The New Data Center Rack From ... IKEA? - <AUTHOR> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/01/21/the-new-data-center-rack-from-ikea/

<comment><USER2> The article says: _An implementation of the LACKRack, which adapts an IKEA side table for use as a stylish home data center._

Looking at those pictures, I disagree. They are not stylish at all. It looks like someone bolted a bunch of old gear from ebay onto a cheap table in their messy apartment.

<comment><USER3> The words "stylish" and "home data center" NEVER belong together!

<comment><USER4> Indeed. I have a geek friend that runs his popular blog from a server in his closet. He lives in a very high-end luxury apartment... but when you walk in, all you notice is how loud that damn server is. (I guess some people are not bothered by noise. Lucky them.)

Anyway, if you need a loud server, you can afford a virtual server or a colo. Otherwise, just get a nice quiet HTPC or something, and put it under the couch. Nobody will ever know...

<comment><USER3> Exactly. The closest I get is a Mac Mini that lives in a closet, running as a file/media server. Completely quiet, out of the way, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This isn't really my department, but aren't all those devices supposed to have a little breathing room around them? Not stacked one right on top of the other?

 _edit_ Thanks! Ya learn something new every day.

<comment><USER6> No. Data center hardware is intended to pull cool air in from the front and push warmed air out the back. Data centers are arranged with rows of racks side-by-side, creating cold and warm rows in front and behind. Often the HVAC system is integrated with this layout, preventing warm and cool air from mingling, which leads to greater efficiency in cooling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice. The article doesn't mention it, but those tables are $8 in the US.

<comment><USER7> And flimsy as hell. I don't even trust setting a full beer on those tables, but for $8, they're cheaper than a set of beer coasters.

<comment><USER8> I put a 50" plasma tv on one for a few days before I could get around to getting a better stand. Now it serves as a cheap coffee table and has been loaded to capacity with beer bottles several times. I think they're surprisingly robust for an $8 piece of new furniture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Following ICT tradition, the Enterprise Edition is more than three times as expensive, while providing less stability than two of the regular products combined._

</comment><comment><USER10> I like this. I built my own racks for my desk (mainly music, but computing too) and it was a good bit of work. Its nice to see something else so cheap work so well. Most companies that make furniture for 'rack gear' jack up the price just because it is for 'professional' use.

</comment><comment><USER11> I used to use one of these for the same purpose. Being fully enclosed makes it a bit sturdier and the casters are a nice touch:

<http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/90120545>

Now I'm using a studio rack from nice-racks.com, which I would highly recommend to anyone looking to put a proper rack in their home.

[http://www.nice-racks.com/16_space- Nice_Racks_16_space_studi...](http://www.nice-racks.com/16_space- Nice_Racks_16_space_studio_rack_149_99_179_99.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Reminds me of the classic <http://helmer.sfe.se/> Linux render cluster in an Ikea cabinet.

</comment><comment><USER13> Oops. My secret's out. I also go to the local hardware store and get a piece of aluminum "angle iron" so I can strengthen the legs of the Lack and give me something to screw into besides the flimsy particle board.

</comment><comment><USER14> At my last job I went to the local university salvage yard and had a choice of half dozen fully enclosed racks with locking doors. I think we spent $30 and with a bit of elbow grease it looked like new.

<comment><USER15> I'm always amazed at what people throw away in the 1st world...

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> At my last startup we also used Ikea to supply server racks.

</comment><comment><USER17> LACKer News

</comment><comment><USER18> And what does it look like with ethernet cable and power cords attached?

<comment><USER19> Not bad, if you buy a few of their "Kablen" cable management clips. Should be in a big bin next to the furniture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> How much weight can those handle? I don't want to throw my $100k NetApp in there and have the bottom fall off.

<comment><USER19> You overpaid for a $100k (!) drive box and want to keep it in your apartment on a $20 table? Methinks some requirements analysis got skipped.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I got this, <http://www.starcase.com/detail.aspx?ID=964>. Works well.

<comment><USER9> $357.95/43U vs $7.99/8U. Definitely a real rack is better but I'm unconvinced it's 8x better for the uses presented.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Ugh, tables made entirely of particleboard and plastic. (See the materials list on the IKEA website.)

One of the many reasons to loathe IKEA.

(Their designs are pleasant enough, but their implemenations are horrible.)

<comment><USER23> Their implementations are cost-effective and incredibly cheap, would be a more fair statement.

<comment><USER22> Sure, if you like coffee tables made of cardboard inside thin plastic, with particleboard legs.

Their stuff is just crap.

It looks good, it's lightweight and dirt cheap, and actually appears to serve the purpose of furniture, but it ultimately fails miserably.

<comment><USER24> My wife and I still sleep on an Ikea bed (best mattress we've ever had) and bed frame that we've had for 5 years. Still looks and functions great...

It was supposed to be a stop-gap as we anticipated moving a bunch of times and didn't want to ruin expensive furniture. Now that we've settled it still works great.

<comment><USER25> We also have a mattress from Ikea - 140 cm x 200 cm. It did cost around 300 Pounds. So it was not cheap, but worth it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


AMC movie theater calls FBI to arrest a Google Glass user - <AUTHOR> http://the-gadgeteer.com/2014/01/20/amc-movie-theater-calls-fbi-to-arrest-a-google-glass-user <comment><USER3> This isn't really a story about the woes of being a google glass user, it's a story about how people don't know their rights and how to apply them.

This man is lucky that he didn't end up accidentally giving the authorities some tiny piece of information to make his life worse. You should absolutely never talk to the authorities even if you think you have nothing to hide and especially when they're actively trying to pin something on you. It is perfectly legal for them to threaten you with harsher legal penalties, and it is perfectly legal for you to say I need to speak with a lawyer before I make any decisions or say anything. This account is a CLEAR illustration of how they ONLY want you to confess to something and once they don't think they can they no longer care about you in the tiniest bit. It's not about justice, it's about catching people.

Also, don't wear a goddamn camera on your head to the movies. The man must certainly own a pair of regular prescription glasses and was being extremely naive.

<comment><USER4> Note that the authorities did tell him they were going to cause him more problems if he didn't cooperate.

So, that makes the choice of telling them nothing pretty hard.

<comment><USER5> No, this is what they rely on. It is the basic "If you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding" line of questioning. It's especially used to search cars at traffic stops.

Correct:

"Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" (repeat until one gets an answer)

If free to go - leave If not free to go - don't say another word

Don't consent to a search. Don't try to be nice. Don't believe any bullshit you are told:

"Look, we're trying to be nice here, if you don't want to be nice, we can take you down to the station."

"You know what happens if we have to call to wake up a judge at this hour to get a search warrant?"

"Ok, then we'll just wait here until the dogs come"

or the almost always used -

"Am I being arrested?" "Do you want to be?"

\--

It's all bullshit and used to get verbal consent to searches and verbal answers to questions. You may feel like an asshole, especially if you really do have "nothing to hide". The cops will do their best to make you feel scared of what they will do if you don't cooperate. You may have a ton of privilege (perhaps you are a cis-gendered white man) and you feel that cashing it in and talking man-to-man in a nice way with the cops will get you on your way quicker. And it may. But one time, it may not, and you'll wish you hadn't talked. And of the larger overarching issue of living a police state with nominal checks and balances on what the cops can and can't do, it behooves us all to limit their power to their legal minimum as much as possible.

<comment><USER6> The only thing I would add to this is don't be a dick, you don't want them to have an excuse to arrest you. Ask in a nice and polite voice "Am I under arrest?" If the verbal answer from the police is anything but a short and clear "Yes," tell the cop "I understand your answer to mean that No, I am not under arrest. I am terminating this conversation and I am going to leave now." This doesn't apply to traffic stops for speeding or something like that, in those cases being nice will get you far. But if you are suspected of a real crime, for god sakes, keep your mouth shot, and if you are not under arrest, leave ASAP.

<comment><USER5> Sorry, but it absolutely does also apply during traffic stops. Many a routine traffic stop for a broken taillight or some such other nonsense has turned into something else as soon as someone said "sure, no problem" when the cops asked, "You mind if I just take a quick look around?"

<comment><USER6> You are right. What I meant is don't be a dick to cops if they are pulling you over for speeding. If they ask you how fast you were going, don't start reciting the 5th amendment. If they ask you if they can look in your trunk, just say no, you have nothing to hide, but unless they have a warrant or probable cause, they can not look.

I say that because I had a friend who got arrested at one of those sobriety checkpoints. They stopped him and asked him if he has been drinking. He said no, and he hasn't. But then to prove his point he started yelling that he demands that they test him because they wasted his time, so now he wants them to breathalyze him. They arrested him on a suspicion of being high on drugs instead. He wasn't, but I still had to bail him out of prison in the middle of the night. The charges were dropped, of course.

The lesson is, be firm but polite and respectful. Know you rights, and exercise them, but don't be a dick about it.

<comment><USER7> Seems to me that it's the same in all cases, whether it's a traffic stop or you're being questioned in connection to a murder: be firm but polite. Don't give out any info you're not required to, but don't be an asshole. Clearly there will be _some_ differences (i.e. you should insist on a lawyer if you're being questioned about a murder, but should not do this during a traffic stop) but my point is that we should not consider a polite insistence on your rights and polite refusal to give out information beyond what's required to be _in and of itself_ being a dick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here is what you need to do if you are ever in this situation:

1\. Ask "Am I under arrest?" 2\. If the answer is anything other than "Yes" ask "Can I leave now?" 3\. If the answer is anything other than "No," get up and leave! Don't ask for permission, don't say another word. Just leave. If anyone tries to stop you, say "Unless I am under arrest, I am going to leave NOW. If you prevent me from leaving than I am assuming I am under arrest. If so, please read me my miranda rights right now."

If they read you your rights, ask for a lawyer. Specifically say "I want to speak to a lawyer and I chose to remain silent and not answer any questions until I speak to a lawyer." If the cop tells you that your lawyer is on his/her way and then continues to talk to you, you should say "I see you continue to talk to me, I am going to assume that you are trying to elicit statements from me after I invoked my rights. I am going to relay this information to my lawyer."

If you are innocent, you have NOTHING to gain from talking to a cop. If you are guilty, you WILL hurt your case every time.

UPDATE: Spelling

<comment><USER8> I don't have "a lawyer" on call - won't they provide me with a shitty one?

<comment><USER6> Most public defenders (I only worked with San Diego and LA once) are pretty good, though overworked. Public defender positions in San Diego especially are very competitive, and you often get top notch lawyers. Federal Defender positions are VERY competitive, and you often get top graduates from prestigious law schools. This may not be true everywhere, I only practiced law in South California.

In any case, even a shitty attorney knows how to say "my client has no comments." But, a far more important question to ask is "Am I under arrest?" If the answer is anything other then "Yes," be nice, say goodbye, and walk away. Most people do not realize that they have this right. In most cases cops do not have the evidence sufficient to arrest you, but they will make you think you are under arrest, so they can fish out some "probable cause" out of you. You don't have the right to an attorney unless you are under arrest. This is why they will often also tell you that they are "just talking" because as long as they are "just talking" they do not have to provide you with a lawyer.

You will NEVER get a straight answer to the question "Am I under arrest?" Just listen to what they say, unless the very first word from their mouth is "YES", assume the answer is NO. They will say things like "we are just talking" or "you could be if you do not cooperate", or "we want to hear your side of the story before we decide to arrest you." All those answers translate to "we don't have the evidence to arrest you, but we would like to talk to you until you slip up, and we find an excuse to arrest you."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Am I the only one who's pretty convinced by that story that they were not FBI? It seemed like the fellow who went through this has his doubts as well.

I feel doubly bad for him, that's a horrible experience and also that he was so intimidated that he just sat through all that, didn't get any badge numbers or names or even what organization these people were with, "would have been fine with "I'm sorry this happened, please accept our apologies"" and closing it with: "Again, I wish they would have listened when I told them how to verify I did nothing illegal, or at least apologize afterwards, but hey… this is the free country everybody praises. Somewhere else might be even worse."

Everyone isn't going to be one of those "know and exercise your rights" people in the face of authority, but the opposite is very depressing.

<comment><USER10> They certainly weren't, there is no way you can call and have a federal agent show up to a movie theatre in the space of a couple of minutes.

They are almost certainly former federal or other agents who now work for private security firms that contract to AMC / MPAA.

It wouldn't take much detective work to figure out which firm it is and who the people are.

It sounds like they broke the 'impersonating a federal officer' law, but a lot of private detectives do that in the USA and nobody ever does anything about it.

<comment><USER11> Let's assume you're right. If he had asked "Am I under arrest?" what would they have said?

<comment><USER12> Probably something like "Not yet, we're trying to keep this easy. You really don't want to spend the night in jail, have to post bail tomorrow and ruin your plans. But hey, that's an option if that's what you want."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The lesson here is "Don't talk to the police". This has been posted here many times:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

This should be required viewing especially given the quasi-police state the US is turning into and, more importantly, the arbitrariness of prosecutorial discretion.

As soon as they say it's a "voluntary interview", leave. The only thing you should say is "am I free to go?". If you are, go. If not, ask for a lawyer.

Watch the video for why. You can get yourself in trouble and you are basically strictly better off saying nothing.

<comment><USER14> I live that video a lot but then do you really have a choice ? For example on those numerous occasions when TSA takes you to a separate room and starts questioning do you really have any right to call a lawyer ?

<comment><USER15> I believe that in airports your rights are significantly different from your rights in the US.

<comment><USER16> No, your rights still apply everywhere. Unfortunately you don't have a right to board an aircraft so that is the only thing they can use against you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Am I the only one who is a bit skeptical of this? Seems incredibly hard to believe, with no hard sources. (Email from Friend of a Friend of a gadget blogger is not where I want to be getting my credible news of law enforcement overreaching)

<comment><USER18> Agreed. Not only is the source extremely questionable, but the details in the story seem odd.

Grabbing expensive hardware off someone's face? Grabbing glasses off someone who's paying attention to you is hard. They instinctively lean back and put their hands up to block. Anyway, police would just order the person to hand over the glasses.

Federal agents conducting a (probably unrecorded) private interview for _hours_ in a mall? They'd have to arrest him before that.

Someone named Bob Hope from "the Movie Association"? Parents don't name their children after celebrities, and Bob Hope has been famous for three-quarters of a century.

And getting a non-apology and some lame movie passes after being wrongly detained for hours? This makes no sense.

<comment><USER19> > _Grabbing expensive hardware off someone 's face? Grabbing glasses off > someone who's paying attention to you is hard. They instinctively lean back > and put their hands up to block._

A crazy street dude once snatched my glasses off my face on a street corner. I had been firmly ignoring his ranting and personal space invasion, so I wasn't prepared to take action. It's not that improbable if the victim isn't expecting it and doesn't have excellent reflexes.

I told him very loudly to give them back, and he suddenly noticed that I had about 8 inches and 150 pounds on him and handed them back without a word.

<comment><USER18> So what you're saying is... he got your glasses because you weren't paying attention to him? :)

You could be right. Maybe he had poor reflexes or was startled by the badge or something. No single detail damns the story, but enough rub me the wrong way to make me suspicious.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319B](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319B)

In case anyone is wondering, that's the us federal law. Most States have individual laws that change the punishment.

<comment><USER21> wow, thanks!

Theatre owners can detain any suspected filmers, and can't be held liable for criminal or civil action arising out of it!

<comment><USER22> I wonder who paid for that law...

<comment><AUTHOR> Logical response from theater-goers:

_Never_ go to the theater.

<comment><USER23> Just pirate your films instead!

Oh wait...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What is the proper procedure to interact with law enforcement personnel?

\- Get their identity? Their business cards? Copy down their name, ID, position, and contact info?

\- Get their organization info? Local cop? FBI? Homeland Security officers? Contact info?

\- Get their supervisor info?

\- Check their jurisdiction? Their rights to detain you or interrogate you? Call the police to check?

\- Ask for which laws are broken?

\- Are you being detained? Are you free to go?

\- Not consenting to search.

\- Anything else?

I think this guy got tricked into thinking those people are FBI. "Bob Hope" is a dead giveaway BS. Impersonating FBI is a serious crime. This is same as the Apple case of recovering the iphone prototype, where the Apple people pretended to be cops when they invited the police along in the home intrusion.

</comment><comment><USER25> I've seen bootlegged movies from camcorders in theaters. Those are bad enough. The thought of something recorded from some guy's headmounted camera, with thousands of tiny movements, breathing, twitching, slouching, eating and more makes me wonder who on earth would even think a recording made that way would be _valuable_.

<comment><USER21> It's all about the _cloud_, my friend: with superresolution techniques, each glass user can contribute pixel blocks that get re-synthesized into the original.

<comment><USER26> It would probably take less effort to just break into the theater and steal the film.

<comment><USER27> Theaters are pretty much all digital now and the actual files are encrypted so I doubt breaking and entering alone would get you very far.

[http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/128963-how-digital- techno...](http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/128963-how-digital-technology- is-reinventing-cinema/2)

<comment><USER12> The files are encrypted, but obviously the hardware to decrypt them is right there. Now I understand those DRM systems have advanced intrusion detection and whatnot, but still it'd be quite a good start to make off with all their hardware.

<comment><USER28> The hardware is useless, you need a key from the studio.

<comment><USER12> But at some point during the day, the key has to be loaded somewhere in order to decrypt and play.

Although it might be only in protected memory and must be requested online during playback. Maybe even uses multiple keys during playback.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Something I keep noticing in all these stories is how the FBI seems to act during these "interrogations." They're like the big bully who runs into the room, barely stops to think, makes a few empty, irrational threats, then leaves the room feeling stupid but refusing to admit it.

It's nothing logical, but it's pretty frustrating that you can't just let them how dumb they are, simply because they have the bigger bureaucratic dicks in the room.

<comment><USER30> Hey, slurs like "retarded" are offensive and you should reconsider your use of them.

edit: Thank you for editing your comment.

<comment><USER31> Out of interest, could you enlighten me as to why the word "retard" is a slur but "dumb" isn't?

Putting colloquial use aside, both are valid words that describe conditions, so if one is a slur, isn't the other? Where is the line?

<comment><USER32> Dumb isn't used to denote what its original meaning is (a person unable to speak - we would use the word "mute" today). Dumb just means stupid, as if one is culpable for their own stupidity.

Retard in its noun form literally means a mentally handicapped person. So by using it to offend a non-mentally handicapped person (albeit, a stupid one), you are concurrently levelling an offence against the mentally handicapped _in general_ and since the mentally handicapped are not deemed culpable for their situation, this is deemed socially unacceptable.

<comment><USER33> It literally means delayed in time, we use it in physics a lot, in the context of people and development it applies to those whose education (or cognitive ability) is delayed in time.

<comment><USER34> I think the word is typically pronounced slightly differently (more correctly?) when used that way. This clip from _The Hangover_ uses the slight differences in pronounciation for comedic effect: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoendYt_ZJ0](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoendYt_ZJ0) (skip to 0:45, video contains mildly offensive humor).

Obviously the obsolete medical usage, now offensive usage, is just the regular word meaning delayed, but I think that somehow that specialized usage strayed from the generic usage over time.

<comment><USER33> Nope, never pronounced it different but clearly context is important :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Meanwhile everyone who obtained the movie illegally could watch it at home without being harassed by anyone. At times where less and less people actually go to movie theaters, harassing the people who do so, doesn't look like the best strategy.

</comment><comment><USER36> Hmmm. On one hand, its OTT, but on the other hand, people walking about with an attached camera that may well be always recording is going to cause real problems.

These things are potentially a gross invasion of privacy. They might be very cool tech for the wearer, but frankly Im not prepared to have my privacy potentially compromised so that some one else can have some cool augmented reality. I don't understand how on one hand the NSA is all evil, but some geezer walking round with a camera that could be recording any of us without our knowledge or permission, with the potential to publish these videos on the internet for an entire world to see, is somehow perfectly fine. These things remind me of the hacked up kit pervert voyeurs use to film women in compromising positions. I couldn't care less about people potentially pirating films in cinemas, but if these people start film me going about my personal business, Im telling you, there will be trouble. Thing is, if I see some one possible filming me with one of these things, the law is no use. The person filming me is anonymous and can easily go, leaving me and a lawyer no one to prosecute. I have no choice, I have to grab the guy and his kit. I then want this guy forced to give up all his personal information so that I can be sure he has not uploaded the video somewhere. All of which, as we know is at least technically problematic. Wont be long until people wearing these things will become targets just for wearing them. Only takes 1 or 2 Fox News sensationalist, exaggerated stories, and wearers will become seen as threats. The stories dont even need to be true, just true enough, feasible enough.

I think people are displaying a hypocritical double standard here. Its Ok for the cool kids to invade our privacy, but not the NSA? These cool kids can actually cause normal people more humiliation and damage than the NSA. AFAIK, the NSA has not released a video of a private citizen walking in to a glass door in to the public for humiliating laughs. People wearing these things can, and will. Yes, this has been possible for years, but these google things will make it mainstream and vastly increase the potential for this.

Trust me, there is a whole lot of trouble waiting to burst out.

Im not suggesting banning these things, they clearly have huge value. What Im saying is that society needs to have a serious debate about use and there lines are drawn. What is criminal and what is reasonable.

<comment><USER37> The anti-google glass argument bears a striking resemblance to the anti-camera phone argument back in the 90's. The complaints were pretty much the same, "cameraphones" started to be banned in certain places, and there were even the local news stories to the effect of "Bathrooms will never be safe again - <USER2> phone could be a camera!" People got used to it, acceptable norms were established, and they became very much ubiquitous, and uncontroversial.

<comment><USER38> Not uncontroversial. There regularly are problems with invasion of privacy, for example a few months ago there was trouble with an Argentinean blog with photos of girls in public transportation (can't find a link right now, but it was on TV, etc..).

<comment><USER39> Here's a link to news report regarding that case: [http://www.argentinaindependent.com/life- style/thecity/chica...](http://www.argentinaindependent.com/life- style/thecity/chicas-bondi-the-modern-flaneur/).

Here's also an opinion piece, which gives a little more detail, including a translation of the tagline (namely, "without posing and without permission"): [http://www.adiosbarbie.com/2012/05/21st-century-street- haras...](http://www.adiosbarbie.com/2012/05/21st-century-street-harassment/)

<comment><USER38> Thanks, that was the case I had in mind, and I hadn't read the opinion pieces :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I have done my bit to put the MPAA and RIAA out of business: I don't watch movies, and I don't listen to music. Google Glass does seem--at least anecdotally--to elicit aggressive behavior. Prudence suggests waiting until the Borg has assimilated the _homo sapien_ malcontents before wearing one.

<comment><USER41> > I don't listen to music.

As someone who loves and makes music, I find this _really_ interesting. Do you play an instrument? Listen to unsigned bands? Don't get me wrong: silence is nice, too. But I don't think I will ever have a life without music.

<comment><USER42> I use to be huge into listening to music in the 90s. Gradually at the turn of the century, I practically stopped and almost never listen to music these days.

I can't speak for others but for me it was a couple of things... When working, I zone out quite a bit to the point that it's like not hearing music anyway so what's the point. If anything music can be distracting. Unfortunately unlike others, I prefer absence of sound aside from stuff like keyboard typing when I'm working.

Outside of work related stuff, I gradually faded out listening to music altogether in the car or while running as well. I generally prefer instead to ride in silence thinking (zoning out again) or if I listen to stuff, stand up comedy somehow became a thing to replace music

Edit: It is worth noting most of my music exposure these days if at all (and if you can call it that) is coming across stuff on YouTube or while watching a movie and music enhances the film lol. It did a major 180 in my life.

<comment><USER40> I have tinnitus and don't derive much pleasure from listening to music, generally--especially not RIAA music. I can do without movies. There is more than enough to read, program and calculate.

<comment><USER43> And he lives in the town from Footloose.

<comment><USER40> Meanie!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> It's easiest to engage with this at the google glass / privacy / media rights gone amok level, but it is most important to face it directly: We are headed towards a very real police state.

<comment><USER45> Quite the use of police resources too, going so far out of their way to take on someone who might've been (but wasn't) making a copy (but not stealing an original) of something digital.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Please, people: DO NOT ALLOW THE AUTHORITIES FREE ACCESS TO YOUR DEVICES TO PROVE INNOCENCE!

Conceding to law enforcement this way only motivates them to promote policy that allows for further rights violations.

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

</comment><comment><USER47> This is a pretty suspicious story, but if true:

I would have called 911 and gotten "real" police there, and ask for charges for false imprisonment, battery, assault. These were pretty clearly not real police. If they were representing themselves as police officers ("federal service" is pretty questionable), that's something local police would take very seriously, too.

Lucky they didn't encounter one of the presumably-reasonably-large cross section of tech people who are also libertarians and likely to be armed.

<comment><USER48> I did not find any point in his story where the author having a concealed weapon on his person would have improved his situation.

<comment><USER47> Absolutely (a hidden law degree or a second hidden camera, perhaps), but being in a dark room and someone reading for your head and grabbing stuff off of it is a fairly serious threat; it would be easily misinterpreted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> What the fuck USA? These gestapo goons are running amuck harassing innocent citizens.

<comment><USER36> Really? This is new to you? Really? I mean..... really?

You noticed the NSA thing where the USA harasses the ENTIRE WORLD on line, right? Did you miss that?

Really?

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I stopped going to the cinema some years ago when they started putting threats on screen before the movie. I realized "hey, I'm literally paying people to threaten me; is that a logical, wise or sane thing to do? No. So stop doing it."

So it seems those threats are by no means idle. Think about it if you're considering going to the cinema: it's not like our society doesn't provide a zillion other forms of entertainment where you won't be financing thugs.

<comment><USER51> _" hey, I'm literally paying people to threaten me; is that a logical, wise or sane thing to do? No. So stop doing it."_

Did you also stop paying taxes?

/jk

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Wow. What a gross misuse of a federal agency. I can't believe my tax dollars pay for this. What kind of reach does the movie industry have to make this happen?

</comment><comment><USER53> > I kept telling them that Glass has a USB port and not only did I allow them, > I actually insist they connect to it and see that there was nothing but > personal photos with my wife and my dog on it. I also insisted they look at > my phone too and clear things out, but they wanted to talk first.

The problem is, even if these are very technical people, they not experts in all technology, and there are 100s of ways of hiding this stuff. They can never be 100% sure that you weren't recording it, maybe someone else nearby had the hdd that everything was being sent to. So as much as you might like to try to prove your innocence, it is impossible to do so.

Even in court they will have expert witnesses try to explain to the layman what is going on, what is possible.

He was lucky they took this as evidence.

> I asked if they thought my Google Glass was such a big piracy machine, why > didn't they ask me not to wear them in the theater?

They weren't there at the beginning of the film.

Anyway, what an awful experience for this guy and his wife. I guess the solution is to wear a different pair of glasses next time.

<comment><USER12> >He was lucky they took this as evidence.

Versus what? Just saying "but there might be some super duper spy tech we're not aware of"? How would that be incriminating? I can buy cameras that fit into normal looking glasses and wouldn't be detected. Let's detain anyone not bald or wearing a scarf, as they might be hiding something.

>Anyway, what an awful experience for this guy and his wife. I guess the solution is to wear a different pair of glasses next time.

How is that a solution? A solution is to stay at a home theatre and watch your own copies. Or only go to high-end theatres where they won't have this kind of treatment. (Which really is the only worthwhile way to go out to see a movie.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Do people still record movies in movie theaters? I'm getting 90s flashbacks here.

<comment><USER55> They do. But in Russia or China with tripod and proper camera. This was just bullshit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'd like to have my property back so that I could leave, please. If you have any questions I will be happy to answer them in the prescence of my attorney. Also, you will shortly be hearing from him about the battery. Have a nice day, gentlemen.

<comment><USER57> _Also, you will shortly be hearing from him about the battery_

Not a helpful addition. Don't further provoke a cop who has been violent with you. Another common piece of advice is not to ask about supervisors or for badge numbers if you already have a way to identify them.

<comment><USER56> Probably good advice -- I was mostly mentioning that I'd file the complaint afterwards rather than meaning "TELL the guy I'll be filing a complaint afterwards."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> $600 prescription glasses? WTF? Just get a $30 pair and wear those rather than having a camera taped to the side of your head. This isn't surprising in the slightest.

<comment><USER59> $30 glasses suck. They hurt your face and don't have anti-reflective coatings. He may also have prisms, progressive bifocals, and so on, which don't cost $30.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> You couldn't pay me to watch an entire movie recorded off-screen on some dude's Glass.

</comment><comment><USER61> > it may be my mistake for assuming that if I went and watched movies two > times wearing Glass with no incident the third time there won't be any > incident either

> About an hour into the movie (Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit)

The cinema could've been under obligation to more strictly enforce anti-IP- theft measures for that particular movie. It was released on the same day in many countries of the world so opening weekend attendance was important for their revenues. I saw it in mainland China before it opened in the US.

I don't think any extra IP protection measures will help revenues for that particular movie, though. It was the only time I've ever been the only person in a cinema hall in China watching a movie.

</comment><comment><USER62> Why is there no mention of having a prescription medical device taken without consequence? I wonder if, had anything gone south, being deprived of a medical device during questioning could have been used to get evidence thrown out.

<comment><USER63> Don't think glasses are medical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> With only 701 copies of the movie on Usenet, they're sure doing a great job!

</comment><comment><USER15> Every single person should watch this immediately.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

It is a brilliant talk about your rights.

</comment><comment><USER64> What does an inactive Glass look like under infrared light? It probably glinted a ton on some recording device, someone noticed, he was detained. And they did say, word for word: "You were caught recording the movie".

Advice: Don't point what's basically a cheap webcam at a theater screen for the duration of a movie and not expect to get yelled at.

The legal side of this that everyone is discussing is the result of a failure on the technical side which hasn't even been figured out yet.

</comment><comment><USER65> I have a buddy that works HR at a theatre. The studios take bootlegging VERY seriously, and have spent millions updating their manufacturing processes so they can watermark every copy of every film so they can figure out which theatres bootleggers are operating out of. When they do a bust, they bring out all the big guns they can so as to make a huge spectacle so as to deter anyone else from even trying. That's why the FBI.

</comment><comment><USER66> Seriously doubt this was really the FBI. They are better educated than this and more professional. Also, very unlikely to respond in the force described.

<comment><USER67> I'm curious, are you stating this based on your experience, or you just think it's unlikely?

<comment><USER66> I've met FBI agents in person in a professional context if that's what you mean. I obviously don't have any first hand knowledge of this scenario but the connection to the FBI seemed rather tenuous in the story.

<comment><USER66> Confirmed, not FBI: [http://www.businessinsider.com/guy-detained-by-feds-for- wear...](http://www.businessinsider.com/guy-detained-by-feds-for-wearing- google-glass-at-the-movies-admits-i-was-an-ignorant-idiot-2014-1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I love the blog format. Article about a somewhat distressing abuse of power by authorities, followed by "Other articles that you will enjoy"...

</comment><comment><USER69> You were wearing a camera on your head.

Guess what would happen..........

<comment><USER19> He was asking for it, look how he was dressed.

<comment><USER69> If I come into a building wearing a full ski mask, would you expect not to get shot?

<comment><USER19> Of course I would expect not to get shot. Is this a trick question?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Having been to that particular theatre many times (AMC Easton), there are usually Columbus Police around, especially on the weekends. They also have a fair amount of security there (Once they helped me get into my car after I locked myself out). That's who I would guess would be there. Sometimes there are even Columbus Police hanging out at the entrance of the theatre by the escalators.

</comment><comment><USER71> At what point does Google Glass become an accessibility device? At some point, people with a hearing impairment will be able to read subtitles on Glass. Then it will be practically impossible to ban.

<comment><USER72> No, they can still ban it. If you want subtitles, you'll use a pre-approved device. [http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/08/regal-outfits- almost-6000...](http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/08/regal-outfits- almost-6000-theaters-with-sony-glasses/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> tl;dr: * Dude brings a camera to a movie theater, which is illegal and tbh a dumb move * Exaggerated response from some legal body excessively funded / lobbied by the movie industry

</comment><comment><USER74> Why the FBI and not the local police? I understand that piracy goes through the FBI, but the if you catch someone "in the act" I am sure the police can handle it.

<comment><USER75> Hopefully the local police were called, and told whoever called them to buzz off and let them deal with more important things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> ...and the top comment in the "fast Korean internet" thread is about how much Freedom(TM) Americans have.

This doesn't sound like a story about someone with much freedom.

</comment><comment><USER76> It appears that UT is not educated on law, and you have to be. "Can I leave or am I under arrest" and "I don't answer questions w/o a lawyer representing me".

</comment><comment><USER77> What did he expect to happen? He was pointing a video camera at the screen while the movie was playing!

</comment><comment><USER78> Have they ever heard of the expression 'the customer is always right'? Well, there he was.. the customer.

<comment><USER79> That expression is a moronic one and very few companies have ever made it their policy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> without even reading the story, you just don't wear a video camera to movies.

</comment><comment><USER81> el oh el at the wannabe tough guys in this thread...

</comment><comment><USER82> Which is more ridiculous: that AMC actually called the FBI, or that the FBI actually respond in this way?

What the fuck is wrong with this country?

<comment><USER83> Well, we don't know it was the FBI. The story doesn't say anything other than 'federal service', and even uses the quotes. So, I imagine someone masquerading as FBI, or trying to pull off that impression. Granted, it could just be the FBI being dicks.

<comment><USER21> My bet is some private contractors hired by the film industry.

In the past, I have seen stories about lens detectors in theatres which work by beaming IR into the audience. I have also seen stories about watermarks in films to encode location.

If it's true there have been filmers caught there, they may have conceivably been on location that evening ready to pounce. They probably have travel to regional theatres and wait for hours for the lens detectors to go off.

My bet is the contractors have some belief the crime is a federal case, having watched a DVD intro, so they feel justified to claim they are "with" the federal services.

edit: see this link to the related federal law: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7093540](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7093540)

Anyone who is friends with cops knows how jealous mall cops and security guards are of the real thing. I'm sure the same applies for contracted IP enforcers.

Hence their excitement, power-tripping and the local cops- to actually perform the arrest as the private security firm has no authority to do so.

Mods should change title from "arrested by FBI" to harrassed by cops and strangers.

<comment><USER84> >My bet is some private contractors hired by the film industry.

Over on the private forums for Glass owners, the person reporting this story mentioned the company name of the person from the "Movie Association." Some folks looked him up and apparently he has his own private investigation firm.

Sounds to me that the MPAA must hire PIs to represent itself in various cities, and they must like to go all Jack Bauer if they think they've got something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Yea... Does it have a camera on it? Don't wear it into a theater or other area where filming is prohibited.

<comment><USER86> Well, it's a rim. If you wear eye glasses, you have your regular "I need these to see things" lenses mounted into your fancy-ass $1500 rim. You'd need them to see the damn movie, even if you weren't recording.

<comment><USER87> So if you're going to go through the trouble and expense of getting prescription lenses mounted onto this thing, then _maybe_ it's also worth your while to get a second pair?

You know, to avoid situations like this?

We've seen people get into trouble with stuff like this before [0]. This is a new, socially unproven device meant for developers. As an early adopter, you should expect to run into occasional resistance until the general public and law enforcement become more familiar with devices like this.

Expecting everybody to automatically be on the same page as you regarding what is and isn't reasonable with this device is pretty naive. You are the public image of this technology. Behave appropriately.

[0] [http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by- mcdon...](http://eyetap.blogspot.com/2012/07/physical-assault-by-mcdonalds- for.html)

<comment><USER88> > You know, to avoid situations like this?

So if an innocent guy gets strip-searched, your advice would be to tell him not to wear clothes?

You know, to avoid situations like this?

<comment><USER89> That's not at all what was said, don't blow it out of proportion.

Think of it this way. I carry a pocket knife at all times. When I know I'm going to get on a plane and go through security, I leave it at home. Obviously this is not exactly the same because no one is getting shanked by google glass, but the point remains. If you know you're going to a movie where they really don't like you filming, don't point a camera at the screen. Even if it's off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> > _if I choose not to cooperate bad things may happen to me (is it legal for > authorities to threaten people like that?)_

Oh that's a bit like: "if I choose not to pay taxes, bad things will happen to me", isn't it? I wonder if it's "legal" for authorities to threaten people like that.

<comment><USER12> Not cooperating is legal, unlike not paying taxes. He could just remain silent and request a lawyer.

LE can and will lie to you, and make invalid threats in order to get people to confess or just slip up so they can pin something on them. There's no incentive for LE to behave ethically or nicely; they don't get penalized for lying.

<comment><USER90> > Not cooperating is legal, unlike not paying taxes

Right. I was just highlighting the similarity between those two things: if you disobey "authorities", something bad will happen to you. Here it's good to notice that extortion is illegal unless it's called "taxation", in which case, _attempting to avoid extortion_ is illegal.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What have been your experiences with Pair Programming? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> After 5yrs of pairing at Pivotal I wrote this post: [https://medium.com/@stevehiehn/5-years-of-pair- programming-a...](https://medium.com/@stevehiehn/5-years-of-pair- programming-a5f644f6fd09)

</comment><comment><USER3> One guy programs, the other guy slows him down.

<comment><USER4> I have to admit, this is pretty much it in my experience.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Web service for spamming spammers? - <AUTHOR>

Windy Citizen gets a handful of spammers every day who post porno links and other stupid stuff that has to be scrubbed.  We block their accounts and move on.  Tomorrow we'll get a few more spammers who show up.  The cycle continues.<p>Is there a web service where I could drop in the e-mail address for one of these people and sign them up automatically for every terrible spam e-mail list on the planet?  NukeMyAddress.com or something like that?  It would be very edifying to do to some of these people. <comment><USER2> There's no point. Either they're disposable e-mail addresses, or they're addresses they made up and probably aren't even valid. Or perhaps they're e-mail addresses they usually send spam e-mail to (belonging to innocent people).

</comment><comment><USER3> They're using thousands of disposable email adresses that they will never check again, it won't make a difference.</comment>


Ask HN: What's your experience with the new macbook? - <AUTHOR> I'm about to buy the new 12 inch macbook, primarily for webdev work while traveling. Would be interested in any experiences with this device. <comment><USER2> I recently purchased one for the same thing: web dev, travel, and iOS development too. I had a 2014 MacBook Pro Retina that was stolen and decided to "downgrade" for the replacement. I'm honestly really happily surprised with the little silver box. Its paper thin, the keyboard is really nice after you get used to it (takes a few days). The battery lasts seemingly forever and it runs _really_ smoothly.

Compared to my MBPR it feels just as fast if not occasionally faster. However, streaming video to the TV over airplay hasn't been as nice. If you do video heavy things like gaming or video production, its not for you. But as a programmer, I'm really, really happy.

Note: I would recommend the 1.2 GHz configuration or the 1.3 - I have the 1.2 and a lot the the reviews are saying that there is a noticeable difference between the 1.1 and 1.2 in terms of computing power.

Edit: fixed spelling and grammar.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's great. Keyboard and trackpad work surprisingly well (and is highly underrated... other manufacturers are going to have a really hard time getting this right on devices this thin... use one in a store if you haven't). Screen is great. Battery life is as expected. Size is obviously incredible. CPU performance is as expected (1.1) or slightly above (1.3, which is the one I have, is actually fairly fast). It's a superb machine.

As far as actual use, well that depends on who is using it. The role that this laptop fits really well IMO is use as a secondary device for consistently mid- level computing tasks (with some burst activity) in an environment where mobility is important. "webdev work while traveling" is exactly this role so as long as you are OK with the form factor then you will like this laptop. If the form factor is an issue, you should consider the Air. If power is an issue, you should consider the Pro. If price is an issue, look at other manufacturers (new Surface and new XPS are both great machines, for example, though neither are really that cheap).

The reviews on this device have been mixed but I think a lot of reviews are acting on the premise that it's a one-stop machine, but it's not. It's not perfect. It's a bit pricey. You aren't going to be running a new game at max settings on it. The one port thing is odd and you will need to wait for the adapter market to catch up for some of this oddness/clumsiness to disappear. 8 gig ram isn't quite enough if you are expecting to be running big VMs on it a lot. The CPU is relatively underpowered (though, honestly, I think this is overrated and the 1.3 in particular is quite good... even with the 1.1 you will likely never even notice).

For me, this device is replacing a 13" 2011 Air and so far I consider it to be superior in just about every way and my experience has been great. If I need to sit down and do some "serious" computing for a decent stretch of time (new game at max settings for a couple hours, large data crunching, long programming stretch where I really need a desk and several monitors) then, well, that's what my desktop is for (or a powerful, bulky, docked laptop which amounts to the same thing).

In other words, what you are buying when you buy this machine over something else is this: the keyboard, the trackpad, the screen, the efficiency of the CPU, the battery form factor, the fanless design, and the entire form factor to bring this all together in such a tiny laptop. In return, the tradeoff is slightly less RAM, slightly less CPU power, and a lack of extension ports.

<comment><USER4> Can this MacBook handle Windows VM with VirtualBox? My wife is considering this MacBook. She is not a power user/developer, mostly browsing, emails, word processing, and spreadsheets. But she also wants Windows VM for programs that don't have OSX versions or experience on OSX is not that good.

<comment><USER3> I haven't tried this yet but as a regular VirtualBox user now on several different platforms, I would suspect that under a situation where you're not depending on the VM for a lot of graphics acceleration or sub-ms-level latency (games, for example, or _possibly_ video editing/composting), this macbook would handle it just fine. So for the uses you're describing she should be happy.

FYI the new version of Office for Mac will be out soon (preview is available now for free) if that's what you're referring to when you say "bad OSX experience."

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the feedback. I have a 2012 rMBP 15". I use Windows 7 VM in VirtualBox primarily for Tableau and large Excel files. I noticed the fan runs continuously and MBP gets hot while using VM. I am concern that if something similar happens on new MacBook w/o fans, it might be cooked. Both MS Office and Tableau are terrible on OSX. My wife is more concerned with Quicken. She prefers Quicken for Windows.

<comment><USER3> I don't think you have to worry about the chip getting too hot unless it turns out there is a serious manufacturing defect. This chip is quite unlike the ones in earlier MacBooks and is closer in efficiency and thermal performance to a chip you'd find in a phone or tablet. So it'll just throttle down for a bit, not fry, no matter what you throw at it.

Plus, once you have a chip that efficient, it simplifies your heat dissipation... a lot of times you'll have people put chips that really aren't made for laptops in because they are relying on the air flow to cool it to compensate, but air flow can be very unreliable. And that is the exact situation you have with some of the more notorious heat problems of other laptops. If however you have a good chip, and know it can't exceed X heat generation, and its low enough you can passively cool it, that's actually much more reliable... there's nothing mysterious about how much heat can be transferred from a chip to the piece of metal touching it, and the rate at which it transfers (note sturdiness and looks is not the only reason the case is metal). So in a lot of ways this device is actually far more thermally dependable than most actively cooled laptops, even though it'd seem to be the opposite at first glance.

As an aside, have you tried Win 8 for your VM? If you can deal with the UI, Win 8 is about 20% more efficient than 7 due to changes made for tablet support in 8. If you're running 8 in a VM and the VM is on a laptop and you're having heat issues, switching might be particularly beneficial. Also, consider VMWare Fusion or Parallels... I use VirtualBox myself but there's no question that the native Mac versions of the 2 main commercial VMs are going to be more efficient and give you less heat problems on day to day tasks.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for clarification on toasted chips. You just persuaded me to buy the new Macbook instead of 13"rMBP for her. We have been waiting for Retina to come out on Air weight/size format to buy new laptop for her.

I just can't get used to Win 8 interface. My wife uses Win 8 desktop. Anytime she asks me to troubleshoot issues on her desktop, I just cringe and become frustrated. I used Parallels and VMware Fusion before switching to VirtualBox. VMware asked for more money for compatible version with Yosemite. So, I finally gave up and switched to VirtualBox. I don't use Windows/other VMs often enough so VirtualBox is good enough.

<comment><USER3> /edit P.S. Adding this one line, as I forget if you mentioned this, but have your wife try out the laptop in the stores. The keyboard is awesome but may not be for everyone. Someone who used an Air for a long time shouldn't have any issues but I would definitely try it first just to be sure.

My pleasure.

I was in a similar situation, using the 2011 13.3 Air for years as a secondary device (being what I guess others would consider a "power user" I have always kept available a bitching desktop and/or (now) a bunch of cloud VMs, depending on the task), super happy with it (my Air is the best laptop I've ever owned, having started in about 1998), but wanting to upgrade, and watching the last Apple keynote in anticipation of a Retina Air. And I'm very happy with the new MB. It's not quite what I was expecting but if the form factor and power suits your needs, it's great.

Whew. That a was quite the run-on sentence.

Anyway, regarding Win8, I have to use it at work a lot and I feel your pain, it's pretty damned awkward at times. My experience so far is that the best way to navigate it is to a) use the search facility on the Start Screen to access your usual stuff (similar to OSX searchlight, so, Windows key to get to the Start Screen and then just start typing out the application or file name... its kind of awesome when it works) and b) set the OS to default to the desktop view on boot, in which case it's almost exactly the same as 7. The best way to look at it IMO is that Win8 = a more efficient Win 7 kernel + a mobile/tablet/metro API + a new UI start screen. Once you get past that it's surprisingly good.

But yeah, I feel your pain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Never buy first generation apple anything and never be the first to upgrade software! (so many grey screens of death!)

As soon as the second generation of macbooks is out I will be upgrading!

<comment><USER6> When has Apple ever released a bad product in the first generation? In the 21st century, at least?

I waited for second generation for the iPhone and iPad, both far more radical steps than this little Macbook, but the first gen products were spectacular.

(edit: My most disappointing Apple product in the past 15 years has been my iPhone 6. Jobs wouldn't let them make it wider due to handling issues. Without his restraint, they made it wider. Now I have to have a case and drop the darn thing all the time. Never had that problem with other iPhones.)

<comment><USER7> That first gen iPhone that came with EDGE was spectacular?

<comment><USER8> Don't forget lack of third party native apps, GPS, MMS, live video streaming/calling, copy/paste, and backgrounding of tasks. You know...all that stuff that had made smartphones "smart". You couldn't even change your wallpaper or ringtone.

First gen iPhone was a big deal because they put all resources into providing the one or two things all the others sucked at: a smoother and more user- friendly interface and a more pleasant mobile web browser.

But it wasn't until the second or third gen that people coming over from previous smartphones could really get most of those things we took for granted already. If you were coming from a flip phone you were just adding some cool stuff. But if you had become accustomed to the typical features of a smart phone, you had to choose between smooth scrolling and pinch/zoom on a nice capacitive screen and being able to install software, stream music (in the background no less), get live navigation in the car, and operate on the latest high(er) speed networks.

I don't think the new Macbook has nearly as far to go as the first iPhone did. They'll iterate with faster processors, a better GPU, and maybe an extra port next round.

<comment><USER6> Right. The iPhone was a fundamentally new kind of product. The new Macbook is just an incremental refinement of a 15+ year old product line. The only thing that even remotely makes it more than "a better Air" is the single port. And the single port solves other problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I advise you to wait for the 2d generation. Like the first iteration of the Macbook Air, it looks beautiful but terribly lacks functionnality (one port only & a weak processor being the most problematic things yet). My advice: Buy a 13-Inch Pro Retina if you absolutely want the Retina Experience. Otherwise, go buy an Air.

<comment><USER10> the 13" pro retina is an amazing laptop.

<comment><USER11> I disagree, only on the grounds that Chrome will max out the tiny GPU in that machine when HTML5 videos or CSS3 animations play. Even simple video effects like Expose will stutter. It's a great machine, but the video card is much too weak for the pixels it has to push. Take it with a grain of salt, of course.

<comment><USER12> Yesterday I ran into this gem: [https://github.com/unixpickle/FreeRez](https://github.com/unixpickle/FreeRez)

It allows you to set the resolution to the 'true' resolution of your retina screen. This way you have more screen, but it also fixes the performance issues when playing video, virtualbox virtualisation, etc. Truly recommend.

<comment><USER10> Does that mean it's not "retina" resolution anymore for things like fonts, etc?

<comment><USER12> It does mean that somewhat, but fonts still look fine. I find the huge load of extra screen space very handy when programming on 'just' my laptop screen.

<comment><USER10> Does it behave differently from just scaling the display in preferences? On Yosemite I can scale mine so that everything is too small, and several levels in between that and the default resolution. It would surprise me if Apple didn't leverage native resolution where possible with this scaling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's a great machine. Very happy with my purchase.

it really depends on your needs though. I use it as my portable machine and it goes wherever I go when I'm on the go, which I previously had an 11 inch air for. Coming from that it's an enormous upgrade.

The battery lasted me 7 hours yesterday of constant use, and the screen is the best screen of any laptop I have personally used. it's not really a widescreen anymore which helps with my terminal experience greatly.

My normal workload includes 50% terminal.app, 30% Xcode and the rest is split up between instant messaging and emailing. so I don't desire or need to run things like video editing or VMware. I use an iMac for that stuff, infrequently.

so for an OS X based machine that is ultra portable and runs terminal well, I'm not sure why you would be better off waiting. it's a great product.

</comment><comment><USER14> I used one for a week and kind of had the same problems I had with other tiny laptops...it is nice that is so portable but unless you use it really close to your face you have to hunch over in any other position then on a desk right next to your face. I found myself constantly having to straighten my posture when I was doing any sort of work on it for longer than 20 minutes - and when you do you inevitably start to hunch again as the screen is just too small. I would say this is really just for rich people who want to carry around a fancy email machine rather than someone who uses it for work.

<comment><USER15> I don't get this. Text and widgets on the screen render at the same size as on other Apple laptops, nothing is shrunk. When adjusted for viewing distance, everything displays basically the same as on a monster 27" iMac. Are you using System Prefs to render the content smaller? Why not reverse that?

<comment><USER16> I think he is comparing it vs 13 and 15 inch Apple laptops.

<comment><USER17> The jump between 12 and 13 inches is not really that big however 12 to 15 is. I think apple was more targeting the spot right between the 11 and 13inch that used to be occupied by the 12in powerbook which had a semi-cult following and was widely regarded as one of the best laptops Apple made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can anyone with this machine comment on their experience charging it with a standard smartphone/tablet battery pack through USB-C?

If this actually works, it's a pretty killer feature over the MBA/Pro.

</comment><comment><USER19> I have to echo the other commenters advising against buying the first generation of the 12" rMB. There's a lot of short comings that will certainly be addressed in a second generation model within a year.

Right now the 13" rMBP seems like the better purchase in every way right now. I wouldn't buy a current MBA either as they are really showing their age. Their screen is the worst in Apple's line up by a long shot.

</comment><comment><USER20> 39 responses so far, and so far only two people with experience - but lots of opinions. :-)

I would love, also, to hear from people who have been using it. Thinking about purchasing it for my personal system to go along with my work computer which I travel with, so I can keep email, photos, all personal stuff off the corporate system. Portability is key - would love to know if anyone is using it in that fashion.

</comment><comment><USER21> I agree with everyone here. On a side note, I've just purchased a Lenovo ThinkPad T450s, had them throw an i7, 8 GB of RAM, and an SSD in it an it's a great machine. I'm running Ubuntu on it right now, it seems to have pretty good support, though the keyboard backlight is a bit finicky.

<comment><USER22> The problem I've had with Ubuntu is that a lot of things are finicky, although every time I try the OS is gets better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> In addition to the OP's question, if you are moving from an Air to the Macbook, I would especially love to hear direct comparisons. I was very tempted to get the new Macbook, but couldn't justify it given that the 13-inch Air was substantially faster and not much heavier/thicker...and the Retina screen isn't a huge deal to me for on-the-road work.

I ultimately didn't buy anything because I already have a 15-in Retina pro, and on further reflection, it didn't seem that much thicker than the Air...so I just replaced my stolen iPad instead.

</comment><comment><USER24> It really depends on what your web dev work looks like. It's a sleek computer, but the specs are pretty weak for development if you need to run vagrant, a database, a server, etc. The computer specs are similar to a 2012 MBA. The keyboard will take a bit getting use to as it doesn't have the same tactile feel. Accuracy will probably drastically drop. Having a single port isn't horrible, but it's sure annoying when I need to charge my phone.

</comment><comment><USER25> I bought a Macbook Air 13" about six months ago and it's been great. But I especially like the SD slot and multiple USB ports (which I need for my work -- android and iOS app development), and of course the 9 hour battery. This new Macbook seems like a downgrade. Seriously, why didn't they build on the Air instead of what looks like chopping out features to achieve an impractical thinness?

</comment><comment><USER26> watch the new tested podcast. their advice: do not buy a macbook this iteration.

</comment><comment><USER27> I am very happy with my 11" MBA. Except I could use a larger screen and a higher screen resolution. I wonder if the 12" is noticeable slower than the (1.7GHz i7) 11" MBA.

<comment><USER17> From what I've read it is about the same speed as a last gen macbook air.

<comment><USER28> In short bursts, but for any prolonged computing, the air will pull ahead due to the active cooling.

I use an air as a development machine, and it works great.

<comment><USER3> Well, to be fair, any prolonged, heavy computing will also kill the Air's battery. And the fan sounds like a freaking plane taking off.

<comment><USER28> Shorter battery life vs. significantly reduced computing power (due to reduced heat dissipation). Personally, for the development use case, I'll take the reduced battery life; I can mitigate that problem with a power cable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I would like to know how the new macbook compares to the new chromebook pixel. At first glance, the specs look similar but the pixel has more ports, which I think I would like.

<comment><USER30> I'm working on a MBP, but also really interested in the pixel. We tend to now work in the cloud more than ever, and like the lower cost and simplicity of the chromebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> my experience so far : [https://github.com/WhenAppleBites/iBugs/issues/1](https://github.com/WhenAppleBites/iBugs/issues/1)</comment>


Building Problem Solvers (1993) - <AUTHOR> http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/BPS/readme.html <comment><USER2> Direct link to PDF: [http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/bps/BPS- Searchable.pdf](http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/bps/BPS-Searchable.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> Thank you for posting this link on HN :-)

<comment><USER4> Your comment was intriguing enough to get me to go look at the book... which led me to download it and its source code in to my good intentions folder. I'd love to hear more about your enthusiasm, as a prompt to eventually rescue the book from my good intentions folder, as things tend to accumulate there.</comment></comment>


All Chromebooks debuting in 2017 and beyond will run Android apps - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/01/all-chromebooks-debuting-in-2017-and-beyond-will-run-android-apps/ <comment><USER2> Yes, they will. [http://linuxbsdos.com/2017/01/16/samsung-chromebook-pro- chro...](http://linuxbsdos.com/2017/01/16/samsung-chromebook-pro-chromebook- plus-will-run-android-apps/)</comment>