better-than- sex.html)

Warning: it is kind of a rant, but I think I got all the tech stuff right.

<comment><USER4> Political musing aside I think it may be disingenuous to compare modern collision-free Ethernet vs shared-medium solutions.

Modern Ethernet over twisted-pair connect directly to a switch, a quite intelligent piece of technology. During this transfer you will not get a collision because it is your wire. When all the various clients packets converge at the switch the software there will sort and buffer the traffic in a hopefully 'fair' way and then send all that traffic out a collision-free link. Repeat. (Note: old Ethernet did at one time transmit on a shared medium but most people thing of Ethernet as our modern twisted-pair-switch-n-router architecture).

ATM and other channel access methods[1] are solutions dealing with a different problem. A shared medium can quite easily become overwhelmed even if everyone is playing fair. If the link just has too many clients the network collapses. One might liken this to the "hotel wifi" or "stadium wifi" problem.

While I think more open wifi is good, the technical challenges are not trivial. Many hotels and stadiums are moving to WLAN Controller architectures coupled with highly directional APs. Just a bit ago we saw an article on how the Super Bowl will be RF Spectrum policed this time around - just to try and keep the shared medium working. There would be many policy questions around deploy, management, policing, etc. and many technical questions about channel access, network health, buffering, etc.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_access_methods>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I support this idea, but i'm guessing any company that makes eighty bucks per house per month for internet access may disagree. i am looking forward to hearing the proferred arguments _against_ free internet for anyone who wants it as it would have to be a rather clever argument to succeed at contravening common sense.

</comment><comment><USER6> This article talks about spectrum allocation but lacks any details about _which_ _frequencies_. The closest it gets is "television guard bands". Is this the state of technical governance reporting in a modern, digital society?

<comment><USER3> I explained Super Wifi about a year ago. [http://everythingsysadmin.com/2011/12/superwifi-better- than-...](http://everythingsysadmin.com/2011/12/superwifi-better-than- sex.html) Warning: it is kind of a rant, but I think I got all the tech stuff right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ever since I watched Kevin Slavin's "How algorithms shape our world" on TED, I have been wondering whether we really need everything in the world to be monitored and decided by software.

Why would two cars a mile away from each other need to communicate? Perhaps, to warn that an accident has happened. But what happens when all cars within in a mile radius are trying to communicate with each other to alogrithmically develop traffic patterns? Would there be "flash crashes" like there are in the stock market from time to time?

</comment><comment><USER8> This seems really awesome for the people but I have a feeling a few companies/lobbies would not allow this to happen.

<comment><USER9> it's not that simple... at least it hasn't been that simple in the last few years. consider these examples:

      * Obamacare vs health insurance industry
      * Wall Street reform vs Wall Street
      * The tech industry vs SOPA/PIPA

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This would be much better than existing mobile data infrastructure for consumers.</comment>


The Internet Tidal Wave (Gates, 1995) - <AUTHOR> http://www.lettersofnote.com/2011/07/internet-tidal-wave.html

<comment><USER2> 1) I had heard Bill Gates was long winded in written correspondence, but wow.

2) I've often been impressed by his intelligence and grasp of a wide variety of topics in interviews, but this letter really makes him look like Nostradamus...

Definitely worth a full read, really enjoyed it.

</comment><comment><USER3> 'the Microsoft boss later grumbling that after 10 hours of browsing the Internet, he "had not seen a single Word .DOC, AVI file, Windows .EXE (other than content viewers), or other Microsoft file format," then adding, "I did see a great number of Quicktime files"; and his determination to "match or beat" the services offered by Netscape, a "competitor 'born' on the Internet" who then boasted "70% usage share" in the browser market.'

This seems to confirm my biggest problem with Microsoft. Why do they need to have their own version of everything? What do they get from this? How come they don't try to innovate as much as open source does, instead?

<comment><USER4> > This seems to confirm my biggest problem with Microsoft. Why do they need to > have their own version of everything? What do they get from this?

Microsoft is a business hooked on vendor lock in. Once they've got an organization using Windows, boom, they've got a money pipe that could feed them for over a decade. Which then means they can sell them Office, and boom, another stream of cash. As time goes on, network effects bloom in the form of users locked into file formats and encourage further growth.

It's almost a viral strategy, aimed at corporate IT. It's what they know how to do. It also illuminates why every product _must_ be "Windows This," "Windows That." They want to increase the surface area of their flagship so it can continue to own large volumes of users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Worth a complete read - amazingly accurate assessment of what actually came to be.

Also insight into MSFTS current problems - Gates' genius mind was able to coordinate across many different biz divisions from consumer to enterprise.

Not many other candidates in the world with that bandwidth or visionary insight.

<comment><USER6> To be fair, it can't have been long before that memo that he wrote The Road Ahead, which infamously made very little mention of the internet at its first release, necessitating a whole bunch of additions for subsequent printings. I don't find it as amazingly visionary as all that - for example, he barely mentions the importance of search which his company would later end up sinking huge amounts of money into.

<comment><USER7> > he barely mentions the importance of search

To be fair, he mentioned 7 critical steps. Search engines are No. 5.

<comment><USER6> Huh, my PDF viewer seems to be failing to display a couple of pages towards the end. That's annoying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It was Steven Sinofsky that convinced him, with his infamous "Cornell is WIRED" email in '94.

</comment><comment><USER9> And that makes you think, if this guy knew it is coming and was heading the most influential and powerful software company at that time, why did Microsoft fail to build on this vision?

<comment><USER10> Have they really failed?

I reason they have not. Bing, the .NET framework, the OOP languages and IDE, Interet Explorer, XBOX, etc. are all mentioned in that memo, and are succesful divisions/products.

I don't know of any other company with such track record (if there is, please mention it).

Not a fanboy, though.</comment></comment>


R for Excel Users - <AUTHOR> http://blog.yhat.com/posts/R-for-excel-users.html <comment><USER3> The thing is though - R is just not Excel. For many tasks (blasphemy!), Excel is simply better.

Take quick scenario evaluation. In Excel, I change one or two cells and see everything update immediately; in R, you need to re-run your analysis and find the outputs you're after again. There is built-in support for scenarios in Excel. In R you have to code your analysis around it, and do the formatting for comparing, too.

Or take the libraries. Anything that is not statistics is just a pain in R. Everything is possible, sure - but high friction. PMT()/IPMT() functions in R? Good luck. Sure it's easy to code yourself (which is the advice you get when asking R users %| ) but I'm using something high level to not have to bother with that sort of thing!

Graphs? Yeah, there's plot() which is straight out of 1960, or ggplot - <USER2> is easy for the simple things and then devolves into afternoons chasing obscure manual pages for this or that setting. Here's one: plot 360 degrees of a sine wave, and it's first and second derivatives. Then explain an Excel user how that works. (this is both because anything non-stats is bolted onto R, and because ggplot is designed around stats graphing.)

Keeping a matrix of data, like a simple database? Sure R can read dozens of file formats from CSV to HDF, but actually editing/maintaining that data is a pain in the ass. Excel, just add a sheet and use vlookup - it will let you sort and filter and copy and validate, all without leaving one software package.

Yes, there are many things wrong with Excel. FFS, there is a conference on how to not screw things up in real life with Excel. But saying 'just use R' is silly. For most applications where starry-eyed grad students advocate R over Excel (because hey, nail/hammer, right?), Excel is just the better choice, even if that means workflows that make programming-literate folk die a little inside every time we have to work with them.

<comment><USER4> From the tone of your post I'm thinking that you've made up your mind on this point, but there really is a lot of richness and extensibility in R which isn't available in Excel. For instance my blog is written in an R library called Blogdown, you can process 5 GB datasets on your laptop, send a reproducible analysis to a colleague, stuff like that.

I guess the thing I would ask you to consider when thinking about this stuff is the amount of time you've spent learning Excel. At the time I was learning R I probably had several thousand hours of focused Excel practice under my belt, and I could do a lot with the tool. So Excel was a way better tool for me than R because I was an Excel expert and an R novice. After now putting in about that same amount of time working with R I can say it's a much more powerful and extensible tool. But if you mostly work in areas where Excel...uh...excels, then there's no real reason to make the switch.

<comment><USER5> You don't seem to have really answered any of the points, like good in R to interactively edit and view data, and update the graphs automatically. Also, in R I would love an excel style graph wizard -- it could even output the R required.

I need to use R about once a year -- each time I've forgotten everything from last time, and use a combination of stackoverflow and swearing to do whatever I need to do.

<comment><USER4> Hmmm, I'm not sure there is an Excel style graph wizard, although there's this package which is close [https://www.r-statistics.com/2016/11/ggedit- interactive-ggpl...](https://www.r-statistics.com/2016/11/ggedit-interactive- ggplot-aesthetic-and-theme-editor/)

For PML() kinds of functions, I often just google something like "Excel PML() function in R" and something usually turns up: \- [https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/optiRum/optiRum.pdf](https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/optiRum/optiRum.pdf) \- [https://gist.github.com/econ-r/dcd503815bbb271484ff](https://gist.github.com/econ-r/dcd503815bbb271484ff)

Another good tactic is to follow some of the R quants on twitter. A really popular package for this is [http://www.quantmod.com/](http://www.quantmod.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a fantastic article for intermediate beginners. On HN, everyone is a senior data scientist working with Spark and Keras and Tensorflow and deep learning.

In the real world, there is a huge chasm of difference between people just learning Excel and developers, not many people even understand why you would switch away from the former when it's so convenient, which is why the difficulty v.s. complexity chart is so great, and may actually speak to people in an approachable way.

There are a lot of tutorials for how to do hard things and how to do easy things, but not a lot for how to think of the hard things in terms of the easy things, and this falls in that category. Another good book on this topic is Data Smart by John Foreman, where he goes over basic data science skills in Excel.

<comment><USER7> > This is a fantastic article for intermediate beginners. On HN, everyone is a > senior data scientist working with Spark and Keras and Tensorflow and deep > learning.

Although there is a ML/AI selection bias in HN, there are certainly a lot of people on HN who fall into the intermediate/beginner category (there is a lot of demand for R tutorials which I have been working on), although I would argue that dplyr can legitimately be used at the advanced level. And certainly Keras/Tensorflow is overkill for common business problems.

<comment><USER6> There are definitely a lot of people who fall into those categories, but the articles/links give the impression that everyone is senior. Which is why it's great when articles like this come around.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So glad to see this. As someone who learned both Excel and SQL on the first job (it's called being an analyst at a trading firm), I always felt that SQL was a "more powerful but clunkier cousin" of Excel and wished there was a tutorial for SQL aimed at Excel ninjas.

Well, fast forward half a decade and nobody wrote it, so I did so awhile back. Of all the things I wrote for work, it continues to be the most popular:

[https://blog.treasuredata.com/blog/2014/12/05/learn-sql- by-c...](https://blog.treasuredata.com/blog/2014/12/05/learn-sql-by- calculating-customer-lifetime-value-part-1/)

<comment><USER9> Check out my EasyMorph ([http://easymorph.com](http://easymorph.com)) -- you can get the best of both worlds with it -- SQL-like logic applied to tabular datasets in an Excel-like fashion: visual, reactive, and with built-in visualizations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Also R is 1 indexed instead of 0 indexed. (Arrays are numbered [1,2,3] instead of [0,1,2] for the beginner).

I forget that probably every 5 minutes when working in R.

<comment><USER11> So is Fortran, Julia, MATLAB, etc...

<comment><USER12> It's only the Jonny-come-lately languages like Algol and its descendants that are zero-based :-)

<comment><USER13> Algol, like Ada, actually requires you to specify your bounds and is perfectly happy to have 0,1,87 or -62 as your first index.

<comment><USER14> So does excel VBA.

But man, are arrays a pain in VBA.

<comment><USER15> Why do you say so? I find them pretty easy to handle. Variant arrays can be pulled and pushed straight from/to Range objects, you have LBound and Ubound to iterate over arrays if you don't feel like you can trust the base, or otherwise you have For Each. And you have Collection and Dictionary if you have different needs - you can even define a class, instance it and push to a Dictionary, now you have a key-value store full of your Object.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> That's a nice tutorial for beginners, though sticking dplyr code in functions is skirting dangerously close to the world of hurt that is non-standard evaluation.

The example:

        join_and_summarize <- function(df, colour_df){
            left_join(df, colour_df, by = "cyl") %>%
            group_by(colour) %>%
            summarize(mean_displacement = mean(disp))
        }

Will go really badly wrong if someone following the tutorial simply replaces the `disp` with a function argument.

<comment><USER17> The standard evaluation versions of all dplyr functions are available, just add an underscore to the end: filter_, select_, ...

<comment><USER7> A cool feature of select_ I discovered accidently is that you can pass in a vector of column names to get the corresponding columns, which is _much_ easier than abusing which() to lookup indices.

<comment><USER16> Not sure if I'm misunderstanding, but you've always been able to slice on a vector of column names.

        cols <- c("colA", "colB")
        dataframe[, cols]

<comment><USER7> True, although not as a part of a dplyr chain, which is cleaner.

<comment><USER18> extract and extract2 from magrittr also work. I do normally use dplyr though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This dude should learn to use PowerPivot, it will blow his mind and get him back to the old beloved Excel hands. Most of his examples of "why move to R" can be easily solved with PowerPivot and PowerQuery, with a nice GUI and not a clunky command line.

</comment><comment><USER20> Brings back great memories. Excel/VBA was my first programming "language"...a basic requirement of the supply chain management job I was doing. The limits of Excel for data analysis pushed me to R (+SQL!) which was my first real programming language. Since then I've done professional work in Clojure, Scala, OCaml, F#, Typescript, Prolog, and a handful of constraint/optimization languages like AMPL, Mosel, and Minizinc.

</comment><comment><USER21> There is a lot to like in this article, but the artificial division between Excel and VBA for Excel is well, artificial. I've since moved to other coding environments like R and python, but in the past I frequently used VBA to parse and tabulate excel files; Excel VBA is quite capable of a lot of complex manipulations...often done slow as hell...but capable.

</comment><comment><USER22> Great article. But I'm an old spreadsheet jockey in non tech jobs now. I use Sheets for quick and dirty stuff.

Where does one "get" R?

<comment><USER23> For Linux users, it is probably installable through the distribution's package manager.

For others, the R language website: [https://www.r-project.org](https://www.r-project.org)

Also try the IDE from RStudio to make life more pleasant: [https://www.rstudio.com](https://www.rstudio.com)

Good luck! It is a fun journey and a big, deep, wonderful, rewarding rabbit hole.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Instead of choosing between the two extreme ends of the spectrum, Clicking Buttons vs. Writing Code, you can use a tool like Exploratory ([https://exploratory.io](https://exploratory.io)) (Disclaimer, I'm a co- founder of Exploratory), which provides a modern and interactive UI to access to all the amazing things of R without needing to write R code. You can get immediate value out of R in the first few minutes with its grammar based (dplyr verbs) data wrangling and beautiful and interactive visualization. Everything you do in Exploratory is recorded as R function that you see in UI so you can learn R while you work on data, and you can export your analysis works as reproducible R scripts. Many of our users use Exploratory to not just learn R, but also learn data analysis / science methods, which to me is more important than learning the tools themselves.

</comment><comment><USER25> One of the best ways to get a good handle on basic R is to switch all the Excel stuff to R. Force yourself to use only R and you will find that you have a really good grasp of the environment in a couple months.

</comment><comment><USER26> It would be great if Microsoft integrated native R/Python into Excel.

</comment><comment><USER27> This is not "R for spreadsheet users", it's "why bother learning R in the first place". Was hoping for the former.

</comment><comment><USER28> Has anyone used the Rodeo IDE they're selling?

<comment><USER7> Rodeo is oriented more toward Python users...as RStudio is an unbeatable IDE for R.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This article is pretty good instruction, but _very_ good SEO. I know quite a few people asking this question.

</comment><comment><USER30> Kudos for using Kill Bill analogy!

<comment><USER4> I'm thinking of writing a package which displays R errors as Pai Mei gifs.

<comment><USER31> I would kill for an R package that displays R error messages as something useful. Especially if it's happening 200 lines deep in a library somewhere, it would be nice for that library to catch the error and display something that pertains to what I wrote instead of just throwing whatever error occurs on that line. Or at least tell me what library the error occurred in so I don't have to guess.</comment></comment></comment>


Why I'm Unlikely to Ever Return Microsoft's Love - <AUTHOR> http://fossforce.com/2016/06/unlikely-return-microsoft-love/ <comment><USER2> > In places like Slashdot

What year is it?

<comment><USER3> 2016\. Is there a problem?</comment></comment>


SF fire chief bans helmet cameras in wake of crash - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SF-fire-chief-bans-helmet-cameras-in-wake-of-crash-4741338.php#photo-5057066 <comment><USER2> The SF Fire Chief needs to be invited to find a new job. All public servants should be mandated to have video and audio recordings taken during their interactions with the public. If the recordings are inappropriate for public release then that's a different matter than trying to prevent their valuable existence.

<comment><USER3> In the recent "I am a Seattle cop, AMA" over in /r/seattle, the officer said: "I'm torn on body cameras and confused about the public perception of them. People really didn't want us to have a drone that could fly for 10 minutes but they want us to bring cameras into their homes." [1]

I will admit that I am both pro-body cam and anti-drone, but I'd never thought of it that way.

[1] [http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1jp0hu/iama_spd_off...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1jp0hu/iama_spd_officer_amaa/cbgxabt)

<comment><USER4> I don't want police officers in my home. However if police officers do come into my home then I absolutely want them to have a body camera so they can be held responsible for any actions they take.

<comment><USER3> I agree on the first claim, but to the second, it is a two-edged sword. If the police are in your home, they may or may not see anything interesting. If they have video to play back, they may get a second chance to look for something that they wouldn't have had.

I don't deny the benefit we seek, but there are risks, as well.

<comment><USER5> But shouldn't it be the case that if police is given a search warrant, we (as people, in general) want them to notice anything and everything there is to notice?

This is also something I would reply to your sibling comment as well, I think many would prefer a footage of their state instead of a description of it from a police officer who might be confused/distracted/filling-up-the-gaps. It is both more objective and more just. Jury should be allowed to see as it was and not just as it is displayed during the trial.

<comment><USER3> I admit I wasn't thinking of search warrants. I was thinking of the times where I've had police in my domicile, all of which were in response to calls for assistance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd like to share my perspective as a firefighter...

This wasn't some officially sanctioned camera, there for the purpose of accountability. It was a personal camera a firefighter had placed on his helmet. My guess is, it was already in violation of department policy, and only tacitly allowed (every department I know of has a policy against using personal cameras on scenes). This is likely just a clarification that they will now be enforcing this policy.

I'm shocked this policy wasn't enforced sooner. The number of HIPAA violations that must have resulted from the use of these cameras must be staggering, and I'm surprised they haven't been sued yet.

We're not law enforcement officers. We're not there with a warrant, we're there to provide care and compassion. Shoving a camera in someone's face without their consent is neither good 'care', nor is it compassionate.

<comment><USER7> It's disappointing that most of the discussion on this post has entirely missed this crucial fact, and assumes we are talking about mandated cameras.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Disgusting. The moment it's about exposing their fuck-ups they are all suddenly concerned about everyone's privacy and rights and it becomes "fairly clear".

If the camera is there to catch you, then it's good and you have no right or reason to expect privacy.

But if it's about catching them, uh-oh!

<comment><USER6> We've banned helmet cams for years. It's not about covering anything up, it's about not getting sued for HIPAA violations.

I wear a GoPro at training events, but would never wear one on an actual incident. We often show up in someone's most vulnerable moment. We're there to provide care and compassion. Making a video recording of someone who is sick or injured is neither necessary for their care, or compassionate.

<comment><USER9> Your argument for compassion and respecting people's vulnerability when providing general emergency services and fire fighting is a good one. I wonder, however, if this case shows that there are different needs for airports and responses to large scale disasters?

A crash site is a hugely complex and chaotic event; wouldn't it make sense to have more data and awareness if that's what cameras can provide? Helmet cams, truck cams could all provide additional data for investigators.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You notice 'privacy' is only a concern when observation makes powerful people look bad?

What a lying scumbag.

</comment><comment><USER11>
        "I think it is fairly clear," she said. "Without someone's permission, videos are not to be taken."

When will the same courtesy be applied to "We the People?"

</comment><comment><USER12> Trust can only be established with transparency. The second we start hiding things from each other, we have a real reason to distrust each other.

<comment><USER13> In general I trust my neighbors, but I don't object if they put down their blinds. As far as I know they trust me, even though the blinds are down a fair bit of the evening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I could have sworn that the line was: you have nothing to fear if you're not doing anything wrong.

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

</comment><comment><USER15> How will stop them from running over more people?

<comment><USER16> Jesus christ, what is wrong with all you people? Somehow, firefighters in america have become the bad guys? They fucked up in an incredibly difficuly situation, and because of it, a young girl is dead. Do you have any idea how traumatic this must be for the officers involved? This policy is not about "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about", it's about protecting the people who literally risk their lives for the rest of us; protecting them and the families of those affected from public exposure of horrific events such as these. If your daughter was killed in a horrific accident like this, would you want video of the event and her mutilated corpse shown to people around the world? I have a feeling most of you would not. And the same would be said if you had been the person who was responsible for killing them.

Clearly one, or several, people fucked up on the ground, and somehow this has turned into a debate about how bureaucrats are trying to protect themselves from "their fuckups". This had nothing to do with the bureaucrats, it has to do with the men on the ground, and the whole situation is truly horrific for them.

I'm all for police officers wearing cameras (at least in the US where abuses of power seem to be the norm), but I am also vehemently against the idea that emergency service officers should be subjected to the same treatment. Their job is incredibly difficult and dangerous. Sometimes mistakes happen, and sometimes those mistakes are incredibly regretful, but I feel that these officers being forced to fear every action they make will mean they cannot do their job effectively. We do not live in a society where we can expect 100% perfection 100% of the time, form anyone at all. I would rather have firefighters who occasionally screw up, than none at all.

The sentiment in these comments has I find deeply disturbing, and completely misdirected, and I feel that many of the commenters here should stop and think about who is most affected by their statements. I'd hate to be one of the officers involved, and then to see the sort of crap that's been said here.

<comment><USER6> Firefighters aren't generally called 'officers' (I agree wholeheartedly with your point though).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "Why yes, I shall protect myself and others who work for the public from accountability by banning cameras that document our work."

Perfect, you can just watch the culture trickle spread from the Federal Government to the local ones.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is incredibly tone-deaf in light of recently released results that show huge benefits from police wearing body cams.

<comment><USER6> Firefighters are not cops. I'm fully in support of cops wearing recording devices. I think firefighters/paramedics wearing recording devices is a bad idea (speaking as the latter).

There are plenty of reasons, but I'll list a couple: -This would generate _huge_ amounts of HIPAA protected data, that would be a nightmare to keep and protect. -There are plenty of occasions where I need someone to be honest with me, without fear of legal repercussions (i.e. what drugs did you take?). A camera in their face is going to make them a lot less likely to answer truthfully. -People call us at their most vulnerable. If someone is sick or injured, the last thing they need is a camera in their face.

I don't think there's a widespread lack of accountability in Fire/EMS. Obviously there are issues, but they are generally handled well. There's no 'thin blue line' effect. If I screw up to the point of negligence, my career is over, I face a hefty fine, and potentially significant civil lawsuits.

<comment><USER18> Once the police get past the first order effects where cameras encourage both the cops and the people they deal with to de-escalate confrontations, I think they will keep wearing body cams in order to study safety and effectiveness, even though you could say much the same about confidentiality in some situations.

For that matter, if I'm in a hospital I would want a camera recording my room 24/7 to record, for example, whether a nurse washed their hands before handling something that could get me a nasty infection, especially if I am incapacitated.</comment></comment></comment>


Want to Change the World? Join a Corporation - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3026264/leadership-now/want-to-change-the-world-join-a-corporation

<comment><USER2> If my kid asked me what I thought about this article I would say. If you want to contribute to the world as it is today then sure join a great corp that's making an impact and go for it! If you want to change tomorrow then go find a few people that feel the same as you do and go for it! The idea that an individual can not make a corp the same way that others did is not true. 'kid if that's what you want to do then go for it! I did' is the only response. Don't let the critics and the propaganda define you and tell you what to do, the future is yours. go for it !</comment>


The decentralized WeTransfer - <AUTHOR> https://decentralized.cloud/ <comment><USER2> makes littlesnitch freak t.f. out. if websites start doing this kind of networking more often, do i really have to resort to adding a wide open rule for my browser?</comment>


Were 900k Deutsche Telekom routers compromised by Mirai? - <AUTHOR> https://comsecuris.com/blog/posts/were_900k_deutsche_telekom_routers_compromised_by_mirai/ <comment><AUTHOR> A followup on [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13054752](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13054752)

Seems like the attack code wasn't even meant to infect Deutsche Telekom routers. The outages were more likely 'collateral damage', resulting from devices being flooded with malicious connection attempts. Not very comforting either...</comment>