Apple Sells Three Million iPads in Three Days - <AUTHOR> http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2012/11/05Apple-Sells-Three-Million-iPads-in-Three-Days.html <comment><USER2> When Apple's share price took a hit on the announcement of iPad Mini pricing, apparently it was because the analysts though the price was too high. Note - not because Apple's margins were going to be lower on the iPad Mini (which they are), but because they weren't cutting their margins by enough! Given the Apple will sell these things as fast as they can make them, Wall Street was effectively upset that Apple would be making too much money.

This from a company who's whole strategy is about being the upmarket, high margin option. They're so obviously leaving a price umbrella so that next year they can price-drop the current version when the next iPad Mini comes out and still make money hand over fist, while also leaving the opposition nowhere to go price wise.

They release a blockbuster refresh of their main products and gear up to make more money than ever before and their stock price dives 12%. Unbelievable.

<comment><USER3> No, the fear was that long term the sales of the mini would cannibalize sales of the higher-margin iPad and reduce net margins in a market that is approaching saturation and seeing increasing competition. Obviously that effect isn't going to be apparent in launch-day numbers like this (basically, you'd need to wait to see if the mini owners buy another iPad for that).

But you can believe that "Wall Street was effectively upset that Apple would be making too much money" if it makes you feel better. I'm sure those fund managers stay up late at night worrying about beating their targets...

<comment><USER2> I think it will cannibalise sales of the higher margin iPad, but that ceding the medium form factor market to 7" Android devices would be a bigger long term risk.

In this sense I agree with the analysis that Apple needed to introduce a lower cost medium form factor tablet for strategic reasons. I just expect them to do so in two phases, in exactly the same way that they have with previous devices. That is, introduce the new device at it's premium price point this year, and then move the year old device down to a lower introductory price point the year after.

In other words I agree with the argument that the introductory iPad Mini should be under $300. I just think that next year is when that should happen and jumping the gun would be a panicky amateur move that Apple would be idiots to make.

Long term iPad margins will be lower than they have been up to now, but that's inevitable one way or another and Apple are doing a great job managing the transition.

<comment><USER3> I should point out that I completely agree -- this is a market Apple needs to play in, the Android boxes are great too and providing huge price pressures, and Apple's margins absolutely will shrink in the future. And all of that is a good thing for all of us.

Nonetheless from the perspective of an Apple shareholder, it's a "bad" thing, and in the short term you'd expect their stock to reflect that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Couple of quick questions: a) Interesting they're not breaking it out between the two given substantially different models and price points? b) The two questions about the Mini are i) does it cannabalize the higher margin "normal" iPad sales and ii) does it slow down Nexus/Fire Android tablets? If it does i) and not ii) then it's arguably a failure. If it does ii) and not i) it's a wild success. Without a break out here between the two models it's really hard to know how to judge these numbers.

I most interested in day 30 - 100 when the initial buzz wears off.

<comment><USER5> Even using current run rate sales of the Nexus tablet, they would only be selling 3M a quarter. Apple sold 3M tablets in a weekend. If only 20% of the reported sales were for the iPad Mini, it is doubtful Apple will be outsold in the holiday quarter (even with giving competitors the extra month), especially considering its distribution reach. However, we'll never know, since neither Google nor Amazon release sales figures (Asus reported the Nexus number).

<comment><USER6> OTOH, I think everyone agrees that Apple is manufacturing constrained on these things. How long did it take to manufacture those 3M iPad minis? If it takes a month to make what sells in 3 days...

<comment><USER5> While I agree they are still heavily supply-constrained, the CapEx figures that Apple has released indicates they are significantly ramping up manufacturing capacity. They have sold more than 15M iPads in a quarter before. I would be surprised if they didn't have the capacity to sell 20-25M this holiday quarter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> At first I thought it's a pointless device for me, but after several hours with it I think it's one of the greatest casual gaming devices on the market. The screen of iPod and iPhone is too small and 'the new or whatever' iPad is too large by itself. This holiday season it's a much better choice as a present for kids than iPod touch.

<comment><USER8> It's interesting how all of a sudden with the option of having a smaller iPad, the "old" iPad has become much to large for a lot of people but when the smaller device was just a rumor a lot of people didn't feel they could fit it in their life. Fascinating how just a few hours with the device are changing people's preferences on the entire tablet market.

<comment><USER9> Every year the old version of Apple products become surprisingly worse in the space of a few hours as the new products get released and flaws that the community couldn't previously acknowledge become validated, and even accentuated in light of the new version.

<comment><USER10> Apple moves at a steady and surprisingly predictable pace (at least once they have introduced a new product). They have a small lineup and they often replace products instead of continuing to sell both products. They take good care of making sure that they never have too many or too similar products.

For me those are great virtues. Those are things that make Apple a great company that understands me.

Those are also things that make some people claim that Apple is running some sort of scheme to always get you to buy the newest stuff. I think that's a bullshitty strawman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It is amazing how well Apple has done in growing so massively during a world wide economic downturn/depression.

<comment><USER12> I think a case could be made that the near-constant consumer demand around Apple products is contributing to the increase of consumer debt which, in turn, is one of the largest contributors to the "depression".

I'm not saying they're the only ones to blame here, all consumer electronic companies are doing the same thing, but they're certainly the largest player.

Forced obsolescence around devices that are largely unchanged from one version to the next is not new, but the pace is insane. People are bored days after purchase.

We're sitting on a mountain of tulips. Exploitive, environment damaging tulips.

<comment><USER13> > I think a case could be made that the near-constant consumer demand around > Apple products is contributing to the increase of consumer debt which, in > turn, is one of the largest contributors to the "depression".

There's a big difference between consumer debt (often held locally) and national debt (held overseas). I'm not sure consumer debt is as big an issue as you think.

<comment><USER12> It absolutely is. Increased borrowing to finance consumer spending is largely responsible for the 2007 crash. Sure, the banks made terrible loans and tried to double-down on them, but borrowers are just as responsible.

How many people are using straight-up cash to purchase these devices? They're likely putting them on credit and that credit burden is hardly isolated. In real terms it means that they cannot afford that one extra mortgage/student loan payment, or invest in retirement/savings or kids education.

Arbitrary low interest rates create false security. We are not out of the woods and unless we start to reverse these trends, we're set for another crash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> And this is only the wifi models of the iPad mini - the 4G ones are coming in a few weeks. Impressive.

</comment><comment><USER15> Wow! Where does all these customers come from? It seems a lot of consumers buy these products just because they have to have latest Apple gadgets.

<comment><USER16> This is a big part of it. I talked with a buddy of mine recently who is a big fan of Apple products and owns pretty much every Apple product out there. At some point we started talking about the latest iPad and he said "Man, despite already having iPad 3, I am going to buy this. Not because I need it, but because I have to own it". I know more than a few people who think that way.

I'm not going to pass judgment because I've personally burned a lot of money on expensive gaming machines just because I wanted to play games on the highest settings. Everybody derives pleasure and satisfaction from different things and if burning tons of cash on Apple gadgets makes someone's life better and more enjoyable... more power to them.

<comment><USER17> Your friend probably represents less than 1% of Apple's total customers. He's not a "big part" of it. That you _know him_ doesn't mean that all of Apple's millions and millions of customers are anything like him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Does that number include pre-orders? Because really it would be 10 days since preorders began, not just three.

<comment><USER19> I would assume it includes the pre-orders, because if it did not then I would guess we would see a headline more like: 3 million iPad Minis in three days PLUS another two million (or whatever) in pre-orders!

Regardless, that's an impressive number for a device that already had well established competition and Steve Jobs claiming nobody wanted it.

EDIT: oh wait, that's 4th gen and iPad Minis combined? I thought it was for just the mini. Are there numbers out there about how the mini sold? I don't see it broken down in the press release unless I totally missed it. I think it's a bit unfair to say that the latest iPad and the mini doubled the number sold of the previous iPad since that's comparing the totals of two products against one. Still, impressive numbers.

<comment><USER20> If it's anything like the iPhone 5, it'll be the total number delivered into a customer's hands - which will include some pre-orders but not necessarily all of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I personally think it's interesting that what would otherwise be a STUNNING sales feat (for just about any other company) is greeted as merely okay or downturnish.

IMO, it would be hard for me to think of any company that would not consider this a successful launch.

Sure there's talk of cannibalizing of larger iPad sales but for me the larger iPad was not that interesting due to having to carry a laptop AND a tablet is painfully heavy (it adds up). I was debating waiting for a Mini with a Retina display but decided early Friday morning to just pick one up.

This is my first ever iOS device and in the days since last Friday, it's been fun to use, is the right form factor for my use cases and frankly, I'm happy with my decision. YMMV.

Now, my next most pressing problem is to find a case for it... Suggestions anyone?

</comment><comment><USER22> Funny how poorly that page renders on an iPad :-) Wish they would break out 4th gen sales. I agree with many folks that first weekend bookings of a trendy device make for good press and poor investment research. The jan-mar quarter is a better place to try to divine how effective there strategy is wrt to the tablet market.

</comment><comment><USER23> I think this goes to show that the tablet market that Apple is playing is both different and not as price sensitive as the one Google, Amazon, etc are playing in.

After January 1st, there will (probably) be sub-$300 "good as new" iPad minis available as refurbished devices in the Apple Store too...

</comment><comment><USER24> there are 4.5 mln android devices sold every 3 days

<comment><USER25> A dozen versions, sold by dozens of manufacturers. Android is so fragmented it's hard to actually consider it a single thing. It's like saying "4.5 million computers are sold every 3 days".

The iPad is one thing, made by one company, that comes in two sizes.

<comment><USER26> With different resolutions, different storage capabilities, different memorysizes and computational capacity. Some with mobile broadband, some without.

Which may be used with or without accessories such as a keyboard or stylus.

One thing indeed.

<comment><USER27> Why would a developer have to account for varying storage, mobile broadband, or Bluetooth accessories like a keyboard or stylus?

As for resolutions or RAM, I think we can all agree 2 is simpler than all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Apple sales are high due to international availability, and thats no ordinary feat. It would interesting to see US only numbers.

I liked the old Apple, which out-sold the competition just on their product and product differentiation.

<comment><USER29> Apple's playing in a market that is much more competitive than the PC / MP3 player market though, with competitors working on vastly different business model and undercutting on product whenever they can ...

I for one am glad that Apple is so much more international than Google and Amazon, because I live outside of US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I've lost faith in humankind. I can die with peace at least.</comment>


Ask HN: Where are you storing your passwords? - <AUTHOR> Linux passwords, database passwords, third-party system passwords, mail passwords... At some point they have to be written down somewhere, and the possibility of a plain text file leaking online gives me the creeps. Manual encryptation means that at some point (while editing) it exists unencrypted on disk, and a leak could happen (a backup copy of your text editor, for example).<p>I am not talking about browser plugins that can help only with web-based interfaces. The mix-up of interfaces means that at some point you have to write them down, securely. How are you guys doing it? <comment><USER2> I use KeePass (<http://keepass.info/>) to manage all of my passwords.

From their website:

KeePass is a free open source password manager, which helps you to manage your passwords in a secure way. You can put all your passwords in one database, which is locked with one master key or a key file. So you only have to remember one single master password or select the key file to unlock the whole database. The databases are encrypted using the best and most secure encryption algorithms currently known (AES and Twofish).

I'm always keen to manage my passwords in the best possible way, so I'll be following this discussion closely to see if I should be modifying my tools and practices.

<comment><USER3> Same, but I use <http://www.keepassx.org/> as it works better with linux.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In my head =D

At first I used one password for everything. Then two, but that was a accident (ie: I forgot to change one default auto-password but got so used to it that I started to use in other places).

Then the first one was cracked. I changed passwords in lots of places, and started to use 3 passwords total.

As this kept balooning, I decided to instead create rules for my passwords (rules that only make sense to me, of course, they are totally arbitrary and almost random).

The result is that I have now about 20 different passwords, but I can remember them all with enough effort. Sometimes there are a random site that I don't used in a while that I cannot login at first, but as I try several of the possible variations of my rules, eventually it work (erm... or not :P this had happened a couple times already, and I needed a password reset).

My associate use lastpass.

<comment><USER5> Did you find out who cracked it? And how did you find out? Just curious if you were targeted specifically.

<comment><USER6> I had a password exposed via a compromise/dump of the perlmonks.org website a year or two ago.

That didn't bother me since I use per-site passwords, stored in a pwsafe database. But it is an example of sites compromising passwords.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm surprised LastPass hasn't been mentioned yet. I've had nothing but good experiences with the company and the product itself. It is primarily a browser plugin for storing web passwords and sensitive information but you can also use the secure notes feature to store passwords for other applications. There are several multi-factor authentication options available as well.

<comment><USER8> I use LastPass with the Google 2-factor authentication app. I also keep some secure notes in it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This topic comes up all the time. You might want to do a search and sift through some of the other popular threads.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did a search on HN and SO and found nothing. Do you have a link to investigate further?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Me, I am having them all stored in my mind. But I made it a little bit easier for me. I do have 3 standard-passwords, that I change twice to thrice a year. Each one of them is used on multiple accounts - but, everyone is appended by something specific for every usecase.

For example: d453ER#T p0NY_jondoe@MoogleGail could be a password for one GMail-Account with the alias jondoe, while for Facebook, the passwd might be d453ER#T p0NY_jondoe@Fratzenbuch (Fratzenbuch is German denigration for facebook) for the FB-Account with the GMail-Adress from above.

I hope this did help you...

</comment><comment> alok-g I store the first and last characters of my passwords in plain text on my local machine __. It's enough to remind me what my password is, while still remaining unknown for anyone else.

 __Well, actually my browser homepage is a simple HTML file carrying all my bookmarks, residing locally on my machine. This is much better than having a largely blank Google home page and having bookmarks additional clicks away. This HTML file has website links together with the first/last password letters next to them.

</comment><comment><USER11> I use Keychain on Mac OS X to store passwords automatically and I make password protected notes for sites or apps where passwords are not recommended correctly.

I make general rules for passwords and follow those. I also use poor, easy memorisable passwords for various sites that I don't deem important but require a login and password.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have a random 8-letter password memorized (includes uppercase and numbers), but I prepend the first 2 characters of the md5-hash of the service's/website's name. That way I just have to quickly open a terminal whenever I forget a password.

I recently learned about YPassword and I think it's a similar idea.

</comment><comment><USER13> LastPass with a premium subscription so I can use the mobile app.

I chose LastPass as I use Linux, Mac and iOS daily. I used to use KeepPassX, but eventually found that LastPass fit my usage patterns better.

</comment><comment><USER14> 1Password on OSX is one of the only blockers from using Linux as my primary desktop right now- I've tried LastPass, KeepPass, and others, but haven't found anything that works as well ;(

<comment><USER15> Can you elaborate on how it's better than LastPass, if you can remember the differences? I'm using LP at the moment as 1Password is considerably more expensive but I'd be interested to know in what sense it might be worth the extra?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> After reading Moonwalking with Einstein I started to exercise my memory skills and now I just use my brain.</comment>


Whoami - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoami

<comment><USER2> We use this at my job all the time to make backup files with timestamps.

A typical script might contain something like:

cp file{,.$(whoami).$(date '+%m%d%y')}</comment>


Increment – how teams build and operate software systems at scale - <AUTHOR> https://increment.com/ <comment><USER2> Already on the homepage:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14108849](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14108849)

</comment><comment><USER3> Background on how this came to be (from Stripe): [https://stripe.com/blog/increment](https://stripe.com/blog/increment)

</comment><comment><USER4> This could be really cool. I welcome a more consolidated place to source development-based content as I find independent development blogs are hard to find and even harder to follow. Best wishes to the team behind this.</comment>


Ask HN: Would you be interested in a PagerDuty alternative with less features? - <AUTHOR> I'm working on an alternative to PagerDuty that doesn't have a zillion features called Pagerline (https://www.pagerline.com/). It only does one thing: keeps trying to get a hold of a person on a team until somebody acknowledges it.
My thinking is that small to medium size teams don't need all the bells and whistles of PagerDuty and should not have to pay for them either.
I'd love to get your feedback for what's currently built at https://www.pagerline.com/ and hear your thoughts on everything  from features to pricing that would make this offering appealing to you and your business. <comment><USER2> Maybe? It needs to do reporting well though. Also, it needs to do schedules well.

PagerDuty sucks for reporting. If you want to track how long each person worked on incidents, how many times they were paged out, how many days in a month they were on call, they don't make it so easy.

Schedules are odd, you can over-ride one person, but sometimes, when the system is just not working, you need to add 2-3 people into the "rotation" however, you can'st just say, add them for the weekend, you have to add them into the rotation as an escalation/default, then remember to delete.

I'm not even sure if these two ideas can differentiate you. Maybe others have problems with PD that I haven't noticed.</comment>


How Constraints Drive Creativity - <AUTHOR> http://52weeksofux.com/post/1166917285/how-constraints-drive-creativity

<comment><USER2> Great question, thought-provoking answer.

Similar to what the article says, I think constraints can engage us more, by making our decisions more meaningful. We have "If we do X, it will overcome that constraint! How cool!", instead of "I guess we could do X."

I thought the article was going to say that constraints make the problem more concrete, and it's often easier to think about something concrete than something abstract. It's easier to grasp, easier to relate to existing knowledge and previous solutions, and it tends to engage our unconscious more, which is where creativity (apparently) resides.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not the page linked, but the first post on that site is pretty funny:

(from <http://52weeksofux.com/tagged/week_1> )

"You cannot not communicate. Every behaviour is a kind of communication. Because behaviour does not have a counterpart (there is no anti-behaviour), it is not possible not to communicate." -Paul Watzlawick's First Axiom of Communication

I would beg to differ. I will now communicate and then anti-communicate with the backspace button:</comment>


Physicists create light out of nothing - <AUTHOR> http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/11/17/3368920.htm# <comment><USER4> I have a great disdain for these kinds of BS titles, they cloud what really happened and make me feel like I'll just get dumber than I already am if I try to read the article.

That said, they didn't create light out of _nothing_ , they created light out of the _vacuum_. The vacuum is _something_ \- at least its fluctuations are, so they didn't create light out of nothing.

<comment><USER5> I agree with your sentiment, but this is actually a matter of philosophical debate. _Nothing: A Very Short Introduction_ by Frank Close is an enjoyable treatment.

<comment><USER6> But creating light out of quantum vacuum fluctuations and creating it _ex nihilo_ in the theological sense are very different things. The title indicates the latter occurred.

<comment><USER5> Read the book. You may come away feeling, as I did, that it is rather difficult to assign any semantics at all to the term "nothing".

<comment><USER7> While it is pretty easy to assign semantics to the term "vacuum". I can put vacuum (or a very good approximation) in a bottle. I can pay someone to provide a system which creates a vacuum. I can be killed by vacuum.

<comment><USER8> Can you put vacuum in a bottle in any more real sense than you can put darkness in a bottle, or cold, or dry?

<comment><USER9> Yes. Obviously, you just remove the air in the bottle and then there is a vacuum (or as good of an approximation of it as you can obtain using your techniques) inside the bottle.

<comment><USER10> Personally I would call that 'creating vacuum in a bottle' rather than 'putting vacuum in a bottle.' Putting it into a bottle implies that it was something that existed outside of the bottle and it then transferred into the bottle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> From the article:

 _While the static Casimir effect does this in the three dimensions of space, the dynamical Casimir effect does it in the dimension of time._

WTF!? This is the last line of the article. That's the most interesting line in the whole thing, and it's totally unexplained and left hanging. What's with the authors/editors? Science journalism is such fluff, that it's no longer about interesting ideas, but contentless amazing sounding word salad.

<comment><USER12> Yeah; that line struck me as well. Does this mean we're borrowing these particles from the future? Hopefully not from the past...? Also, wouldn't this qualify as a machine that outputs more energy than it uses?

<comment><USER13> The reason one is called static and involves 3d space and the other is called dynamic and involves time has nothing to do with stealing particles from the future or creating a perpetual motion/energy machine.

What differs in these effects (in space and in time) is the electromagnetic modes of the vacuum near the mirror(s).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_mode#Quantum_mechanics>

It's all about creating a differential - and the effect this has for static vs. dynamic is different for each.

In the static effect, a differential is created in 3d space: two mirrors are perfectly placed in parallel to each other with a gap less than that of a photon's wavelength. In the vacuum fluctuation of space, virtual photons and anti-photon pairs are created and annihilate each other all the time - <USER3> this tiny gap keeps them from appearing between the mirrors. The end result is a difference in the modes between the mirrors (total lack of any activity) and outside them (normal vacuum fluctuations) which results in a pressure differential (in 3d space) pushing the plates together (the static effect).

In the dynamic effect, a differential is created due to a change over time: a mirror is moved at a velocity significantly close to the speed of light (in this case, around 5%). Around the mirror, as always, the vacuum contains photon and anti-photon pairs coming into existence and annihilating each other. With a fast enough moving mirror, the mirror can change the ability of the particles to annihilate each other. This represents a change in time over the nature of the vacuum / space where the particles appear.

Thought example: Prior to pair formation, there is no mirror at coordinate XYZ. Proton and anti-proton pair appears - and mirror is moving so fast, it is now present at point XYZ, between the proton and anti-proton, faster than the two could reach and annihilate each other. Now, instead of annihilation, the proton is reflected by the mirror.

This is the dynamical Casimir effect. It is a change, over time, in the nature of vacuum.

Yes, photons are being reflected ("created from nothing") in this effect - <USER3> so are anti-photons, which quickly find some other photon to interact with and annihilates the pair of them. There is no net gain of energy here - in fact quite a bit is spent keeping the mirror moving at high speeds.

<comment><USER14> Thank you for your summary! It makes much more sense than the original article. It does leave me with a few questions, though.

When you say the virtual particles are reflected, but quickly find another pair and annihilate each other, are they pairing wth normal photons? And because of the lack of anti-particles in our universe, isn't it more difficult for the photons to pair, meaning that if this experiment was scaled exponentially, the virtual photons would have an increasingly harder time pairing, becoming more abundant and living longer?

<comment><USER15> His explanation is partially wrong, which is why you have questions.

There is no such thing as an anti-photon, and if there was, then a photon anti-photon pair would annihilate to produce - more photons!

Time in the quantum world is not completely logical, essentially these virtual particles (they are not real particles!!) can not appear unless they already managed to annihilate and vanish (i.e. the order of operations is not one way).

The reason these photons do manage to exist is that the experiment provided the energy necessary before the particles appeared. The "anti-photon" is not a real particle, and does not need to find another photon to annihilate with. It's more of a concept of energy, what it represents is missing energy, which needs to be provided in order for the partner (the regular photon to exist).

The "missing/extra" energy pair can exist only for a short time, below the Heisenberg uncertainty limit. If, in some way, you disrupt the annihilation of missing and extra energy, the particles would not appear in the first place (that's that out of order business I was talking about). But since the experiment provided energy, the particles can appear, and then be split, and the "anti-photon" uses the energy of the experiment to not exist.

You have probably heard of the momentum/location uncertainty pair - but there is another: it's time/energy. So the more exactly you know how much energy there is, the less you know about when it existed - that's why the particle can have this out of order behavior - time itself is not properly defined for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Faster than the speed of light"

Though the underlying science is very interesting, I wish we could have less sensationalized coverage. Nothing under this section title involves going faster than light.

</comment><comment><USER17> Colin, was this submitted for disagreement? The comments here suggest that this popular press account is missing some of the nuance that I usually expect in articles you submit. Please help us out: what do you think about the underlying physics being reported on here?

<comment><AUTHOR> The reporting is poor, and people are right to diss it. But having written extensively for semi-technical audiences, the kinds of criticisms being levelled here are out of place. In this kind of article or publication there's no point in splitting hairs in the title over the difference between vacuum and "nothing". People who won't appreciate the difference will get turned off by what they see as excessive nit-picking.

You need to get people to read. There's no point in having a fantastic finish if no one gets there.

About the article, I think the phenomenon itself is amazing. The Casimir effect is remarkable enough - completely at odds with classical physics and yet trivally predicted by quantum physics, it's a great piece of evidence for how weird the world is. To see it demonstrated using time as one of the dimensions is brilliant.

OTOH, sp332 seems to have found the same story from another source, and in the discussion there people are suggesting that the quantum explanation is out of place and/or unnecessary, because it's more-or-less just like an antenna. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3511341>

Then people just pick holes in the writing. I find that sad.

<comment><USER18> I think you make an excellent point, which I take to be: let's all just apply our popular-science-filter to the article and talk about the content, not the words. I still think there's value in someone providing an explicit translation. It may help to set the tone of the discussion by just stating up front "Yes, the writing is poor. Here's what they should have said. Now that we've established that, let's talk about the content." When I've submitted stories and I wanted the discussion to go in a certain direction, I've tried similar framing. (Although the stories didn't go anywhere. Ah well.)

With that said, can you provide more of an intuition for the Casimir effect? Specifically, a better intuition for why is there are less fluctuations between two plates than outside of them? Is it simply because there's so little space between the plates, and hence less space for fluctuations? The wikipedia article doesn't really provide this level of intuition.

<comment><AUTHOR> Firstly, IANAQP, but here is my intuitive understanding.

When playing a bugle, high notes are all close together in pitch because with short wavelength, adding one makes a proportionally small change. Playing lower notes, the notes are further apart - there are effectively fewer notes in the lower ranges because adding one extra wavelength makes a big difference to the pitch.

Similarly the wavelengths of particles between the plates. When the plates are far apart, pretty much every wavelength can appear between them, so things are the same inside as out. When the plates are close together, fewer particles/waves can appear between because their wavelength must divide the distance, while the ones outside are still unrestricted. Then there are simply more of them, resulting in a higher pressure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is where I quit reading:

> the spooky properties of quantum physics

Can we link to the actual research papers from now on? Pretty please? With sprinkles on top?

<comment><USER20> I believe "spooky action at a distance" is a term used by actual physicists to describe some quantum phenomena. Though I don't know if the reporter used it in the same sense.

<comment><USER21> Usually in reference to quantum entanglement. The quote is from Einstein (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement>)

The reporter is probably referencing that to some extent but mainly in the sense that it goes against classical intuition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Previous discussion, about 2 months ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3252591>

</comment><comment><USER23> Just a couple of points to consider. In the static Casimir effect the mirrors cancel out virtual 1/2 wavelength standing waves so there is pressure outside of the gap forcing the plates together. In the dynamic Casimir effect the mirrors move fast enough to cancel out only half of the pair of virtual waves. The other half whose energy is provided from the movement of the mirrors remains.

</comment><comment><USER24> Background: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Analogies_and_th...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Analogies_and_the_dynamic_Casimir_effect)

</comment><comment><USER25> _In practical terms that's impossible because it would take the output of a nuclear power plant to accelerate a mirror to such high velocities_ [speed of light]

No, in practical terms that's impossible because the mass of the mirror would become unfathomable when it got within 10% of the upper speed of light.</comment>


Gibber: Music live coding environment for the browser - <AUTHOR> http://gibber.mat.ucsb.edu/ <comment><AUTHOR> If you start too much sounds it sounds noisy in chrome. It's a bug in web audio and will be fixed.</comment>


Ask HN: encrypted cloud file storage for iOS/Android? - <AUTHOR> Hi
I am using spideroak to backup my computers and can access it from my mobiles/tablets.
But unlike google drive/dropbox I cant upload files from my mobile.
So my question is, are there any good zeroknowledge encrypted cloud storage solution that allows uploads from mobile devices? <comment><USER2> I quite like [https://mega.nz](https://mega.nz) \- free accounts come with 50gb storage too.

</comment><comment><USER3> Setup your own tahoe-lafs cluster on a vps. No need to trust where you host it.

<comment><USER4> He was looking for a "zeroknowledge" solution. You need to know a bit about networking for this solution. Also being interested in this, can you recommend any tutorials?</comment></comment>


Testing ideas that are unconventional - <AUTHOR>

I am researching the customer development and lean startup process. I think there are a lot of great concepts in this model. One thing i am curious about is how do you test the MVP of an unconventional idea?<p>For example i think about an app like twitter - no one really thought it would take off the way it did but it just had something you can't really research ahead of time with google keywords. <comment><USER2> I'd start by building a hypothesis of who your user would be - then go out and find some people that match that criteria. Landing pages & 'smoke tests' are some tools you can use to augment the info you gather, but you'll want to "get out of the building" and speak one on one with some potential users.

Also, when you're speaking with someone don't even bring up your product until the end. Focus on the problem that you're trying to solve.

I recently saw Brant Cooper and Patrick Vlaskovits speak, and would really recommend their book to anyone wanting to do customer development: <http://www.custdev.com>

<comment><AUTHOR> thank you. i actually came up with this question after reading that book (which was fantastic).

does this process apply to everything, or is there some sort of 'phenomena' where an idea can be highly successful without any supporting evidence leading up to launch?</comment></comment>


Anger is temporary madness: the Stoics knew how to curb it - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/ideas/anger-is-temporary-madness-heres-how-to-avoid-the-triggers <comment><USER2> Like all emotions, anger can a very useful tool and it is important to let it out sometimes. The belief that anger is unnecessary and needs to be curbed no matter what only leads to bottling it up and that is never good. Do not feel bad about feeling angry.

<comment><USER3> The judgment about when it's productive to feel angry or more importantly express anger is the tricky part.

We shouldn't let ourselves be abused or threatened beyond what is reasonable, but where is reasonable?

It's not good to be an abrasive difficult to deal with person who explodes at every perceived slight. So when in doubt I think it's better to error on the side of patience.

<comment><USER4> What if it's not about when but how? Anger is there when we need to set a limit, lending us a little severity and fearlessness. Simply being very firm with someone can be a complete expression of anger, leaning on that severity and bravery to set aside conciliatory manners when they are unfitting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Aggression is usually skillful when targeted at improving the predictive model which led to undesired circumstances and usually unskillful when targeted at individuals. The brain evolved to enable survival machines for genes to make predictions. He who builds the best predictive model fastest wins.

</comment><comment><USER6> I suppose angry and mad are synonymous for a reason.</comment>


Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie - <AUTHOR> http://www.mensjournal.com/everything-you-know-about-fitness-is-a-lie/print/ <comment><USER2> If you really want to get fit, there's one easy thing you can do that actually works:

Take up a sport that gets you fit as a side effect.

I have two obsessions in life: Rock Climbing and Surfing. I'm pretty good at the first, and borderline hopeless at the other, but I'm committed to the point where I've arranged my life so that I can travel for months at a time to pursue one or the other each year.

When I'm working a contract to save up for the next trip, I'll find myself slowly fattening up on fish tacos and 12 hour days coding in a felt cube with only the occasional after work or weekend fix of rock or salt water. After a few months I'm decidedly soft, and quite a bit heavier. But put me on the beach in Thailand for 5 months and holy crap, what a difference.

It's like Fat Camp out there. There's _so much_ fun climbing to be had right on the beach. Overhanging routes that work you into the sort of shape that lets you literally hand-over-hand your way out a horizontal roof by your fingertips as your feet dangle out in space. Without anybody forcing you, you spend your entire day working yourself silly, then you come back and eat _rice_. You can imagine what that does for your physique. It's like a convention of Men's Health cover models out there.

I come back to the world, and watch people going to the gym and clearly hating every minute of it. I can't understand why they would do that to themselves, when there's a climbing gym just a few miles away.

<comment><USER3> Every time there's an article on exercise or diet, there's a pileon of people promoting their own beliefs, with no apparent sign that they read the original link.

How do you address the fact that your point is actively contradicted by the article? Did you even _know_ your point is actively contradicted by the article? I'm not even saying that proves you're wrong; what bothers me is that you just ran off to post your own stuff with no apparent engagement of the topic. That's not a recipe for learning anything.

<comment><USER2> The author talks about his experience or getting fit by going to a gym and lifting free weights. I countered with my approach, which revolves around setting your life up so that fitness is merely a side effect.

I'm not contradicting anything that he says. I used to lift weights in much the manner that he describes, and it'd be difficult to deny that it works.

The thing that he misses is motivation. Most people simply have none of it. I certainly don't for weight lifting.

In my experience, climbing rocks and surfing, while possibly suboptimal as workouts, will absolutely get you into great shape. And they have the added benefit of providing their own motivation.

<comment><USER4> _In my experience, climbing rocks and surfing, while possibly suboptimal as workouts, will absolutely get you into great shape. And they have the added benefit of providing their own motivation._

Eh, I don't find rock climbing at all enjoyable. But I love running marathons. I've even been known to put in 22 miles _on a treadmill_. Different strokes for different folks.

<comment><USER5> 22 miles on a treadmill. Talk about boring, I do not understand how you can manage this. Now running outside is another story entirely but stationary bikes/treadmills/elipticals I cannot understand.

<comment><USER6> Runners get high like few people can: [http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com%2...](http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com%20runners%20high)

All on their own supply. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Given he calls Crossfit sadistic it's ironic he's basically describing it. Free weights, core strength, a focus on overall fitness and all aspects thereof over abstract weight numbers. It's not complicated and plenty of people know it.

Hyperbolic headlines are intensely irritating.

<comment><USER8> Not exactly.

In Crossfit times and reps matter more than form. Just take a look at some gyms. The exercises and the philosophy behind is awesome, but the practical appliance is far from great.

<comment><USER9> There's an emphasis on improving scores and people get carried away for sure. But in the two boxes I've trained at there's a culture for good form and working on technique. "Honesty in motion, honesty in counting".

I believe it's a CrossFit thing.

<comment><USER10> > I believe it's a CrossFit thing.

Based on this claim I assume also that Crossfit invented the barbell, the bumper plate and gravity.

The sudden outburst of anecdotes about how _your_ Crossfit gym rooly trooly emphasises form seems to have come after _years_ of sustained criticism by strength coaches and Olympic weightlifting coaches.

It's as simple as this: nobody -- not me, not you, not your coach, not the pros -- _nobody_ can pump out high rep Oly movements without steady and ultimately _dangerous_ degradation in form. The force plate studies, the EEG studies, the eyeballing of experienced coaches demonstrate over and over and over that it is a flat out stupid idea to do snatches or cleans for reps.

And yet in Crossfit gyms everywhere, this idea of smashing out 20 clean & jerks still keeps getting circulated.

You cannot do this and learn to do the movements precisely enough. You will only train yourselves to do it messily. Under heavy weights you will fuck up and injure yourself.

Given that I love Oly lifting, I don't want people getting injured and then _blaming the lifts_ , when they should be blaming a _faulty training technique_.

<comment><USER11> I haven't done crossfit, but I am curious - what prevents you from doing 20 proper form clean & jerks if you lower the weight?

<comment><USER12> It's the timing aspect, and it's particularly an issue with squats. Even at lower weight, it's far to easy to get your knees pushed forward or your back arched when trying to pump through them as fast as possible.

I don't think anyone is saying that it's not _possible_ , it's just much more likely that your average lifter is going to run into injury.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I sometimes wish we could delete the entire fitness industry from the world and replace it with a few lines of text, something like this: eat right, exercise, get adequate sleep, reduce stress, get variety, use natural motions, breathe deep, get yourself winded intentionally from time to time, when in doubt walk, etc. The vast majority of people probably never need to go near a fancy weight machine or even lift artificial weights of any kind. Just carrying out normal actions in the Earth's gravitational field, putting your body through all the natural ranges of motion it's capable of doing, is actually pretty darn adequate, and can build muscle and improve figure and physical capabilities. I believe most of the industry is not much more honest than a shyster trying to sell snake oil.

<comment><USER14> Forgive my ignorance but how exactly does being winded help somebody become fit.

By getting yourself winded do you mean being punched in the stomach hard enough to lose your breath for a moment, or something else?

<comment><USER15> Something else — the feeling you get after some kind of strenuous activity that raises your heart/breathing rate. Running, for example.

What you're referring to is getting the wind _knocked out_ of you.

<comment><USER16> For what it's worth I've never heard what you describe called "winded". To me winded means getting the wind knocked out of you. I wonder if it is a regional thing.

<comment><USER17> In the northeast of the US, getting winded is breathing heavily from exertion. It implies reaching your max exertion point.

I would think the rest of the US uses it the same way, just based on talking with friends throughout the country. I'm not sure if our brethren to the north use it the same way.

<comment><USER12> Same in the south and midwest... I've never heard the other interpretation at all:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think a lot of the comments here are missing the point of this article.

Free weights are vital for muscle strength, mass and edurance. That doesn't mean free weights take the place of your other activities such as skiing or mountain climbing. That doesn't mean that you cut out cardio, that's something else entirely, even though some people work on cardio in the gym along with strength training.

Free weights are also great for building the entire structure of your body. There is nothing which can stress the major muscles of the legs, bones and supporting muscle groups like throwing a huge weight on your shoulders and squatting that weight multiple times. Swimming, isometrics and all that other stuff won't do it. Machines also don't do this because you don't have weight to stabilize in both directions. The power move of the squat is to push upwards with your legs but you still have to lower that huge weight in an orderly down movement to start the exercise.

<comment><USER19> Actually it kinda reads exactly like cutting out cardio for the most part, though admittedly I only skimmed through it. Perhaps it isn't communicating its point very well?

Personally I heavily favour cardiovascular fitness over muscular fitness, and would choose the former in a heartbeat (ahaha) if I had to pick one. Currently I cycle and do astanga, though I plan on adding some low-rep strength training to the mix too.

<comment><USER18> The article doesn't really touch on cardio much. The general idea of the article is that in the _gym_ all you really need is the basics of free weights. That's the best you can get out of the gym for the other activities in your life which may include all the cardio you need. There's lots of ways to get cardio, but everyone would do well to follow the same basic free-weight program like he lays out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Prisoners are among the most fit people in the world, despite an absence of good machines, good diet, coaches, and instructional material.

If you want to be fit, start exercising--a nice way to get started is to truly understand that any kind of exercise is very much better than doing nothing.

<comment><USER21> I have read on various weight lifting forums that at least some prisoners smuggle in steroids, protein powders/bars and also steal extra food when they can. This would certainly lead them to getting into great shape if all they do is workout and get the needed supplements.

Also, I don't know about you, but I don't personally know anyone in jail, so other than perception that guys in jail are huge, I'm not really sure its true.

<comment><USER8> Good read here:

Training Behind Bars Pt. 1: <http://goo.gl/epno3>

Training Behind Bars Pt. 2: <http://goo.gl/ppvHU>

Easily two of the best articles on T-Nation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is a one sided view of fitness. e.g. there is zero focus on cardio. Would be interesting to see one of these guys do a light 5 mile run. Look into real world training: running, hard hiking with a pack, mountain biking, swimming/surfing. These types of exercise have been the most rewarding for me in terms of skeletal, muscle and cardio fitness.

The only thing I agree with in the article is that cardio machines in the gym are a waste of time.

<comment><USER23> _The only thing I agree with in the article is that cardio machines in the gym are a waste of time._

Not sure this is really true or that it matters. A 5 mile run on the treadmill at an x minute pace is the same as a 5 mile run outside at an x minute pace. Advantages of the treadmill include being able to keep a given pace without making any particular mental effort. Advantages of being outside is that it's not boring.

<comment><USER24> Hmm, well it's more subtle than that. Running on a "real" surface, that is constantly changing gradient and direction, works a lot of ancillary muscles for stability and balance that you don't get on a treadmill. The cardio workout might be the same. But if you trained for a Marathon only on a treadmill, you'd be in for a bit of a surprise when you tried a real one. Without the core strength you'd lose your form, your running would be less efficient, you'd get exhausted much more quickly.

<comment><USER25> The other thing I've noticed is that when running on a treadmill, it may seem like your legs are making roughly the same motion as real running, but you're not pushing yourself _forward_ , just _upward_. Your legs definitely don't have to work as hard pushing your body around.

<comment><USER26> My girlfriend is currently training for a half marathon and was told to never ever run on the treadmill with it set flat, so she goes with a fairly decent incline (not running up hill, but definitely should get some resistance) the entire time at a minimum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I get the logic and intent behind these kind of articles but at the same time they infuriate me, because this is the kind of crap that people read and use as yet-another-reason as to why they don't try to get fit.

Sure, machines aren't perfect, and they railroad your form, but it's better than nothing. I train on machines, _and_ with free weight, _and_ doing bodyweight / crossfit stuff. They all have their place.

There's no way I'd try to pull the rep max on a free barbell that I would on a smith machine, but it says nothing about how effective one or the other is.

It's like the whole internet self defense huff. A billion words written on the technicalities of all the different martial arts but most fights are won by punching the other guy repeatedly hard enough to stop him hitting you. Sure it's not perfect, but its taking action and it gets results.

<comment><USER28> ummm, No!

From anecdotal experience - the training plan he describes is something I did when I started out mountainbiking and ran straight into a probably best coach in vicinity.

My training program was a lot like the one described in the article - It was longer, but I was too lazy to do all of it - so I landed right where he suggests 3-4 times lifting weights a week. And boy did I get strong. But then I started fiddling out with trendy programs and fuxxored it all. :)

I guess that not using machines wont make such a difference, its more the training regime (reps, measuring your maximum, doing the pyramid). It's just that they are unnecessary.

So there are 3 things I have learned about fitness:

1\. Your basic training / off season training should be exactly as described in this article.

2\. Most people work out waaay too much.

3\. If you are serious about your sport: do interval training twice a week (max).

That's it - that's all are there is. Everything else you can do your sport or whatever.

<comment><USER27> My gripe is about "getting fit" as in coming from baseline / nothing to being a reasonable human being. When I was pushing 310 pounds (as in ass weight, not bench weight), this is the kind of thing I would read and go, hey, yeah! Super clever mountain man training! That's the stuff, screw the gym, I'm all over this, I'm so pro!

Not a unique attitude at all. What got me down to the 200 mark though was just joining a gym, pushing out squats / deadlifts / presses (on machines for the first few months), utilizing the trainers, getting some buddies on board, eating less and getting the job done.

Average joe doesn't have room for gear at home, or the motivation to independently structured programs, or they just flat out get intimidated by hanging around training camps or gyms. I don't think there's room to discourage anything that has potential benefit for people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I have lifted weights for 15 years. But now I ditched the gym all together. Got bored with neon lights, the smell of sweat and watching fat people run on a treadmill ;)

Now I only sport outdoors and for muscle strength I use kettle-bells: [http://www.amazon.com/Kettlebell-Strength-Secret-Soviet- Supe...](http://www.amazon.com/Kettlebell-Strength-Secret-Soviet- Supermen/dp/0938045695/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1299227111&sr=8-3)

Just read [http://www.amazon.com/Kettlebell-Strength-Secret-Soviet- Supe...](http://www.amazon.com/Kettlebell-Strength-Secret-Soviet- Supermen/dp/0938045695/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1299227111&sr=8-3) and you know enough. No expensive equipment needed and it takes only 3 times 30 to 40 minutes a week to gain considerable strength and cardio!

</comment><comment><USER30> [citation needed]

Here's another anecdote: No lifting weights, only running & cycling and lately swimming. Pretty much the opposite of what the article is arguing. Since I started this I'm doing I'm doing fairly well, six pack included. I went to the gym once, and saw bulked up guys getting 5 pull ups. So I tried that and could easily do 30. Lifting weights may make you look like a bodybuilder, but are you really fit?

<comment><USER31> You do realize that the bulked up guys probably weigh a lot more than you do so the number of achieved pull-ups is not an interesting measure?

The really bulked-up ones most likely train for muscle mass, not for any useful activity.

<comment><USER30> Sure, they do weigh a lot more than I do. Isn't that part of the fair comparison? You don't give a cyclist or runner a backpack with weights in it because it's "unfair" that he weighs less than the other cyclist/runner. These guys were probably training pull ups every week at least, so it's on their home territory. Yet their training is less effective than running & cycling. For the vast majority of activities, performance relative to body weight is the interesting measure, not absolute weight lifted. I'm just saying that if lifting weights is so much better than other forms of training, why weren't they able to do pull ups much better?

My second point is that yes, this is an anecdote. So is the article. Don't take either as a scientific inquiry.

<comment><USER32> And in a rock lifting competition they would win easily. I don't see your point. You pick an arbitrary metric that you happen to be good at and declare victory.

As it stands, all you've done is point out that there are different tasks and depending on your target task the ideal body composition and training routine differs.

If you want to be good at pullups you should probably let all your leg muscles atrophy and just build lats and biceps.

<comment><USER30> If you should do that then I am certainly doing it wrong by running and cycling and letting my arm muscles atrophy. Sure, they'd win a rock lifting competition. And if weight lifting is so good, then they _should_ win a pull- up competition, since that's also what they're training for and it's _not_ what I'm training for by virtually only using my legs. My point being: take this article with a huge grain of salt and train for real fitness not for how much kg you can lift. The easiest way to improve that is to become very fat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> _Everything You Know About Fitness is a Lie_

If you just learn this 'fact', then _some_ of the facts you know about fitness will of necessity be true, consistency willing.

</comment><comment> brown9-2 _Mainstream men's fitness magazines have no larger mission than profitable advertising sales, which means endless pitches for useless (if not outright dangerous) dietary supplements and articles on "Seven Steps to Great Abs," always omitting the all-important Step Eight: In order to make your six-pack even remotely visible to the naked eye, reduce your total body fat to an inhuman 10 percent._

This describes just about every issue of "Mens Health" magazine, by the way.

</comment><comment><USER34> I started going to gym 3 years ago. My weight was 55kg (122lbs) and height was 182cm (~6ft). Very underweight. I knew nothing about training. So I paid for a personal trainer. He made me program where almost all exercises were on the machines. At least he put squat and bench press there too. I trained when I had time, 2-4 times a week.

Last summer I did some arm wrestling with my friend. I lost. I thought what's wrong. I weighed less than my friend, but he didn't do any weight training. So I started looking how to get more strength.

I started doing core strength (Squat, bench press, dead lift, press, power clean, pull-ups). No more machines, biceps curls, calf raises, wrist curls, etc. Also, I started eating much more. With last 2 months I've gained 4kg (8-9lbs). My squat is currently 102.5kg (226lbs), that is ~1.4x of my body weight. I've gained more strength and weight with 2 months than I usually did in a year. And what's most important, now I beat my friend :).

</comment><comment><USER35> The article's conclusion: Lift big with classic lifts. Gain strength.

What I actually do: Take walks and do isometrics on convenient bars, poles, etc. Max power, 5-10 second holds, multiple angles. The better I am about those rules, the more progress I make. More effective than any gym I've ever been in.

<comment><USER36> I understand what you are saying...isometrics are awesome...I actually do them almost everyday and I swear by them. I also swear by dynamic tension flexing, which brings great results.

But don't confuse those results with the results from classic big lifts. Like I said, I do isometrics all the time, but squats, deadlifts, benchpress and pullups are going to develop your musculature in ways isometrics never could.

What I'm doing now is a class lift style of back squats, deadlifts and benchpress 5x5 program for strength. Progress 5 pounds each session (make sure you start very low so you can build up) and end the each session with a circuit of your choosing x 3 (I normally do something like BW to failure of pullups, pushups, dips, plank, bridge/mule kick, ...then break and do it all again). Total workout including warmup takes 45 minutes max (I warm up for about 20 minutes).

This will build tons of muscle and you will gain strength very quickly. Though, make sure you eat right (Paleo) and cut out the crappy foods like grains/glutens/sugars and you will see fantastic results (if you still eat grains and the like, you'll gain weight, but you likely won't lose any fat .... some people call this "shitty weight" akin to drinking 2 gallons of milk a day).

<comment><USER8> +1 for 5x5. I'm currently on the Texas Method and I'm love the volume on the squats and the deadlifts. I eat pre and post workout carbs though, to make sure I got enough energy (bulking phase right now). The fat you gain is easy to lose afterwards!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> These links to auto-printing pages are unacceptable. Link me to the normal display article in these cases. I'll take it from there.

<comment><USER38> Browsers should just not have auto-printing. How much time is saved by not having to press CTRL+P? Likewise, how much time is wasted because of unintentional print dialogs (like this one) and how much time is wasted in developing and maintaining such a feature?

I say cut it, nobody is going to miss it.

<comment><USER39> Printing from browsers in general is a mess. Is there a printable version of the page? Is there a CSS stylesheet that changes the appearance for print? Do you use Ctrl-P, or is there some little "click here to print" button you have to find on the page to not have everything be messed up?

I didn't realize how complicated this was until I tried to explain it to my grandparents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The author clearly equates fitness with strength, and some of his claims are way off.

Here's one: "...maintaining cardiovascular fitness doesn't really take much more than breathing uncomfortably hard for about 20 minutes, three times a week"

As a former competitive runner, I've read hundreds of studies and abstracts about improving various cardio-vasuclar metrics. 20 minutes, three times a week is barely enough to generate even modest VO2 max improvements. Ideally it takes 40-60 minutes, five times a week, plus an extra long session of over 90 minutes. This is about the minimum training you'll see in a 5k runner or 1000m swimmer. Top 10k runners generally require 70-90 minutes a day, even when doing interval work and have long runs of over two hours. The results of this sort of training are measurable. LT, VO2max, resting HR and a variety of other metrics show a dose dependent response.

Many studies[1] have also demonstrated that even recreational distance training results in a wide variety of benefits that weight training does not, even including increased rates of neurogenesis and longer telemeres than average for one's age.

Weight training clearly is superior for increasing muscle and bone mass, but it isn't a magical silver bullet that improves _everything_.

[1] I've cited all of these on hn before, most don't have paywalls and they should be googleable.

<comment><USER18> You should quote the entire paragraph.

"Cardio machines are innocent enough, as they won't actually make you any less fit, but maintaining cardiovascular fitness doesn't really take much more than breathing uncomfortably hard for about 20 minutes, three times a week. And we all know that swimming, hoops, bike riding, and even Ultimate Frisbee can get the job done, and that treadmills or elliptical trainers are a pale substitute."

Perhaps he made an incorrect claim here. But to be fair, you should go for the point of the paragraph as opposed to one sentence from it. What he is saying here is that the cardio machines in the gym are little better than maintenance for cardio and are a poor substitute for other ways to get the same sort of workout. I think this argument still fits within your own here.

The overall point of the article is that for strength, muscle mass and muscle endurance, there is no substitute for the basic free weight exercises. That's not to say that you should only do those exercises and that you can't benefit from more specialized training, but that everyone still benefits from those exercises and should make them part of a core program. The same cannot be said for cardio machines.

<comment><USER40> I completely agree with you (and the article) that free weights are the way to go over machine weights.

However, I completely disagree that weights are more important for general fitness than cardio. This was one of the primary claims of the article, and it wasn't backed up in any meaningful way. The part I quoted was just one illustration of the the author's attitude. His entire focus is on strength, not fitness.

<comment><USER18> What I got from the article is that it's mostly aimed towards the typical local gyms. He isn't arguing cardio is unimportant. He's saying that inside a gym the free weights are important, everything else might just be a waste of time. The full paragraph you quoted seems to be saying cardio on a treadmill in front of a T.V. is a waste when you could be getting the same cardio from a different activity (such as real running.) But, if you are going for the sorts of benefits that free weights can bring, then there really is no better alternative except perhaps in certain extreme cases such as with elite athletes. So again, the article is aimed at the inside of your typical gym, not outside it, which is where you would be doing most of your running I assume. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I recently started on "starting strength" & I'm seeing that exact same linear progression. It's really awesome.

</comment><comment><USER42> As someone who just tried to start this kind of thing (heavy squat/deadlift every couple of days) and hurt my lower back pretty good, I just don't know about this advice.

<comment><USER43> Then you did the exercises in bad form. Years ago my fitness condition was like the article described: little-girl weak. My back and my neck ached a lot after coding sessions. Fast-forward until now doing squats, dead lifts, presses three times a week for 3 months I am much stronger, can run 2x longer and the pain has completely gone away.

At first i followed Stronglift 5x5's advice: start with the bar only, concentrate on proper form for at least 2 weeks and increase the load slightly for each workout. I'm also lucky that there are sport students working as tutors at my university gym. They are taught proper (olympic) weight lifting so I asked them to correct my form if I did the exercises wrong. After that it's like riding a bicycle, once learned you will never forget how to ride.

<comment><USER42> See, but I had done it before - 3/4 years ago I was squatting 315 for 10 reps, so either my form was fine back then and degraded somehow or it was never good and I just got away with it because I was young and in shape.

Either way, the article completely glosses over the "oh, by the way if you do this wrong you will ruin your shit" aspect of squats and deadlifts, which is a pretty compelling argument for machines in my book.

<comment><USER44> This.

My personal experience (which includes a lovely meniscus blowout during squats) is that even given perfect form, once you get up to heavy weights (2x-3x bodyweight for deads and squats) you are starting to push the limits of your body and need to realize that occasional injury is part of the total picture.

That said, I still stay away from machines. I feel even if you're working with light weights, the balance factor of free weights adds so much more to the workout.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Kind of odd that there's virtually no data in this article. I feel like I could write an article that said the complete opposite and be just as compelling. Seems like a typical "health magazine" article. No data, just conjecture dressed up as fact.

</comment><comment><USER46> I hate articles like this. Not because they don't highlight what a steaming pile the actual fitness and training industry is, but because they're way too slow. Proper training articles have existed for a long time, in easily reachable spots. For all the stupidity at BodyBuilding.com, their forums biggest stickies are those about the 'Starting Strength' workouts - the ones where you deadlift, squat, and bench. T-Nation, another big one, has never advocated anything else for a starting athlete.

I just hate when someone posts something like this and goes 'Everything You Know Is A Lie!" No, it's not. I just happen to have read this shit eight years ago, and that was late already.

</comment><comment><USER47> Wow, a ten-page article that says almost nothing, despite the shocking title. I think anyone serious about fitness knows that free weights and sports are the most effective and fun ways to get there.

Also haven't heard it mentioned yet so I'll share some other good ideas for the geeks. One is to move about a mile or two from work ... arrive every morning refreshed instead of cursing traffic. Two, take up salsa dancing and chat up the hot latinas. Three, get a cheap bike and ride the local hills. Catching a beautiful sunset with a view is a fantastic reward. Also helps me catch up with my podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER48> My thoughts on "diet" vs. "exercise": they're two pieces of the same puzzle, and I prefer to manage the "exercise" side of the equation more proactively. Reason is because eating in (esp. in America) today is HARD. There's a lot of crap out there, portion sizes are whack, fat, sodium and empty carbs are everywhere. And you must eat multiple times every day, so that means you make many DECISIONS about eating every single day (hundreds?). Fighting against the grain (pun intended) of what food is readily available and easily accessible is an uphill battle, filled with guilty, uncertain, and constrained decision making.

Don't get me wrong, I still try to eat healthy (and I'm lucky to live in San Francisco where there are more healthful options). But, the nice thing about exercise is that you only have to make ONE DECISION every day. And that is to do it. Once it's done, it's done. And it's not too hard to find a fitness activity you really enjoy doing, plus the endorphin rush you get from a good workout is amazing. When you build exercise into your lifestyle as a healthy habit, it's not even a decision anymore, it's automatic.

I'd much rather live a healthy lifestyle with a daily (or almost daily) fitness routine than to painstakingly count calories or awkwardly ask the waiter to 'hold the bun, please, and remove the excess butters, sugars, fats, and salts..' every time I go out to eat. That just makes it awkward for you and everybody else.

</comment><comment><USER49> Without the printer pop: [http://www.mensjournal.com/everything-you-know- about-fitness...](http://www.mensjournal.com/everything-you-know-about- fitness-is-a-lie/)

</comment><comment><USER50> Okay I got up to 175 lbs for squats and then I started getting a severe, stabbing pain in my knee when I did them. Seems to me that squats are not so good for my knees. Leg press does not give me this problem.

Additionally, I've been doing deadlifts, and just this weekend I pulled a muscle in my back doing 245 lbs (and no, I was not rounding my back).

As you can tell, I am becoming hugely dissatisfied with these so-called "core" exercises. I haven't seen much improvement from them at all, and I've only ever gotten injuries from them.

<comment><USER51> (Disclaimer, I'm not an expert, but I can squat well over 1.5x my weight for several reps)

For squats, you should make sure to go parallel and "sit back" at the bottom of the movement, while pushing your knees out to the sides as you go down. This takes the stress of the weight off of your knees and onto your posterior chain. Otherwise you'll get hurt knees just as you described.

Not sure what could cause that deadlift problem, other than maybe trying to lift with your back before the bar clears your knees (which until that point your legs should be doing most of the lifting).

FWIW, it took me a long time to really get comfortable with my technique in the heavy compound exercises, but I've seen remarkable gains from them once I learned proper technique.

If you're really serious about doing the core exercises with proper technique, I strongly recommend picking up a copy of Mark Rippetoe's "Starting Strength" book. It goes into great detail the correct technique and mechanics behind the exercises.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I dunno. I was always told free-weights are better than isolation (because you'll exercise complementary muscles), don't train the same thing until the second day after, and you won't get far if you don't push yourself.

For a massively-super-summary: that's all they said, in 6 pages.

The rest of it is a lengthy exposition about how his motivating force was someone who told him how pathetic he was, made him realize it instead of just hear it, and then made him do the above.

</comment><comment><USER21> When it comes to lifting the only real "fact" is that what works best varies from person to person. People with great genetics can do heavy volume lifting 5 or 6 days a week and make amazing gains. Meanwhile, others will struggle to make any progress even with a low volume 2 day a week routine because their body doesn't recover well.

Just go out there, experiment and see what works for you.

<comment><USER53> Yes. But just include the workout from Starting Strength (or similar) in your experiments. It should work for nearly all beginners.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> _First, I realized that we all live in a kind of Fitness Fog, a miasma of lies and misinformation that we mistake for common sense, and that makes most of our gym time a complete waste._

The big news here, is that there are many kinds of such mental fog. You can read this article and learn how to get fit more effectively, but there is an even deeper lesson here.

</comment><comment><USER55> It's funny because this kind of article always ends up recommending a simple, classic free weight program. Then you look at the gyms they refer to, and they've got people doing stuff like this:

<http://www.mtnathlete.com/page.php?page_ID=2>

<comment><USER56> GPP [1] is the sort of thing people add to their programs when they're already doing basic weight routines all the time and they want to see even _more_ progress. You don't have to start dragging rocks on day 1.

[1] <http://www.elitefts.com/documents/gpp.htm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Or: just go for the skinny pale look. Really works thanks to those twilight and social network movies.

</comment><comment><USER58> I strongly disagree about the "stretching is bad for you" part... but I guess he _did_ say "without your body warmed up"... you always want to stretch before working out but get your body warmed up first by jogging in place or doing jumping jacks or something for a few minutes. You want ballistic stretching and static stretching. It has without a doubt helped with my overall fitness while reducing soreness.

<comment><USER48> Stretching is best done after a strength workout to dissipate blood pooling and lactic acid build up in the muscles. Doing so will reduce muscle soreness and facilitate the muscle recovery process.

Of course, stretching in and of itself can (and should) be done as an excellent standalone workout!

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I swear by bodyweight-only resistance / circular strength training. Currently doing TacFit -- despite their ridiculous hard-sell marketing which is uselessly and pointlessly "spec ops" and warrior-themed (I won't link as I'm not affiliated other than a legit happy user). But there are more body-weight approaches than that one. Google circular strength training / CST and much cheaper than buying the TacFit videos would be getting a used paperback copy of "You are your own gym".

It's body-weight only, unlike gyms no machines, unlike crossfit no other weights.

BENEFIT: keep travelling without buying equipment you don't want to carry in your luggage. Don't maintain x gym memberships around the world.

It burns fat (don't really need that too much yet) faster and more efficiently in less time than hours doing aerobic running / swimming / cycling would. Aerobic exercises may be good for heart and lungs, but for calory burning they're laughable.

BENEFIT: muscle building and calory burning in one workout.

(Of course, if you wanna look like The Hulk you'll need to have weights at least kettlebell dumbell or indian clubs, daily protein counting and all the bodybuilding stuff. BUT you will look incredibly impressive with just bodyweight / Tacfit after only 20-30 days of good form, and it only gets better from there -- you even retain a good amount of the goodness after pausing from it up to 2 months afterwards, which a longer hospital attendance may force upon you).

No rep-counting, time-under-tension matters. This matches your bodily clockworks. Your muscles don't count reps either. Time under tension, whether you only get 2 reps under perfect form (important) or 20.

BENEFIT: no counting, just stopwatch.

There are no off-days, you cycle through 4 consecutive days (no intensity day 1: 20 mins, low intensity day 2: 20 mins, moderate intensity day 3: 40 mins, high intensity day 4: 40 mins) all the time. After 4x7 days, it is time to level up, adding sophistication, more challenging movements etc. to keep the body from adapting. TacFit in my view is a pretty unique mix of exercises and movements recombining elements of martial arts, yoga, classical bodyweight exercises and more, that help you on joint mobility, flexibility, core strength, muscle building, posterior improvement and both injury prevention and proofing -- all in a pre-defined package that will last you 9 months in a row without having to customize, modify or tweak the program. Afterwards, add weights, take 5 days off and start from scratch, mix or match, etc.

BENEFIT: minimum time investment gets you results in all areas that matter, including but not limited to mere appearance and looks.

Boy I sound like a marketer but this is really hacker-friendly, entrepreneur- friendly, productive-but-time-pressed-busy-person friendly. It revolves around so much research and experimentation done by the coaches who composed this after decades of experience. They're on Facebook, real people giving sensible advice to everyone and anyone dropping by asking questions. They get 70-80 year old people incredibly fit that couldn't survive neither a gym nor a crossfit session. (But rest assured their exercises are not granny material, they will kick your butt no matter your stage of physical development.) I'm seriously impressed with their stuff. You can browse my past comments here over the last 3 years, I'm not usually writing marketing copy for commercial digital goods around here _at all_. So this is really simply "everything I need to know about fitness" and I really do think it's the most hacker- suitable option out there.

<comment><USER60> For TacFit, what resources do you have (or would recommend)? I found one very shady looking website selling some DVDs and a book...

<comment><USER59> Yes the shady-looking site is the one ... I know it's just a horrible ridiculous "spec-ops / warrior-themed" silly uber landing page. But the sports / education / science bits behind it are sound and a lot of effort, expertise and coaching experience went into the videos. My guess is that this guy tried hard to be his own marketer or hired some "ebook sales copy pro" or his cousin to do the overall presentation. It looks shady but isn't one bit once you get to the actual contents.

Maybe better to start from here:

<http://www.rmaxinternational.com/forum>

The TacFit coaches are also RMAX coaches or somehow connected but sell their own TacFit creation under their own label it seems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> My two cents on fitness:

1\. Do something you like. This way you stick to it. 2\. Don't overthink it, if you are just doing fitness for your health. There is not such thing like a perfect fat burning workout, etc. 3\. My ideas don't count if you are an athlete who wants to improve on performance.

No go out and do something, dont read this crappy article

</comment><comment><USER62> If you want to lift free weights, a great place to start is Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe.

</comment><comment><USER63> As a bible for starting fitness training, might I add that Starting Strength [1], by Mark Rippetoe, is a must read.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2287803>

</comment><comment><USER64> I've been wondering about getting fit for years, then suddenly one day out of the blue, my doctor told me the secret: "Eat Less & Work Out More"

 _smashes forehead_ , why has everyone been keep this a secret for so long :)

<comment><USER53> You can also eat more. I added a few kg since I started weight lifting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> would you take coding advice from someone that couldn't write "hello world" in C? Then don't take fitness advice from someone that, by his own admission, could only squat 40 lbs before he wrote the article...

<comment><USER66> For your analogy, he couldn't write "hello world" in C _before_ writing the article. Before finishing the article, he was able to write software better than the vast majority of developers. While writing the article, he received training and advice from the person who trained the best developers. I'd sure pay attention.

<comment><USER65> I have to disagree - your assessment would suggest that at the end he was more fit than the vast majority of people that try to be fit, and that his teacher was the best in the world. My point was simply that he did not have a frame of reference to evaluate the quality of the fitness program he took on relative to other programs with competent instructors (since his lack of fitness demonstrated that he had never had any competent instruction).

To keep the analogy from the original post, do you trust a first year CS student to tell you the best way to learn coding? That student finally had a competent teacher and went from zero to writing a lisp compiler in C. What he doesnt realize is so did every other first year college CS student, and they may have had an entirely different curriculum and experience. And they are all at the beginning of a journey, not the end.

If the article were written by a pro athlete, for example, that had experimented with lots of different fitness regimes over that course of a life in which he was clearly successful in being fit, I would take it a lot more seriously, just as I would be more interested in hearing about the best methods of learning to write commercial applications from long-time practitioners that had trained many teams over the years in production environments.

<comment><USER66> The author does have a few indicators that his teacher was in the top tier; the teacher trained special forces troops, the best mountain climbers, and ski racers. These are people who you can trust to be among the best trained in general fitness.

And in the end the author was vastly more fit than the majority of people trying to be fit. The majority of people trying to be fit go to the gym once in a while, do a few cardio exercises, and go home. He was among them before meeting with this guy. He's still well below a lot of people, like professional athletes, but the people he is still below only represent a small fraction of the population.

I get your point though. He still can't say whether or not his trainer is the best or if his ideas are the best. What he can say, though, is that his trainers ideas are much better than those of the typical gym trainer at a franchise gym. This article is clearly not targeted at Michael Phelps. It's targeted at the average gym-goer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> "Throw us in ice-cold water every day and we'll sprout subcutaneous fat for insulation"

What? Everything I know about physiology and the effects of cold exposure make me believe that this is the opposite of the truth.

</comment><comment><USER68> Reminds me of the China Study where the author argues that we spend so much time and money figuring out what individual nutrients do that we don't pay attention to the type of food we eat anymore

</comment><comment><USER69> I hate commercial gyms. Give me a barbell that I can clean and a tire for me to flip and I'm a happy guy.

</comment><comment><USER70> Wow, that's interesting :)

</comment><comment><USER71> This was a good read.

</comment><comment><USER72> I have one bit of specialized weight training advice. We all spend entirely too much time in front of our computers, typically hunched or slouched back, deep in thought.

Ten years of doing this professionally led to shoulder/neck problems, culminating in a pinched nerve between my C6 and C7 vertebrae. It improved with physical therapy, but was never truly fixed, and has bothered me off and on for two years now, despite my adherence to the therapist's rubber band and stretching routine.

I heard through a relative about "Upper Cross Syndrome". Whether that's specifically what I have or not, I don't know, but the symptoms match quite well. Read about it, and you'll probably see that it perfectly describes so many tech people:

[http://www.active.com/fitness/Articles/Avoid_upper_cross_syn...](http://www.active.com/fitness/Articles/Avoid_upper_cross_syndrome_and_maintain_rotator_cuff_stability.htm)

Exercise 6, "External rotation top to bottom" has literally changed my life, and it did so within the first week. For the first time in as long as I can remember, I maintain proper posture at the keyboard (and while walking around). I still get nerve issues if I spend too many days in a row at the computer, but I can't describe to you how much better I feel now than I did after physical therapy!

<comment><USER73> Thanks for the link. I recently injured my neck (c5-c6 and c6-c7), and the physical therapist has suggested a few exercises, but was unable to explain the purpose or benefit of them.

<comment><USER74> There's also a graphic further down in the article about how to prevent various injuries (search 'kevin brown'):

<http://www.mensjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/picture-81.jpg>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> _maintaining cardiovascular fitness doesn't really take much more than breathing uncomfortably hard for about 20 minutes, three times a week_

While that will help, I would not call someone who exercises at that level "fit" or "in shape". I'd call him something less than out of shape.

There are a lot of weight-lifting people who have convinced themselves that weights are the key, and that aerobic exercise is an afterthought.

Here's the funny thing, though: how many fat weight-lifters have you met in your life? I've known plenty.

How many fat runners have you ever met?

</comment><comment><USER76> great article , the only question I have is how to accurately measure when your muscles reach super compensation peak?

<comment><USER53> For starters: You don't. Just do your strength training three times a week, more or less every two days. Works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> TL;DR: Stronglifts.

</comment><comment><USER78> That's right because us hackers really care about fitness

<comment><USER79> Because I can't downvote you, I'll comment.

We do. A lot. Because we're not sitting in our parent's basements eating pizza and chugging mountain dew, we're not hacking the gibson and we're not sweaty, unbathed, pimply losers.

We're motivated, we're not planning to die anytime soon, we're concerned with being able to do things, we're social, we're active and we're sick of the stereotypes.

I'm going to make a massive assumption that your sarcasm was intended to hide the fact that you yourself are ashamed of your fitness. You can't hide behind your profession, your job or your peers. You are the reason you are unfit, unhealthy, eat badly and don't exercise. There truly is no-one else to blame.

But since you're here I assume you have a desire to change the world somehow, so I truly hope you're able to get past any shame and fear you may feel and do something about your problem.

If a feeling of inadequacy is not the problem, they you need to socialize more with hackers... Being a slob in the basement went out the window with the Apple Lisa and Gen X having hair.

<comment><USER80> Looking at your comment, I can't understand why it got upvoted since you are just replacing one set of stereotypes with another, which may fit better with what society wants you to but is still a stereotype.

Now if you want that thats perfectly alright, but I at least only want to spend as little time as possible caring about my body and as little time as possible with normal people since both things are utterly boring.

<comment><USER81> > Now if you want that thats perfectly alright, but I at least only want to > spend as little time as possible caring about my body and as little time as > possible with normal people since both things are utterly boring.

You do have a point. Conformity is not the way. But, at the same time, I'm sad you feel those things are boring. Allow me to explain.

I used to be in your shoes, at least in the fitness aspect. I was a bit of a curmudgeon who'd figured life out at age 24 and decided that I'd be happy programming for, well, ever. That worked well until about age 27, when it started to wear thin. Deadlines, feature creep, a billion new technologies...who cares? It was losing its luster quickly. When I turned 28, I came down with carpal tunnel-like symptoms stemming from an overuse injury. I had to leave my job to give my body time to heal. I learned the hard way that I had to respect my body, and respect myself more.

The time I've put in on fitness has enhanced the rest of my life a disproportionate amount. I'm much smarter about what I eat, and I feel better, and I sleep so much better now. Because the sleep is higher quality, I don't need as much of it. I awaken ready to engage the day, rather than slinking through it. The secret of this is that the body was never meant to be disconnected from the mind. The two are engaged in an continual feedback loop whereby one is reinforcing the actions of the others with beliefs/chemicals. You just need to gently prod the two into better habits in order to feel better.

As for people, well, that's what life's all about.

<comment><USER82> What resources/books do you recommend for learning about proper diet?

<comment><USER81> I'm not sure I'm really qualified here :). I've beentrying to limit intake of processed substances as much as possible. For most of my life, they were the norm, and I'm slowly phasing them out. This took the form of not going out for lunch, trying to snack on fruit, drinking water in lieu of soda/coffee/juice as much as possible, and eating more veggies.

I'm still happy to eat out with friends, mind you.So I suppose you could say I became more aware of what I was eating, rather than remaining apathetic about it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I bet you can't beat the "McGurk Effect" Illusion - <AUTHOR> http://marojejian.tumblr.com/post/63432179841/experience-my-favorite-neural-illusion-ever-the <comment><USER2> I used to work as a transcriptionist; and one of the most common mistakes made in the office was mistaking a B for an F or a V. After a while you got used to it and learned to figure it out.</comment>


Cato Institute: Current Network Neutrality Paper - <AUTHOR> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-626.pdf

<comment><USER2> The original title, "The Durable Internet: Preserving Network Neutrality without Regulation", is more descriptive and helpful. And it doesn't need to be prepended by 'Cato Institute', as that's already indicated by the domain.

BTW, here's an HTML version at the Cato site, albeit annoyingly paginated:

<http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa-626/pa-626index.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted it that way to pair with another old Cato network neutrality paper that was on the main page.</comment></comment>