Microsoft Kills Expression Suite - <AUTHOR> http://expression.microsoft.com/en-US/ <comment><USER2> "Kills" isn't a fair characterization.

Blend was the bread and butter of the suite; it was like the "Photoshop" of Adobe's Creative Suite.

Here's the first paragraph of the right-hand column:

      Blend will be fully integrated with Visual Studio 2012.
      Blend for Visual Studio 2012 provides a rich design-centric
      environment for building Windows Store apps and Windows
      Phone apps. In addition, WPF, Silverlight and SketchFlow
      support is available today as a preview and will be released
      in Visual Studio 2012 Update 2.

Yes, they're killing Design and Web, but those were only [very] poor competitors to Illustrator and Dreamweaver, respectively.

<comment><USER3> Blend is effectively dead as well- the people responsible for the 'creative' side of the product were re-org'ed out this summer.

The core of Blend goes into VS, but the vision is going to be traditional WinForms design scenarios from now on out- that's what management is looking for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I came this || close to buying Expression Studio for a team member last week. :/

The problem is that Microsoft still doesn't communicate it's big vision to developers at large. There's a lot of dead ends and blind alleys that people get led into...

I'm currently commited 80% timewise to the MS stack, but over the last decade alternatives have matured, and attitudes among the folks with the purse strings have changed towards other tech options in the marketplace. It was another weird quirk of timing that I read this news about Expression while installing various Python packages on a Linux box...

<comment><USER5> Totally concur about lack of communication to devs which is why despite being primarily a MS dev I haven't bothered to jump on the WinRT/Win8 app store empty bandwagon, and have instead been playing with Objective C recently.

For MS to regain status:

1) Fire Ballmer and get someone that understands technology/design to lead a tech company

2) Be more transparent to devs

3) Put more resources to the core tech that differentiates their OS like Apple does with Objective C API, MS should be doing with WPF (not Silverlight or WinRT or another tech - their thought process of supporting JS didn't really gain much JS devs for Win8/WinRT apps, and just ended up burning bridges with long time MS enterprise devs)

Failing the above I see MS losing more devs and as a result less apps supporting the OS and finally less market share.

<comment><USER6> I don't agree TBH, they are pretty transparent its just a lot of what things don't get beyond hype (Oslo), some never even get close to being generally useful (WF, WCF) and others get massively over hyped and then crash and burn (Silverlight).

To me its not the transparency that's the issue, its the fact that they so many of their ideas are duds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is dreadful news. 'Expression Suite' was built on Microsoft's acquisition of Creature House in 2003, and their fabulous Expression vector graphics software (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creature_House_Expression>).

At the time, Expression was the closest competitor to Adobe Illustrator: it had unique features ('skeletal strokes', based on the co-founders' PhD research), and a superb UI (yes, imagine a streamlined, friendly interface that was _different_ to Adobe's!). The animation version of Expression, LivingCels, offered similarly innovative animation technology, which was seriously being looked upon as a competitor to Flash. More significantly, though, it was on course to disrupt the (cel-based) animation industry. There's an informational site at: <http://livingcels.com>

_That's_ why Microsoft bought the company.

So, the little things: Creature House bought back the rights to Expression after MetaCreations went down. (I _wish_ they'd do so now, once more!) The wonderfully whimsical website with beautiful, funny illustrations (by Patrick Lee) was replaced fairly rapidly by Microsoft's soulless corporate rendition. There was a Mac version of Expression - abandoned. Then the Windows version was re-coded to fit into WPF (dropping lots of essential features along the way). LivingCels has vanished.

I still use Expression almost daily. It runs perfectly in WINE (especially important now, since the Mac version isn't Intel-compatible). The user manual is a brilliant example of how manuals _should_ be written, and the sample illustrations demonstrate how painterly effects can be achieved through vector gfx.

There's still nothing quite like Creature House Expression, so it's fortunate that Microsoft are still offering these original versions (Windows & Mac) as free downloads (check the links at the end of the Wikipedia article).

<comment> jarek-foksa I would say that Freehand and CorelDraw were the closest competitors to Illustrator back then. I didn't even know about Creature House before Microsoft acquisition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Microsoft is a bulti-billion dollar company that doesn't much care for developers and users of its products. Oh, it says it cares, and for the incremental cost of an MSDN subscription it can buy the silence and obeisance of influential developers for years.

In the end, it will always suck to be a developer using Microsoft technology.

Here's the Microsoft bandwagon graveyard:

* 3D Movie Maker * Active Documents * ActiveX * COM * COM+ * Courier Tablet * DAO * dbWeb * DDE * Desktop Gadgets * Encarta * Expression and Expression Suite * Frontpage * HailStorm * LINQ to SQL * Live Labs * Live Search Books, Live Search Academic * Microsoft Bob * Microsoft Equipt * Microsoft Kin * Microsoft Live * Microsoft Live One Care * Microsoft Max * Microsoft Passport * Microsoft Repository * Money * MSN Music * OLE * OneCare * OS/2 * Remote Data Objects(RDO) * Response Point * Silverlight * "Smart" Watches * Soapbox * SQL Server DMO * SQL Server DTS * Tablet PC * VB * VBA replaced by VSA * Vine * Vista * Visual Basic * Visual FoxPro * Visual Interdev * Visual JPlus Plus * Visual Source Safe * Web data access via IDC * Windows DNA * Windows for Tablets * Windows Live Spaces * WinFS * Word Basic * WordHelp (.hlp) * XBox Live Service * Zune

Many of these probably deserved to die. But Microsoft's propensity for suddenly marooning thousands of developers and millions of users at a single stroke is unconscionable.

<comment><USER9> Silverlight dead? Funny, desktop / laptop machines still require it for Netflix -- not a small audience.

OS/2? Learn your history, MSFT helped create it, but it was an IBM product.

XBox Live? Last I checked it was still around.

I'm not a particularly MSFT oriented person (apple household) but having been around long enough, you might want to expand your horizons around MSFT product life cycles.

And, I very much disagree with your comment of "It will always suck to be a developer using MSFT technologies" ... Assorted MSFT technologies have made developers a lot of money over the years and I don't see that changing much in the next few years. Yes, they lag at mobile, but they are pretty damn big still.

<comment><USER10> >OS/2? Learn your history, MSFT helped create it, but it was an IBM product.

Actually, MS did once bet on OS/2. It is unfortunate that what was originally the MS OS/2 2.0 SDK turned into an entire fiasco. I really should write a blog series about it. In the meantime, look up "MS OS/2 2.0 SDK" and "Microsoft Munchkins OS/2".

<comment><USER9> They bet on it for a short while, but I was referencing the fact that they hopped ship and OS/2 continued under IBM for _years_. OS/2 Warp, continuing to run in ATM machines, the community wanting to continue OS/2, etc. It did eventually die, but it maintained a life well after MSFT decided to move on.

I still miss Galactic Civilizations. One of the better space strategy games.

<comment><USER11> An aside: GC2 is a fine successor. DRM-free, too. <http://www.galciv2.com/>

<comment><USER12> I tried that. But the original Master of Orion still beats it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What happens to all the people who spent years learning how to use it?

It's kind of scary to think you spend learning something in and out only to find out that it's later going to be deprecated entirely. Like Silverlight. Oh well, at least with Silverlight you got something applicable out of it: XAML which works on Windows Phone 8, WPF, etc.

<comment><USER14> You are describing what Microsoft has done, and is known for doing, for more than a decade. I saw one developer create a list of MS technologies he would ignore because he felt they would disappear. A will-not-learn list.

<comment><USER15> A lot of people I know put SharePoint on that list many years ago... A lot of people I know also got a decent wage out of it...

<comment><USER16> SharePoint is a fat cash cow. It's not going anywhere.

<comment> at-fates-hands I can vouch for this. I work for a large corporation who has tied all of their development to Sharepoint. The CTO has told everybody several times, in no uncertain terms, there will be no changing from Sharepoint or Microsoft and to just deal with it.

The only glimmer of hope is in the 2013 release I've been told we can build a decent CMS layer on top of Sharepoint.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not sure what to feel about the other products as I never used them (did anyone?) but I'm glad Blend's editor made its way into VS2012. Working with the built in XAML WYSIWIG editor in past versions of VS was always terrible.

People always seemed to be put off by the $300 price tag for the package but I felt it was worth every penny for the keyframe animation mode and just to avoid crashing multiple times per day when accidentally opening a complex XAML file in split mode.

I haven't been on the MS side of things in a few months now but I'll have to go play with VS2012.

Edit: Also wanted to add, for those who actually used Design to do Vector graphics -> XAML conversions, there's an Illustrator plugin available to do that:

<http://www.mikeswanson.com/xamlexport/>

</comment><comment><USER18> Finally! Not having Blend in VS was always odd to me. Merging them makes sense for everyone. I can't say I ever used Design or Web, nor knew anyone that did. I have an odd workflow of Paint.Net and Powerpoint for design (yes, Powerpoint).

<comment> w-ll Thinking about it... Powerpoint (presentation software) could be `killer` for mockups. You could go through flows directly. Clicking on things and what-not. Im gonna play with a mix of presentation suits and mock up builders this weekend.

<comment><USER19> No . Please no. I had to work with a design shop that sent website mocks using powerpoint decks. It was so much pain to implement that in html.

The horrifying thing was when on a call, they said - "take a look at slides 259 and 260, and you see the difference when I move between those slides???" I could see no such thing - and even if they had done it more obviously(like used a circle or something to point out what had changed) powerpoint is so nasty for showing flows. The forced animations, the transitions :(

It's a good idea in theory, but in practice powerpoint the software is for demos and presentations - not for mockups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> At this point, I can't really say I feel bad for their customers, who have already been burnt so many times by Microsoft's abandonment of technologies in pursuit of the next shiny thing.

</comment><comment><USER21> Kind of guessed this was going to happen as soon as I saw Blend as part of VS2012. Glad I didn't spend much time with these tools.

</comment><comment><USER22> Even though they won't be developing git further, Expression Web and Design are decent programs, so its nice that they'll be free.

</comment><comment><USER23> Yeah, this sucks... I just bought the Expression Studio several months ago, and now half the stuff in it is free to download. It would've been nice to have known (for sure) what the future held before I bought it.

<comment><USER24> <http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/productrefund/refund.mspx>

If you bought it using a credit (not debit) card then there's also a shot that you have purchase protection benefits that include price protection and compensation for you if a retailer refuses to accept a returned product.

If your card _doesn't_ have those things -- or ESPECIALLY if you're using a Debit card -- this is a good time to learn that debit cards are awful and you should be adding a good go-to credit card.

Any basic Visa Signature card will be a good start, but I'd suggest finding a Signature card that adds in better price protection. Some that come to mind:

* Fidelity 1.5% cashback Amex offered by FIA (aka Bank of America)

* Chase British Airways card -- includes _100,000 bonus miles_ , very nearly enough to fly first class from SFO to CDG, a $10,000 fare.

* Just about any American Express card -- unless you travel and want the access to airport lounges, the Blue card is often best. Get the variant that best matches your circumstances.

There are many others, but that's a good start. For pure cashback (a little unsure of the Signature benefits):

* Barclays' Priceline-branded card recently changed their rewards. It's a straight 2% cashback card now which is fantastic. And you get a card with Shatner on it.

* NASA federal credit union has a great 2% cashback card, too. It's changed recently and I'm not totally sure of the details but the last I checked it was 2% after you spent a preset amount each year. You can join by becoming a member of, IIRC, the Stargazers society.

Basic, no-benefits credit cards are silly -- get a good one! It's easy! But debit cards are evil. Friends don't let friends use debit cards.

<comment><USER25> Capital One Venture card is 2% and you get all the Visa Signature benefits.

<comment><USER24> It's not an awful card, but it doesn't offer price match protection (you buy a TV for $999, a month later it's dropped to $799, with the cards I mentioned in the first group you'll get a $200 rebate).

Also, anecdotally, Capital One doesn't seem to grow as reliably with you as other cards. That is, more people get a $5k citi, chase, amex, etc, that grows to $25k than happens with Capital One. It's not unheard of, but generally the accepted consensus is that Capital One doesn't grow as easily.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It is a great trend of Microsoft to release "free" versions of discontinued software. First Microsoft Money, now Expression Studio. I wonder what their competitors think about it though.

</comment><comment><USER27> What's happening to super preview? Last time I looked at the expression suite, that looked like a sweet tool.

</comment><comment><USER28> Sad day.

</comment><comment><USER29> this is so Microsoft... all we need is visual studio to be even more "bloated" ...</comment>


FBI quietly changes its privacy rules for accessing NSA data on Americans - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/08/fbi-changes-privacy-rules-accessing-nsa-prism-data <comment><USER2> What good is a set of "rules" (not even laws) if they are deliberated and enforced behind closed doors? Why should the FBI even bother following these "rules" if nobody is transparently ensuring that they do?

Also, I did not realize just how intricately NSA data is shared with the FBI (and who knows how many other agencies). From the article, it sounds like any FBI analyst can run an arbitrary query on the "to" and "from" fields of email addresses, at any time, as many times as desired. So effectively the FBI has one giant inbox with Americans' communications in it?

That inbox _will_ get hacked. It's only a matter of time. If thousands of federal bureaucrats have access to it, I would be very surprised if foreign intelligence agencies do not already have access to it in some capacity.

Scary stuff. People should continue to assume all systems are compromised and email is public information.

<comment><USER3> _That inbox_ will _get hacked._

It probably has been hacked already. NSA respects FBI OpSec so little that this interface is already used to funnel disinformation to counterintelligence adversaries. That the lives of random citizens are randomly fucked up is a mere side benefit.

<comment><USER4> > NSA respects FBI OpSec so little that this interface is already used to > funnel disinformation to counterintelligence adversaries.

I have never heard this before. Do you happen to have a citation for this? I would like to read more about it.

<comment><USER3> This counterintel program wouldn't work very well if there were a published citation of it. b^)

<comment><USER5> So how do you know about it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I hate secret courts. Everything about a secret court/FISA is offensive to democracy and the longevity of a free society. I strongly believe we will be ashamed of ourselves in the future for allowing them for so long in our country.

<comment><USER7> We won't have the right to be ashamed about it. At least, not to communicate the feeling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This end of even the pretense of due process, 4th amendment, and Posse Comitatus is one of the most important shifts in American domestic policy in my lifetime.

</comment><comment><USER9> How long until the NSA quietly changes its privacy rules against domestic-only surveillance?

<comment><USER10> No rule changes needed. Did your packets travel outside of the US ever. Well hey now...

<comment><USER11> No no, your packets don't have to leave the US. They just have to be going to the same server as the guy from Germany. Social graph contact node exploration is what they do for fun and profit, 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon and all that.

Whats more, if you really get down to the technicalities, they have taps at all the major fiber nodes domestically, collect that information, but supposedly it's not collection in NSA terminology unless they look at it after they collect, which is just the most back-asswards way of arbitrarily defining terms as I can think.

So in reality, all your packets, even the encrypted ones, belong to them. Become a high target node on the graph for any reason, and expect your data to have a "7 year storage" tag, so they can focus your data and walk the cat back later.

Yes, the surveillance state is real, and it sets up what William Binney calls the "turn-key totalitarian state". FOSS and encryption will save the computer literate, but the masses are in for rude surprises.

<comment><USER12> Both you and that which you reply to are incorrect. Deliberate surveillance of domestic communications of any persons or international communications of U.S. persons without judicial approval is unlawful. Nonpublic information regarding U.S. persons incidentally captured in foreign surveillance must be minimized.

Surveillance state may be real, and we all know what has actually been going on (to include massive interception and storage of so-called metadata of domestic U.S. communication on a vast scale), but that doesn't change the fact that U.S. surveillance of foreigners located in the U.S., or of communications of U.S. persons that take international paths, is flat-out illegal without judicial approval.

What is really needed (barring a codified policy change by the legislature and executive), is some meaningful restraint from the Supreme Court on government intrusion into so-called metadata collection. We've come a long way since the pen register.

<comment><USER9> > is flat-out illegal without judicial approval

That was my original point... how long until domestic spying is no longer illegal

<comment><USER12> That was your point, but the replies by x5n1 and arca_vorago to which rebutting, misrepresented the status quo as legally permitting surveillance of U.S. persons transiting international boundaries. It does not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does the NSA have American citizen's data because other countries share it with them? I thought that they were forbidden from having this type of data...

</comment><comment><USER14> Maybe I'm just paranoid and cynical, and it's hard not to see this as mere posturing.

<comment><USER15> The FBI already has some information -- that they got from NSA -- that they _desperately_ want to use.

But they _can 't_ use it yet because they lack a credible cover story to use for "parallel construction" (look it up).

They tried to use Apple to get their little parallel construction cover story -- and now they're just changing the rules so they don't even have to use parallel construction any more.

Interesting times.

<comment><USER16> Do you have reason to believe this to be true rather than simply being plausible?

<comment><USER17> During the big Snowden leak time frame, it came out that the DEA had been conspiring with other agencies, using the NSA data, to perform parallel construction illegally.

So we already know it's going on within the US Government. Is the FBI using it? Whatever the line is between plausible and damn certain, that's perhaps where this falls.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> sdf</comment>


Nobel economist Angus Deaton: we're asking wrong questions about inequality - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1166356/nobel-prize-winning-economist-angus-deaton-thinks-were-asking-all-the-wrong-questions-about-inequality/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits <comment><USER2> So his point perhaps is the inequality to focus on is the disproportionate political leverage enjoyed by large corporations and the wealthy.

Seems a bit of a chicken and egg situation though. Those with more money can buy legislation that enables them to maintain or enhance their ability to extract wealth which begets the next cycle.

Breaking the political leverage is something the non-wealthy majority can do through voting for a party that will reign in political donations.

</comment><comment><USER3> Obligatory note that the Nobel-Economics prize is nothing to do with Alfred Nobel, and was setup entirely separately by The Swedish Central Bank.

[https://oliverhartwich.com/2013/10/25/abolish-the-nobel- priz...](https://oliverhartwich.com/2013/10/25/abolish-the-nobel-prize-for- economics/)

<comment><USER4> This is an often cited fact (entirely correct). But I'm surprised that people seem to get upset by it.

A prize is just a prize. It's fairly clearly stated on the website and Wikipedia.

Everyone who gets it knows that it wasn't setup by Mr. Nobel, but it's still well renowned and thus desired among academics.</comment></comment>


(ACPI) Advanced Configuration and Power Interface - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Configuration_and_Power_Interface <comment><AUTHOR> For my money if we created a category

> Awesome Open Standards That Nobody Ever Talks About

I would nominate this one waaay high on the list.

It's taken for granted these days, it seems (? or is it), but to my mind it was a leapfrog idea / implementation that doesn't get due credit.

(me: pushed a lot of buttons today where I didn't have a root shell) [edit: clarity]</comment>


So long, Stack Overflow - <AUTHOR> https://sklivvz.com/posts/so-long-stack-overflow <comment><USER2> Oh, from the title I thought Stack Overflow was shutting down.

<comment><USER3> Of all the _major operational risks_ our startup faces, that would basically be at the absolute top of the list. I suspect we'd have to double headcount if SO shut down! SO should be considered a national utility/treasure like DTCC, etc.

<comment><USER4> Not just your startup. A large part of the tech industry would collectively panic if Stack Overflow shut down and all those answers vanished from Google. Developer productivity would likely be cut in half (or more) that day!

<comment><USER5> Lull in productivity, bad developers would suddenly stick out and either learn to "learn" or be replaced and productivity/quality would improve. It's all prospective :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's a nice story arc. Thanks for your help building Stack Overflow. It's helped me manymanymany times as a programmer :)

Best of luck on your future endeavors!

</comment><comment><USER7> Good luck on your future endeavors.

But I can't shake off the feeling that the company hired too fast and decided to let go of a few folks to avoid raising more funding. Of course as you said, the whole thing was amicable.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nah, don't overthink this.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: any known production use for Sinatra(rb) - <AUTHOR>

I'm in Proof of Concept in order to use Sinatra in production, and be happy to get some feedbacks and tricks in production use (e.g. performance, scalability, etc.) <comment><USER2> I'm using in production in more than a couple of places, mostly for back-end heavy apps (ie: not much UI). Works fairly well with Passenger in my cases.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm trying to get used to it with a simple Google Gadget project. However, it seems OK for me to use in full (ie both in Front and Backend). However, with a simple search, I couldn't see any solid application running entirely on it.

<comment><USER2> Did you have a look at this ?

<http://www.sinatrarb.com/wild.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> yep, but either I missed a fancy one, or the list has none...seems just simple or partial use of Sinatra, rather than a fully-fledged application.

<comment><USER3> What exactly are you looking for? A complex Sinatra app? Sinatra is largely suited for smaller apps, so you won't find many super complex apps built on it, though there are some open source examples. However, it is used rather extensively in conjunction with large, high traffic Rails apps. For instance, the RubyGems gem sever: [https://github.com/rubygems/gemcutter/blob/master/app/middle...](https://github.com/rubygems/gemcutter/blob/master/app/middleware/hostess.rb)

If your requirements fit within what Sinatra can provide, you shouldn't hesitate using it. It's a very straightforward framework and works well. If your requirements are more complex, look at Rails or Padrino, the latter of which is built on top of Sinatra and is actually pretty awesome.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks...Indeed, I'm using rails already, but wondering if it's wise to use Sinatra, since the syntax and handling is very classy.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Man's static jacket sparks alert (2005) - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4252692.stm

<comment><USER2> This story sounds.... untrue. While it's certainly plausible to have 40,000 volts of static electricity, the amount of _energy_ involved is extremely small. Way too small to burn holes in a carpet. (Also, it's from 2005.)

Edit: "Several unanswered objections mark the story as a possible hoax" [http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Australian_man_allegedly_ignites...](http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Australian_man_allegedly_ignites_carpet,_plastic_with_static_electricity)

</comment><comment><USER3> ...that's terrifying. Would that high of a voltage being carried on his body not have killed him when it was discharged?

<comment><USER4> I'm no electronics expert, but AFAIK in normal situations static electricity has high voltage but very low capacitance. Basically, with the materials and geometry involved, there isn't enough charge at 40 kV to cause serious damage -- as the article says, the worst that could happen is the spark starts a fire (which may of course cause a lot of damage and loss of life if it's not put out, but at that point it's no longer an electrical phenomenon).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> My first thought: Firemen are equipped with electrostatic field meters and trained how to use them?!

Second thought: 40 kV isn't THAT much. I've seen such readings on people before. Such people are in for a world of hurt when they discharge, but it's not going to cause any fires.

This story doesn't make sense.

<comment><USER2> And indeed Wikipedia suggests that's the maximum possible. Any more would dissipate into the air.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_electricity#Energies_inv...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_electricity#Energies_involved)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How is such a large accumulation of charge possible in an open system that is everyday life?!

<comment><USER7> Dry air is a very good insulator, and 40kV is not a huge potential for statical charges, artifical charges get in hundreds of kV easily and in the MV with just a bit of planning.</comment></comment>


Deep learning to translate between programming languages - <AUTHOR> https://ai.facebook.com/blog/deep-learning-to-translate-between-programming-languages <comment><USER2> This sounds more impressive than it is. I kept an auto-translation going for quite a while from C# to Go just by creating some bash scripts. These languages are so similar, that while not idiomatic, you can be up and running with quite few rules and some simplifications to the original code.

While I believe this is a good arena for algorithms to provide solution, I'm sceptical that ML in its current incarnations is the right tool. The problem is the variations in the problem space: generic programs, need for idiomatic code, renewed design and lack of human insight and ownership. Sure for an easy and specialized solution, this will work and may be helpful as a one-off. That is, if one just wants a straight port and test alot.

<comment><USER3> Yeah I was thinking it might be better to use something like LLVM IR as the "data structure" and then train deep nets to go $(LANG) => IR and then IR => $(LANG), trained with a lot of idiomatic well written code for each Lang, then the nets might be able to glean the intent more than implementation details.

Not sure though, I'm not an expert in LLVM IR, so I'm not sure how feasible that is...

<comment><USER4> The issue is that LANG -> IR is a lossy transform: some constructs are lost, some language specific optimization passes could be applied, etc. Going from LANG1 -> LANG2 starts with more information, so it could in theory work better.

<comment><USER5> It's lossy, the inverse is not well defined. But you could try to train a NN on reconstructing plausible (idiomatic) inputs leading to the current IR...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wasn't this on HN a few weeks ago? Or was that a similar project?

It's a fascinating idea. But now you need some way to check the result. Last time around, someone noted that some of the translations were plausible but wrong.

There's clearly some guessing. The translation of one function from Python to C++ resulted in untyped bounds becoming ints, which is OK. But it also resulted in a data array becoming ints, although the Python operations were generic over any type with arithmetic operators. The Python code might have been used for floats. It's not doing type inference by looking at the callers; it's just guessing.

Still, it's promising, even if it doesn't do the whole job. There's a C++ to Rust translator, but it turns array indexing into pointer arithmetic on special C++ compatible types. It's compiling into lower level operations. Deep learning has the potential to recognize and use idioms of the target language. Maybe.

But this needs a checker. Perhaps something that runs both language versions in lockstep on test data and checks for disagreement at key points.

</comment><comment><USER7> I can't imagine this working out for producing idiomatic code, especially between very divergent languages like Haskell and C++. Their example is almost straight syntactic replacement, not very impressive. And their real-world use- case is for migrating COBOL projects to python??

<comment><USER8> Facebook as a company do not believe in ever rewriting large code bases. You can view lots of their open source/technical achievements as out growths of this belief: \- 2004, write PHP as it's fastest for now

\- 2008: PHP is too slow, compile it to C++

\- 2011: C++ is too slow, write a VM and compile to assesmbly

\- 2012: PHP's type system sucks, write a better typer in OCaml (Hack)

\- They have done much the same for Javascript and Python (look at all the typing tools provided by Instagram).

This stuff is just an outgrowth of their deep deep belief in writing code to handle the crazy amount of code they already have.

<comment><USER9> How well does that really work out? It seems like that would aggregate a lot of cruft, or are there ways around that?

<comment><USER10> I think the theory is a small subset of engineers can do work that speeds up the entire codebase for the rest of the engineers instead of spending time rewriting that entire code base and also retraining all of those engineers.

<comment><USER11> I think this is just it; at some point, code becomes a numbers game, an investment game. Rewriting their PHP codebase to, say, C++ would cost 10000 work-years, whereas creating HVVM cost 100 (random numbers) at a 1000% improvement in performance.

Rewrites at that scale are really expensive and take forever, and by the time it's done they'll be running behind the facts already.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, exactly.

I like to think that Mark Zuckerberg read Joel's post and took it to heart.

But the pattern is super noticeable for FB, once you start paying attention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cool magic trick but I fail to see anything useful coming out of it. I would not blindly rewrite code, rather see how it can be improved and maybe dig a bit in the existing functionality, clean it out, use the new language in my advantage...

Also as a programmer your mental modal is completely out of sync, how do you work on such application suddenly now that its all in Python (coming from C++)? Or is this shipped to a new team which received 100 000 lines of C++ but no clue how it all works?

How would FB use this at all?

<comment><USER11> You would, but FB and some other companies are dealing with 20 years and millions of lines of code written by a small army of developers. If they decide to switch language and rebuild their services, just doing it manually will in all likelihood take longer and more people if they don't apply tricks like automatic conversion, because it takes more effort to rebuild than to build fresh due to multiple reasons.

<comment><USER13> But the options aren't "manual" and "ai". There is a third option of using classical static analysis and compiler techniques that have been around for decades to do transpilation and large scale refactors.

There are entire companies already build around this.

<comment><USER14> There's also a fourth option: do nothing. Leave the existing services in the languages that they're written in rather than translating them into other languages and laboriously debugging the resulting code. If these services communicate through well-defined APIs, any new services, which can be built in new languages, can communicate with the legacy services.

It may be more cost effective to keep around some developers who know the old code base and the language it's written in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> As far as I can tell, this article gives no definition of what they mean by "successfully translate" in their testing. I would think it should be equivalent to the typical use of porting, which usually means you move the codebase from one language to another, reproduce all existing functionality, introduce no new bugs, and maintain relative performance. I am not seeing anything in this article other than their translator translates functions to functions. It also doesn't mention what failure looks like. Does it mean bugs are introduced? Does it mean the translator doesn't return? How are the percentages arrived at?

Also, I don't fully understand the why, which is also not really addressed. What problem is automatically translating a mess of a code base (I am assuming it's a mess, otherwise, why would you want to port it) to another programming language, leaving the mess in place, solving? Isn't the idea of porting to another language usually to help improve the codebase and/or to help integrate it into some other system? Is the idea of automatic translators that it does the "heavy" lifting that is then gone in and cleaned up by experts of the new language? How do you manage the failures, since that would seem you'd still need an expert in the original language?

<comment><USER16> > To better measure the performance of TransCoder and other code translation > techniques, we've created a new metric called computational accuracy, which > evaluates whether the hypothesis function generates the same outputs as the > reference when given the same inputs. We are also releasing our test set and > the scripts and unit tests we used to compute this metric.

It reads as if they used a test suite to confirm wether the translation represents the same function.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've been thinking of a pandoc-like tool to translate between languages, i.e. a transpiler.

You would need to write down the most general abstract syntax tree (AST) that encompasses all supported languages' features, as well as a way to read languages into this AST, and write the AST into languages.

The cool thing about pandoc is the ability to transform the AST between the read and write. In the context of a transpiler, that might mean that you transform the AST to be safer (e.g. adding type-checks in Python) before writing out.

That would be a very tedious tool to write, given that every language has its strange behaviors. But it might be a fun project if you limit the number of languages you support.

<comment><USER18> You will need to create common library for all these languages, then write all your programs using your own libraries only.

<comment><USER17> I don't get why? The AST can be parsed by any single language. Haskell is particularly well-suited for writing parsers.

<comment><USER19> I believe the point is that you can have perfect syntactic compatibility, but that means nothing when your program calls boost::asio or a Common Lisp defmethod and you want to interpret it as Haskell.

The only way this could work is if you write the whole stdlib in your AST system.

Of course, this still won't mean your lazy Haskell program works as an eager C program. Language semantics are too different, even between similar languages, you'll ALWAYS hit corner cases on anything more than a toy program. Even if you translate C# to Java. Well, maybe C to C++ will work decently, as few programs use the diverging features.

<comment><USER17> I see, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think that while the current technology could do such a thing, the current data absolutely cannot. Think of the parallel with language translations. We have tons of books that are all painstakingly translated from language to another by talented translators who even try to persevere idioms of each language, television and other media as well. I don't think there are even any copies out there of a faithful language translation in programming space as there is in language space

<comment><USER16> Note that this algorithm does not require translations as input. It takes large corpus of the languages of interest, models them and then find parallel between both models which are used as a crude basis for a model. They use it to train a better model and iterate.

This stems from earlier work on natural language translation (by the same team) and opens quitte a number of doors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I see the potential to speed up code a lot. Say that you could translate Python to C++ or Nim that would speed up the program a lot. You could profile and translate select hot often used code paths. This has the potential too save a lot of energy by using more efficient programs.

<comment><USER22> That seems like a lot of effort when Julia is both high-level and efficient already.

<comment><USER23> Ok but I have 3 million lines of Python code, so that doesn't help me. I'm not gonna spend a year or two writing everything in Julia.

<comment><USER22> Good thing you don't have to: [https://github.com/JuliaPy/PyCall.jl](https://github.com/JuliaPy/PyCall.jl)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I see deep learning doing really well for one shot translation of declarative languages like HTML etc. As well as simple grammars like English etc. You could maybe generate HTML and CSS based on English.

But languages that have side effects, such as imperative languages, would be very hard to generate. On the other hand, this is the first thing I've seen that approaches it.

I am very worried about the uncanny valley of producing stuff based on remixing other stuff with no understanding of the logic behind it.

Recognizing and classifying images and finding correlations is altogether different than programming. I can see how physics and science can be automated. But programming?

</comment><comment><USER25> Even if it works, which I doubt, the maintenance question is more important than just porting. Porting is rarely done just because there is a new modern language. Writing a compiler/transcoder is likely easier and safer, guaranteed to work.

I wonder what the deep learning would do with concurrent code and differences in the memory models of the languages. The part is rather hard for experts in both languages and concurrency, there is very little similar code at all to learn from.

<comment><USER26> It seems like you could maybe go through machine code as an intermediary?

<comment><USER27> But wouldn't that just be decompiling with extra steps?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> sid- Cool idea...I would be more interested in auto-documentation tool based on this.

<comment><USER27> That'd be truly remarkable as in actual magic.

Take this rather simple example:

      PointList interpolate(PointList sample_points, OrderedRealNumberList points_to_interpolate);

This function can be auto-documented from its name and the names and types of its arguments alone. No ML required - simple pattern matching and LUTs will do. But then again, do you really need a detailed documentation in such case?

Where a documentation would actually be helpful are cases like this:

      SUBROUTINE PCHFE (N, X, F, D, INCFD, SKIP, NE, XE, FE, IERR)

A format commonly found in the FORTRAN code of numeric libraries. If the author(s) didn't document this, an AI wouldn't stand a chance to know what it does.

PCHFE is Piecewise Cubic-Hermite Function Evaluation of course [1] and the parameters aren't exactly self-explanatory either...

[1] [http://www.netlib.org/slatec/pchip/pchfe.f](http://www.netlib.org/slatec/pchip/pchfe.f)

<comment><USER28> Guessing !! N,X, and F are probably related to NE,XE, and FE "E" means "error"? Maybe. IERR is an error flag. Idiomatic fortran there.

Each of those variables will be defined later on, in the code. at least with a type (not required, but it is not 1960 anymore). In that declaration is where some comments would be.

              REAL*8 N ! Radius of the body in radians

Point being that fortran is not hopelessly opaque. A subroutine declaration is backed up with some more information.

(now if "implicit none" is not a requirement, then this all you get)

Love seeing some hard core numeric code. Precise and compact. No pointers, nothing sophisticated. Do loops, if statements, subroutine calls.

<comment><USER27> > In that declaration is where some comments would be.

Here's the declaration of the parameters:

      INTEGER  N, INCFD, NE, IERR
      REAL  X(*), F(INCFD,*), D(INCFD,*), XE(*), FE(*)
      LOGICAL  SKIP

Sorry, but no comments to be found :)

> NE,XE, and FE "E" means "error"? Maybe.

Wrong guess - "E" means "Evaluation" as in "to be evaluated" in this case. It's also not clear which are inputs and outputs and primitive data types give no indication at all about constraints and use-case.

> IERR is an error flag. Idiomatic fortran there.

Now that's true, but idiomatic cases that are well documented and don't benefit from AI documentation. Simple pattern matching will do.

The point I was trying to make wasn't really about any specific programming language either. The point is rather that documentation requires translating implementation to intent and purpose.

If you have a system that's capable of translating a program into purpose, constraints, and usage example(s) expressed in plain natural language; you have created a system to end all programming languages, because the inverse transform would be possible as well...

<comment><USER28> i agree with you!

nice to see someone else using fortran 77. or at least reading it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I see this as a great way to speed up manual code translation from a language to another.

Something like DeepL [1] but for code, where you can select one of several possible translations to translate a section of the code, rewrite part of the translation and have the algorithm take them into account for the rest of the code and indicate some prefered translations.

You cannot replace a human translator but you can certainly make him much faster and automate the trivial bits.

[1]: [https://www.deepl.com/translator](https://www.deepl.com/translator)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Code is now public, with pretrained models : [https://github.com/facebookresearch/TransCoder/](https://github.com/facebookresearch/TransCoder/)

</comment><comment><USER29> The linked paper was previously discussed at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23463812](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23463812)

</comment><comment><USER30> Without ML logic - Trace the control flow and generate language specific string.

</comment><comment><USER31> golden sledgehammer.

what problem does it solve exactly? im not seeing unsolved problems here... just a really heavyweight solution that is frail and prone to error

</comment><comment><USER32> I'd be impressed if it could translate, say, React to Qt. Translating what amounts to leetcode problems is much less interesting

</comment><comment><USER33> To imagine future compilers _may_ just one day be AI powered is mind boggling to me.

<comment><USER34> I've heard that LLVM uses neural networks to drive the register allocator. I don't know how well it works, but it's a pretty cool idea.

<comment><USER35> In the PGO category, there's also this recent proposal: [http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm- dev/2020-April/140763.h...](http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm- dev/2020-April/140763.html)

At compile-time only, people have also been using trained models to derive cost functions for sequences of instructions (as opposed to analytical models which become very difficult to derive these days given the complexity of modern CPU architectures)

<comment><USER34> This is interesting, as I have essentially given up on attempting to figure out which sequences are faster. Instead, I go for the approximations that fewer instructions equals faster, and registers are faster.

It's hard to even figure out if the scheduling algorithms that work well on the Pentium and PentiumPro are worthwhile for the x86-64.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> d--b Sounds pretty risky to me...</comment>


New tools transform ordinary Excel models into powerful and connected apps - <AUTHOR> https://airdev.co/post/unleashing-the-spreadsheet-1527626089354x895731352269649500 <comment><USER2> Cool! Can airdev handle spreadsheets that use VB or XLLs?</comment>


Ask HN: A New MacBook for Developers - <AUTHOR> I see a lot of posts on here asking for MacBook alternatives.
If Apple were to come out with a new MacBook specifically for developers, what features would it have to have?
How much demand would there have to be to make it worth Apple undertaking an endeavor? <comment><USER2> It should at least have:

* A keyboard that doesn't malfunction after half a year's worth of usage

* A physical escape key

* Additional USB ports

<comment><USER3> It should have a USB-A port or two. You cant' even insert a USB stick.

It would be nice if the keyboard had curved keys, like the first gen macbook pro. flat keyboards suck, they put the impact on a smaller area of your fingertip, and your fingers do not self-center.

(and I agree about the escape key)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Plenty of memory and storage without charging through the nose for them. 8GB / 128GB is laughable. Alternatively, user-upgradable.

Smaller trackpad for more ergonomic typing. The 2015 models were better proportioned.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you want to use it for machine learning or VR/AR then it should ideally have a separate GPU board. Also nice to have: upgradable RAM, upgradable solid state drive bay.</comment>


Awesome Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://ruby.libhunt.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, mates! I released this project yesterday. The end goal is this to become the go-to "Ruby Toolbox". I know that there's a similar site already. Yet, I believe this could become a viable place for gems discovery and comparison.

I will be more than happy to receive any feedback or ideas how the site could be improved and become more helpful.

Thanks!

<comment><USER2> If I select one from each of the 10 popular categories the permutation space is 288,039,628,800. That's a lot of choice.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: what should a CS student always remember? - <AUTHOR>

Throwaway account.
I did not study CS in undergrad, but I've been admitted to a graduate CS program. What advice do you have for me? This question is intentionally open-ended and vague, since HNers are overflowing with experience + advice.
If you'd rather not share in public, I would love to hear from you on Gmail (fooboyHN). <comment> ren-n-stimpy I got an ugrad in CS, but from a non-engr-focused school, and then got into one of the top grad schools. I quickly realized I had neither the mathematical pedigree for CS theory, nor anything resembling experience designing OS and microprocessor internals for systems, that the MIT, CMU, and Berkeley students did. (my OS class was literally a history course!)

Yet I now have a PhD and a Best Paper award.

The key: specialize.

Study a sub-discipline so deeply that you know every paper's references' references. the reference set will collapse to a strongly-connected graph. jettison weak connections to get a clear picture, and, really, a narrative of the field, as in a survey paper.

just naturally, you'll start to be able to quote author affiliations, and their publication list in time-order.

once you do that, you'll find yourself hearing/reading comments, and immediately saying: oh, shut up, that has been done! that sounds like A, said by X, and B, said by Y, and even a bit like C, said by Z. and, then, voila, you'll see that no one has said D yet, even tho it is just obviously a variant on C, or whatever. and then you write it/prove it/code it. then you publish it. and all of a sudden, even though you've (say) never lexed or parsed or emitted or reduced... you start seeing yourself in other people's references as "D said by You".

Then you win.

</comment><comment><USER2> Undergrad CS programs vary greatly. So I would suggest having a look at recent course descriptions for the degree program and recommended books.

Having lots of programming experience in Java, C#, PHP, etc will not be of much value unless you understand the underlying paradigms and concepts.

In most general terms, you'd at least need to know "Algorithms and Data Structures", the SICP book cover to cover, some LISP, C programming, basic operating systems, compilers, interpreters, discrete math, logic and a bit of digital electronics.

I'm intrigued as to how you got into a graduate program. Did you present an impressive background? Care to mention which Uni?? It's a throwaway account, so it can't be tracked back to you!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hah, very true.

I won't mention the university, but they're in the northern Atlantic region (not MIT or CMU). My CS interests (machine learning and computational statistics) extend from my domain experience (applied statistics), and I also have a strong background in math. Finally, I bootstrapped my CS knowledge up to a certain level using online lectures from MIT, Stanford, and Harvard, and mentioned as much in my application.

<comment><USER2> Mathematicians go to great lengths to make careful distinctions between objects, notions and concepts. With those skills you will have no problems with any Object Oriented Analysis - Design - Programming.

Wishing you all the very best of success with your graduate program.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Off the top of my head:

Know and understand commonly used algorithms and data structures, both what they are good for and what they are bad at. Most of the problems you'll solve reduce to something that's already been done plus maybe a little extra (My roommate loves this book for algorithms: <http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~vazirani/algorithms.html>).

Work on personal projects. They're great practice, very rewarding, help familiarize you with the language(s) used, and show you the practical side of CS.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm currently finishing up my CS undergrad while working fulltime.

Always remember those times when you would spend 3 days straight coding with very minimal sleep in order to finish a project and still were able to get to class at 8am the next day. When you're at work remind yourself, "it can always be worse. I could be writing a parser in ANTLR that's due tomorrow and still barely understand the syntax"

</comment><comment><USER5> I am in the same position,have got admission to a CS grad course with an undergrad in something else.Earlier had thought that it would be doable thought now it seems pretty daunting.I am almost thinking of not taking it up as I think of the nightmarish scenarios of not being able to do well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well honestly, schools are decent at identifying whether you can succeed in their program or not. Whether you _actually_ succeed is a different story, but I bet its a function (maybe exponential) of the effort you put in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> A wise man once said: "Learn everything; then forget everything."

</comment><comment><USER7> Work hard? It's never more fun than grad school. Sigh.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm in the same boat as you. What have you been doing thus far to prepare?

<comment><AUTHOR> Stepping up work on personal projects (website, OSS). I want to implement some algorithms in C once those outstanding projects are done.

What about you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> work to build portfolio ,devote time on side projects.</comment>


What is the best cryptocurrency to mine and why? - <AUTHOR> Given all the variables in mining profitably, which cryptocurrency would you risk mining? <comment><USER2> [https://whattomine.com/](https://whattomine.com/)

[http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency](http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency)

[https://www.nicehash.com/?p=calc](https://www.nicehash.com/?p=calc)

Interestingly, these don't agree.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've found lots of similar conflicting data. Seems to be a lot of misinformation and scams out there. I might start mining a bit as a hobby just to learn more about cryptocurrency because it seems like the only way to really profit would be to buy, either way you're hoping it's going to become more valuable.</comment></comment>


Ask YC: Review my startup, twtquiz - <AUTHOR>

It's available at http://twtquiz.com
To put it short, it's an application where people on Twitter can quiz on topics in real-time. The platform is set entirely on Twitter and is considered a fun yet addictive approach.
I would love to hear your feedback and response on my project. <comment><USER2> Too many questions. Maybe you can break them in stages?

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you think would be the best way to go about this?</comment></comment>


AngelList – Do Or Do Not, There is No Try - <AUTHOR> http://www.foundrygroup.com/wp/2013/10/angellist-do-or-do-not-there-is-no-try/

<comment><USER2> While the ticket sizes (overall $2.5M, $50,000 per investment) may not be large, nice early move by Foundry to coopt a potential competitor into a partner.

Also, given that AngelList has now got $24M in funding from VCs, and VCs are in turn turning angels on AngelList, things don't look as adversarial or disruptive between the two as we originally thought?

Edit: Now would also be a nice time to remember how Naval was apparently, not so long ago, seen as toxic by the VC community:

> By the end of that year, Ravikant and other plaintiffs had settled the suit, > but it was assumed that Ravikant had made a dangerous gamble with his > reputation and connections by suing his peers.

> At the time the suit surfaced, in 2005, Ravikant was also a partner Dot Edu > Ventures, which quickly removed his name from its Website, and whose founder > and managing partner, Asha Jadej, played down the firm's relationship with > Ravikant. "We were at a point where we felt there were multiple factors, > including the suit, which helped us all decide that this might be a good > time to part ways," Jadej told me at the time. Another person close to the > situation told me at the time: _"[Ravikant] had better win this suit and he > better hope that he makes enough for life, because he'll never work as a VC > again."_

<comment><USER3> People resent change. But smart VCs can see the markings on the door, and AngelList is quickly becoming the main channel for early stage financing - they need to be there or miss out on getting in early.

I think it makes even more sense for VCs to use syndicates than Angels, since they have more experience managing bigger checks and angels are typically brought in for different reasons, some of which are made void in a syndicate.

I wrote about that yesterday, from the perspective of a startup founder, might be of interest - [http://www.techfounder.net/2013/09/30/founders- perspective-o...](http://www.techfounder.net/2013/09/30/founders-perspective- on-angellist-syndicates/)</comment></comment>


Detroit neighborhood plea: we want squatters - <AUTHOR> http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2015/09/17/detroit-neighborhood-plea-want-squatters/32558019/ <comment><USER2> I stayed in a squat that came about the same way a few years back, and thought it was just a weird one off occurrence.</comment>


No More Fear - <AUTHOR> http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/12/29/My-Country <comment><USER2> My conclusion about all of this is that the government _wants_ people to be afraid. These are not real attempts to detect threats to flights. If anything, they're most interested in finding drugs and smuggled valuables. And this is not 'security theater'. The intent is to get everyone used to invasive, police-state style behavior.

<comment><USER3> I don't think it's so much that the government wants people to be afraid as it is CYA for the people in charge. Politicians want to claim that they've made things safer and none of them are brave enough to say: "Lets take things down a notch because they're ineffective."

It's similar to the state of "tough on crime" policies like 3 strikes and mandatory minimum sentences - even when proven ineffective no one wants to reverse the statutes for fear of being seen as weak on crime.

<comment><USER4> There certainly are people and organizations inside and outside the government who want people to be afraid. Martha Stout's "The Paranoia Switch"* looks at politicians who exploit this reaction and how the media contributed to the environment after 9/11. And the "surveillance-industrial" complex makes their money (and keeps their power) based on fear.

* good summary/review at [http://www.sott.net/articles/show/142725-Limbic-Warfare-and-...](http://www.sott.net/articles/show/142725-Limbic-Warfare-and-Martha-Stout-s-Paranoia-Switch-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current security theater is a waste of effort at best. I seem to read articles like this or articles advocating "Israelification" about once a week.

The thing that bothers me most is TSA has congressional oversight, but its actions are not laws. So who do we complain to? Some bureaucratic process decides we can't wear shoes, bring water bottles, or (the latest new rule) can't bring more than 16 oz. of printer cartridges through a checkpoint.

There's no debate, partisan or otherwise; there's no angry constituents. Instead it is the TSA who decides these things, and no congressman can be anti-TSA, because that's tantamount to being anti-security.

I'm also pretty sure TSA is part of the executive branch - so do we complain to Obama, then...?

<comment><USER6> > I think there are a lot of people with this viewpoint, that the current > security theater is a waste of effort at best.

How large is the group of people who think it _isn't_ wasted effort?

I recently had a conversation with a group of well-traveled, well-educated people who honestly believed that the new scanners and pat-downs are okay because they are designed for our own safety. The 4th Amendment was never a concern to them. When I brought it up, the answer was essentially that the end justified the means. Ben Franklin's famous words[1] did not convince them otherwise.

How are you (general) educating people about their rights?

[1] <http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html>

<comment><USER7> "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I have the utmost respect for Ben Franklin, but this quote is not his best work. You might not be realizing it, but you are giving up liberty every day in exchange of something you find more valuable. Examples include signing up for credit, giving your address or social security in exchange of discounts, using a card at your grocery store or local mall, etc...

There is really nothing wrong with giving up some liberty just as long as 1) you're clear on what you're getting in exchange and 2) you agree that the deal is fair.

<comment><USER8> Convenience is not safety. Your point is not directly relevant to the Franklin quote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Also recommended reading are Bruce Schneier's book "Beyond Fear" which provides a great mental framework for thinking about security (mainly IRL, but with applications in computing)

<http://www.schneier.com/book-beyondfear.html>

and his blog:

<http://www.schneier.com/>

</comment><comment><USER10> I'd like to go back to a country where I can keep my shoes on before I go on a plane.

<comment><USER11> I had a hole in my sock the last time I flew :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Kevin Drum made a point that stuck with me in defense of TSA procedures (which I am otherwise inclined to find odious.)

That is that the political and cultural environment is such right now that if a plane goes down due to terrorism, the country is going to go crazy and clamp down really hard on civil liberties in a truly damaging way. So we should prefer measures that, while intrusive, are generally pretty limited.

He argues that it is all well and good to say that "planes will go down but that's a small price to pay", but when it actually happens, life will be worse for everyone.

The idealist in me is disappointed to consider this argument, but it seems pretty realistic.

It's towards the end of this blog post <http://motherjones.com/kevin- drum/2010/11/my-tsa-anti-rant>

<comment><USER4> There's a flaw in Kevin's argument: the odious measures don't actually reduce the chance of a plane going around to terrorism. In fact by diverting resources from more effective security measures (e.g. focusing on cargo) they actually _increase_ the chance.

<comment><USER12> If you take a look at his article, he makes a few basic arguments that at least some of the measures are targeted at keeping explosives off of planes and seem reasonably sensible.

For example, take the shoe check. Richard Reid came pretty close to blowing up a plane, but for a flight delay (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Reid_(shoe_bomber)> ). He kind of prominently proved out an approach, and since the goal of the TSA is pretty obviously not having a plane blow up, they instituted a visible countermeasure to that approach.

So: I don't agree that every measure instituted by the TSA is completely ineffectual, at least in theory.

That being said, you do raise a good point about the allocation of resources. I have to admit having much less sense of what is and isn't being done on the cargo side, if only because I only experience air travel as a passenger.

Do you know much more about cargo security? What measures would you institute?

<comment><USER4> Bruce Schneier's got a pithy hard-to-argue with summary: "Cargo that is loaded on to passenger planes should be subjected to the same level of security as passenger luggage. Cargo that is loaded onto cargo planes should be treated no differently from cargo loaded into ships, trains, trucks, and the trunks of cars."

[http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/10/cargo_security...](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/10/cargo_security.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's the kind of country I want to live in too.

With the wave of opposition to the TSA and legislative battles over the Internet Wiretapping bill, COICA, and the Patriot Act renewal, 2011 will go a long way to determining what kind of country we'll be. So articles like this are a great opportunity to ask yourself ...

Are you going to get involved and help?

<comment><USER13> Give me some examples of how I can get involved and help.

<comment><USER4> Great suggestion. Here's a few ideas off the top of my head

\- probably the most important: talk with your friends and family about the issues and try to get them beyond their fears.

\- if you've got a few $ to spare, contributed to groups like EPIC (who's leading the lawsuit against the TSA scanners), EFF, BORDC, and ACLU.

\- call your congressperson's office and let them know that these are important issues to the country, you expect them to take an active role, and it will be affecting how you vote in 2012.

\- specifically on the TSA, adjust your habits to reduce (or even better eliminate) flying. when you do fly, take educational material with you to the airport, talk with people next to you in line, and opt out of the scanners.

\- and track what's going on; there are likely to be some intense activism campaigns once Congress gets back into session, and plenty of opportunities to get involved online or off

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Plus, don't let a plane take off if someone has checked in luggage but isn't on board"

I'm pretty sure that is already the case, at least for international flights. I've been on numerous planes that got delayed because a passenger didn't show up and the airline had to unload their luggage.

</comment><comment><USER15> Let's just face the fact that we've become a country of wusses. From the social stigma given to those riding a bicycle without a helmet to the demand for cradle to grave protection by the government: we are not our forefathers.

<comment><USER16> > Let's just face the fact that we've become a country of wusses.

All the things that are wrong with our nation and the best phrase to describe the situation is "wusses"? Are we still in High School?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Quick aside: Look at how many hijackings occurred before 2001, especially in the 70s and 80s: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijack...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings)

Before 9/11, it was just another risk of flying. Now...

</comment><comment><USER18> Air nazism is a disincentive against air travel, which are necessary given the current environmental situation.

<comment><USER4> Air Nazism doesn't help security. It's a huge waste of money. And as you say it's a disincentive against air travel.

Why is it necessary?

<comment><USER19> Parent is arguing that TSA means fewer flights, which means less shit being burnt in the atmosphere; that this is a net benefit for the planet.</comment></comment></comment>


"Facebook Drives 19% of Google's Uniques"?  I don't think so... - <AUTHOR> http://robgo.tumblr.com/post/88193714/facebook-drives-19-of-googles-uniques-i-dont <comment><USER2> Where's the Google integration in the Facebook UI anyway? As this article points out, there isn't one.

They don't have a Google search box. They don't use Google's index for their internal search engine. So, what could Facebook change to deny Google referrals? Disable outbound Google links in people's feeds? That seems implausible, and I'm putting it kindly.

This isn't Mozilla switching to Live Search for the default search provider. There's no partnership that could really be broken to hurt Google.

</comment><comment><USER3> This all started from a misguided AdAge article: <http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=135112> (subscription required)</comment>


Planes overhead - <AUTHOR> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=planes+overhead <comment><USER2> Wolfram Alpha might be the most advanced piece of web technology nobody needs.

<comment><USER3> Except that it is extremely useful as a powerful calculator for students and professionals doing technical things, and in the process of being very handy teaches people mathematica notation. Just because it's not necessarily aimed at the average person doesn't mean its not aimed at anyone.

I expect Wolfram alpha has done a lot to drive sales of mathematica.

<comment><USER4> I feel the original comment applies not to mathematica, just to the (alpha - mathematica) subset, much of which seems to exist just to prove it can exist. But I don't begrudge them this at all, it's still cool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the biggest problem with wolframalpha.com (besides its hard and long name) is functionality discovery. How am I supposed to know it's possible to measure "plane overheads", even if I am on their site?

Anyhow, from the website usage, it looks like it never took off: [http://trends.google.com/websites?q=wolframalpha.com&geo...](http://trends.google.com/websites?q=wolframalpha.com&geo=all&date=all&sort=0)

<comment><USER6> Wolfram Alpha not being able to sustain the "trendiness" it enjoyed during its original release isn't as bad as one might make it out to be.

[http://trends.google.com/websites?q=wolframalpha.com%2C+gith...](http://trends.google.com/websites?q=wolframalpha.com%2C+github.com&geo=all&date=all&sort=0)

<comment><USER7> That's interesting to see the related searches between the two. Github users, unsurprisingly, also like Node, MongoDB, etc., whereas Wolfram Alpha users play Minecraft and read webcomics (also popular among Github users). In other words, Wolfram Alpha seems to be commonly used by students, presumably in math, physics, and engineering.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am surprised nobody has mentioned Flightradar24[0] yet. It displays planes on a Google Map with altitude, airline and flight path information. The data comes directly from ADS-B receivers of volunteers, so only planes with ADS-B transponder are shown and the coverage outside of Europe is spotty.

Living in the path of a mid-size airport this tool is great for identifying noisy airplane types.

0: <http://www.flightradar24.com/>

<comment><USER9> There's also PlaneFinder: <http://planefinder.net/> And CasperFlights (I'm the Flash developer for this one): <http://casperflights.com>

To be honest, I think Planefinder is the most impressive at the moment, their data is very, very good and their client is pretty decent as well.

<comment><USER8> It seems all 3 sites use ADS-B receivers as source, so the only measurement in data quality is how many receivers they have and where they are.

I wasn't able to test your Flash software (Flash won't work on my computer), but since you seem to cater to plane spotters mostly: It would be cool to have your data combined with LiveATC.net so that I can see which planes are near an airport and what their pilots are saying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Try reversing the search. After I queried "Flights overhead" I got a result set of a couple flights, including Turkish Airlines Flight NO 8.

I then queried for "Turkish Airlines Flight 8 location" and got the current trip and location, which is indeed right on top of me. Now I can see where my friends and family are when they come to visit!

</comment><comment><USER11> Seems to work for satellites too <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=satellites+overhead>

<comment><USER12> Be cool if you could say "when will the ISS next pass over this location." It seems to interpret that as "where will the ISS be at the next sunrise."

"Next solar eclipse" works though.

<comment><USER13> You can get the next ISS flyover for your location on your phone if you sign up for this,

<http://twisst.nl/what-is-twisst>

It works really well for me, with the direction of the pass, expected brightness, whether the moon is up and so on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Now if only I could type in "cars speeding by my house." Then I might be able to find out who's speeding in my neightborhood at 2:00AM.

<comment><USER15> One day that'll be a Google result.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Just realized wolfram alpha works really well for doing complicated data conversions, particularly data transfer rates.

        100 Terabytes a month in megabits a second.

<comment><USER17> Shameless plug: you might like instacalc which can do these conversions too:

<http://new.instacalc.com/366>

You can even use made-up units ("hits", "people", etc... has a pluralizer). I made it as a personal productivity tool and have a slew of updates in the works =).

<comment><USER18> Ooh Instacalc! I really liked that app when I first heard of it (must be over a year ago?), thanks for reminding me of its existence, I'll check out how far it's come.

Hope the cross-browser issues got solved, I seem to remember that was my major hurdle (I'm on Opera).

<comment><USER17> Ah, thanks for the note -- I haven't checked it in opera in a while :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Even cooler: "planets overhead" [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=planets+overhead&a=...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=planets+overhead&a=*DPClash.AstronomicalP.input-_*BooleanRise-)

</comment><comment><USER20> works via siri!!! <http://i.imgur.com/SgaeL.png>

</comment><comment><USER21> Sadly Siri doesn't know "What planes are overhead?", though it figures it out if you say "Search wolfram alpha for planes overhead."

<comment><USER22> You can also query Wolfram by just saying "Wolfram," e.g. "Wolfram planes overhead". See [http://www.tuaw.com/2011/10/28/10-cool-things-you-can-do- wit...](http://www.tuaw.com/2011/10/28/10-cool-things-you-can-do-with-wolfram- alpha-and-siri/) for more things you can do with Wolfram and Siri.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Where do they get data like speed, bearing, and altitude (at what looks like finer than 1 minute granularity)?

<comment><USER24> It says under the table "locations based on projections of delayed data" I would guess that they look at where a flight plan is going from and to and interpolate in between.

<comment><USER25> I think you're right -- it doesn't match FlightAware's FAA data at at all (at least when comparing in downtown Chicago). FlightAware had many more flights, including non-commercial and cargo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'm currently sat in Heathrow airport, one of the busiest airports in the world.

Result: none.

<comment><USER27> One of the key features of airports is the _lack_ of planes overhead. Also, I think it only works in the US.

<comment><USER28> US only I thnk - I'm currently in East London with planes above me stacked for landing in Heathrow: Results: None.

Results: No Data Available would be a better result.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I used Wolfram Alpha when I was taking a cryptography course in college and needed to do really long calculations with exact answers, but haven't been back since. For flight tracking, FlightAware.com (and their new mobile apps) and LiveATC.net (and their mobile apps) are far and away the best to use.

I saw another comment about this working with Siri, which brings up the whole question about integrating Siri with third party apps for me. But I digress...

</comment><comment><USER30> This doesn't seem to show the fighter jets that regularly zoom overhead at 1,000 feet of altitude or less.

<comment><USER31> That information requires a whole different API :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> As someone who enjoys watching the planes, I would love to have an iPhone app where you point and click and get a plane data, model number, etc, either from engine noise signature or from silhouette. That's the way to do it.

<comment><USER33> A la Google Sky Map?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Also, <http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=satellites+overhead>

</comment><comment><USER35> I work right in the flight path of a major airport. Planes overhead all day long. Now I can tell where they're going. Too cool.

<comment><USER36> flightaware.com has allowed you to do this for years...

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I live under the climb out path for LAX north bound flights and landing approach for Burbank. Lots and lots of planes overhead.

</comment><comment><USER37> Sadly this doesn't work whilst on a plane.

<comment><USER38> I can usually get my Garmin to work if I'm in a window seat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I saw a plane outside. It wasn't on Wolfram Alpha. Not gonna go outside because, you know, chemtrails.

</comment><comment><USER40> Try also: "planets overhead", "satellites overhead", "stars overhead", and "galaxy overhead".

</comment><comment><USER41> Does not work over the UK. Grrrr

</comment><comment><USER42> From Turkey, result: none.

</comment><comment><USER43> Try also _sky chart_

</comment><comment><USER44> Data is delayed iirc

</comment><comment><USER45> Simply Amazing!</comment>


New Law Will Shut Down TorrentFreak, Music Industry Expert Says - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/new-law-will-shut-down-torrentfreak-music-industry-expert-says-110322/

<comment><USER2> There is no "new law" nor even a proposed bill. There's a suggestion in a whitepaper from law enforcement that they would benefit from expanded powers and new laws. This should not be too surprising. Specifically they request "Congress clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances." The issue is that currently not everyone agrees whether streaming content you don't own counts as unauthorized distribution or an unauthorized performance or something else.

And, uh, they kinda buried the lede on this one:

 _"As for his writings with regard to TorrentFreak, the recommendations put forward by the White House do of course have no impact on sites that discuss P2P technology. And no, streaming and P2P services that distribute licensed content will not disappear either. It's just the rambling of a pitiful person who just hit the narcissist jackpot with this article. Congrats!"_

Guess that's one way to write a sensationalistic headline and then escape blame for being totally bogus.

</comment><comment><USER3> They should pass one of these new laws banning drugs as well that will stop drugs.

A law against murder might also be a good idea

<comment><USER4> This is worse, this is a law that some are interpreting in a fashion that would prevent you from even discussing drugs or murder.

<comment><USER3> Oh good then they wont be a problem anymore

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "unauthorized streaming of copyrighted material become a felony". How is it possible to implement such a law and not make YouTube a felon? The decision in the Viacom vs. Youtube said that YouTube was not guilty of copyright violations because YouTube removes content once asked to do so and makes some minimal preemptive efforts to filter copyrighted content. We need to assume that Google will prevent any changes to the law that move the fine line on which YouTube operates.

<comment><USER2> YouTube isn't affected. Their streaming is authorized by copyright holders.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Source document: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ip_white_paper...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ip_white_paper.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER7> Sensationalist title, but I guess it might have been used to prove a point???

I agree with TorrentFreak and say that Moses Avalon went a bit too far. I kinda see where Avalon is coming from, meaning things are going to shits, but the entire diatribe is such a rambling of non sense it's hard to take Avalon seriously.

I highly doubt there would be an attack on the media at such a level because then you're blatantly stepping on freedom of speech, which I am sure media sites would not be happy about, and would love to write up a storm.

<comment><USER8> I think this article title correctly summarizes the story. I don't think it is ment to be sensationalist.</comment></comment>


The chart Tim Cook doesn't want you to see - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/122921/the-chart-tim-cook-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

<comment><USER2> Come on - "Christmas quarter" is yet to come, so of course "last 3 quarters" have declined... For pretty much any consumer goods company the current quarter will have less sale than last year's Q4 and that's perfectly good, not a sign of decline.

</comment><comment><USER3> sigh. good riddance apple, and your awesome new geofencing patent.

[http://goo.gl/AzwazX](http://goo.gl/AzwazX)

Make the world better or GTFO.</comment>


Facebook: Moving Fast at Scale - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Facebook-Moving-Fast-at-Scale <comment><USER2> Facebook should be careful not to follow Friendster and Myspace footsteps.</comment>


Falcon 9 to launch on Friday, 11 am edt - <AUTHOR> http://www.spacex.com/webcast.php

<comment><USER2> This is a link to the web cast: Start: 10:40 AM Eastern / 7:40 AM Pacific / 1440 UT</comment>


Alien Worlds Might Be Covered in Enormous Mountains - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/the-enormous-mountains-of-alien-worlds/489101/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> A classic question in Order of Magnitude Physics classes is to calculate the maximum height of a mountain that a planet can support. There are a couple of solutions to this around the internet [1--2], but the main result is that the maximum height is inversely proportional to the surface gravity. At constant density, the surface gravity, in turn, is proportional to radius. So the maximum height of a mountain is inversely proportional to radius and you would expect that smaller planets have taller mountains.

You can take this to one extreme and ask how large an asteroid can be before it becomes spherical under its own gravity. This essentially means that the tallest mountain must be much less than the radius of the asteroid. If you work out the math it turns out that the largest non-spherical asteroid should be around a few hundred km in size, which agrees well with observations.

At another extreme you can perform this calculation for a neutron star. Although the radius is very small (which would seem to imply that it can support tall mountains), the density is much different from ordinary matter. As a result, the tallest mountains a neutron star can support is on the order of a few millimeters! Neutron stars are _extremely_ spherical. (More correctly, due to spin, neutron stars are extremely spheroidal.)

[1]: [http://www.phy.cuhk.edu.hk/phyworld/articles/mount_high/moun...](http://www.phy.cuhk.edu.hk/phyworld/articles/mount_high/mount_high_e.html)

[2]: [https://talkingphysics.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/how-high- can...](https://talkingphysics.wordpress.com/2011/09/08/how-high-can- mountains-be/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Would it be plausible for a mountain on an alien world to reach high enough to aid in space exploration? High enough to make launches cheaper from its peak?

</comment><comment><USER4> It's hard to express how sad it makes me that I'll never see photos of the surface of another inhabited world.

<comment><USER5> Probabilistically, this is true, but think how amazing it is we have photos take from the surface of such far away places like Mars, Titan, comets, etc. Heck, the latest photos of Pluto are some of the most amazing things I've ever seen.

It's conceivable that we will be able to send a probe to Europa that can drill through the ice to sample an alien ocean and maybe even find life!

You can talk to people today who remember life before flight was really around, and for whom the universe was mostly just a background to evening activities. Every time we look out with more modern equipment we find the universe is more and more vibrant.

Alien worlds inhabited by other intelligences than ours would be amazing though.

<comment><USER6> One could consider our Mars rovers as life on other planets.. They don't have "organic" (as in water based) cells but they are self-sustaining and active to this day.. They communicate back to Earth and do what we tell them, which is what most isolated lifeforms do in regards to their parents.</comment></comment></comment>


Bitcoin Foundation's Response to California Cease & Desist - <AUTHOR> http://www.scribd.com/doc/151346841/Bitcoin-Foundation-Response-to-California-DFI

<comment><USER2> May I say how much I appreciate you linking to the actual document expounding the legal argument, instead of some blog post attempting to summarize it.

<comment><USER3> I agree, but for anyone who wants the summary:

 _The Bitcoin Foundation is not in the business of selling bitcoin to consumers and does not otherwise operate a bitcoin exchange. Even if it did sell bitcoin to consumers, however, the Foundation believes it would not be regulated as a seller or issuer of payment instruments because a bitcoin is not a payment instrument under California law._

<comment><USER2> I don't mean to offend, but this is what is wrong with the typical tl;dr summary; you've excerpted a core part of the argument, but you haven't explained the assertion made therein. To follow on (in my own words):

 _As Bitcoin is a separate currency from the USD, the kind of transactions that Bitcoin Foundation members are engaged in are in effect foreign exchange (forex) transactions, and Forex is not considered subject to money transmission regulations by the state of California._

I'm not sure I buy this argument, but haven't studied the legal background enough to form a proper opinion yet. the reason I was so pleased to see a link to a document with primary sources is that it makes it a lot easier to research the arguments therein, inviting good-faith attempts at falsification.

<comment><USER4> Hmmmm, I wonder how strategic this claim is?

Perhaps they're just waiting for the state of California to declare in a legally binding way that Bitcoin is not a "separate currency from the USD". That'd be something a _lot_ of people would love to be able to promote and quote prominently…

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> tl;dr 1\. We are a foundation that promotes bitcoin use, we do not accept or remit or transmit money. 2\. We are not incorporated in nor doing money transmittal in California are therefore are not under your jurisdiction. 3\. Bitcoin does not seem to fit California's legal definition of money, unit of exchange, or store of value. 4\. "Currency Exchanges" do not seem to meet California's legal criteria of "Money Transmitters", cites recent court case.

really really tl;dr: bitcoin's not money; bitcoin exchanges aren't money transmitters; even if they were, we don't do that; even if we did that, we're not subject to California's jurisdiction.

<comment><USER2> _we do not accept or remit or transmit money_

But they _do_ accept donations, and acknowledge as much (page 2). If you're going to tl;dr please do so accurately.

<comment><USER5> I didn't think I had to clarify that a nonprofit taking donations in USD would count as money transmittal since that would apply to all nonprofits accepting donations. But I take your point, my statement was all-encompassing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As I've said before, it's disappointing this C&D came from California, especially when I view our state as one that embraces tech.

I speculate that the purpose of this publicized cease and desist letter was just to send a message about DFI's disapproval of Bitcoin and ward off adopters of the _awesome_ crypto.

</comment><comment><USER7> This site sucks. It requires an account or Facebook login to access the PDF. I refuse to do this.

Dissecting it with web developer tools, apparently they parse the PDF content server-side and rewrite it as HTML. So you can't just view source and find the link to the PDF file, or intercept the download with a proxy -- you really do have to log in to get the PDF from them, AFAICT.

Can anyone provide a direct link?

<comment><USER6> There's a link right under the blue FB login [ _Sign up without Facebook_ ] that _should_ allow you to download the pdf, that's worth a try.

<comment><USER7> I object in principle to giving them an email address, Facebook login or establishing any sort of account. I just want to anonymously download the PDF over HTTP. Because this doesn't seem to be possible, I'm probably going to stop clicking on links to them altogether.

<comment><USER8> here you go :) [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2877271/Bitcoin- Foundati...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2877271/Bitcoin-Foundation- Response-to-California-DFI.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting hand-waving going on here. For some reason they're citing the California Commercial Code when they know full well than FinCEN Guidance FIN-2013-G001 ([http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001....](http://fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html)) takes precedence. Of course Bitcoin is a "payment instrument," that's the whole point, and the Department of the Treasury has already deemed that it is within the bounds of state regulators. Any semantic argument to the contrary is just ridiculous.

Also surprising that a reputable law firm wouldn't have known that as of July 1, 2013, the DFI no longer exists, and has been merged into the California Department of Business Oversight.

I'll be interested to see how the DBO responds, or if this comes up at the AB 786 hearing tomorrow.

<comment><USER5> Does federal law take precedence for state regulation? It just seems like California has a narrower definition of "money transmitter" for the purposes of regulation inside their own borders above and beyond the federal one. Also, if a business is in compliance by state law but out of compliance federally, is California obligated to do anything about that? They allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate despite being illegal at the federal level. Not insinuating you're wrong, just legitimately curious since IANAL.

<comment><USER9> Federal law definitely would preempt state regulation. Here, FinCEN has issued a guidance with what I believe is the weight of federal regulation however. California typically ignores FinCEN rulings (except this one), but generally shouldn't.

Preemption is a complex business. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but this is one of the reasons why the issue is in federal court. The rules are so complex and contradictory as to be more of a burden on society than a help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not sure I understand what advantages incorporating offers to the Bitcoin Foundation, when (a) it facilitates legal targeting by the government and (b) does not further their stated purpose beyond what they could achieve as an informal working body. If Bitcoin becomes successful, that success will threaten governments and they will seek to suppress or control the currency and its associated organizations. If the Bitcoin Foundation is in this for the long term, then, like bitcoin itself, they should be focused on establishing their legitimacy outside of the governmental sphere.

You didnt really think 'the government' was going to leave you alone, did you?

</comment><comment><USER11> It's nice to see they defend Bitcoin itself as well as themselves. But then this nice thing might happen that governments can do when they're said to be unjustified in a request: they just change the law and then close you down instead of warn. Might be interesting to try and see them seize Bitcoin itself, but the Bitcoin Foundation is a legal entity that _can_ be shut down.

<comment><USER12> But, as stipulated quiet extensively, not under the jurisdiction of the California legal system.

<comment><USER2> 'Stipulated' means that both parties have already agreed about this (in a matter which is before a court), which I doubt to be the case. Here, that claim is argued, not stipulated.

Bear in mind that the Bitcoin Foundation already organized a conference in San Jose, CA, and solicits donations from a website accessible in CA. As I understand it, that is quite sufficient for the state of CA to assert _some_ jurisdiction over its activities: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_contacts#Activities_as_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_contacts#Activities_as_a_basis_for_jurisdiction)</comment></comment></comment>


Suggest good computing history book(s) - <AUTHOR>

Are there any notable books that are perhaps in CS curriculum? I'm interested in general history and concepts.<p>Something that's on Kindle or archive.org would be nice. <comment><USER2> You may be interested in Turing's Cathedral: The Origins of the Digital Universe, by George Dyson. Some additional discussion which you may find relevant is also available at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6979671](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6979671).

</comment><comment><USER3> Hackers is a great read, it reads like a very engaging novel. Although it starts in 1960s. So it is missing a lot earlier history. [http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Heroes-Computer-Revolution- Ann...](http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Heroes-Computer-Revolution- Anniversary/dp/1449388396/ref=sr_1_3)

</comment><comment><USER4> Petzold's _Code_ sort of fits and is worth reading regardless. From a more academic [and mathematical] standpoint, Knuth covers a lot of history as it comes up in _The Art of Computer Programming_...and there is its bibliography, too.

</comment><comment><USER5> [http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/147670869X/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/147670869X/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?qid=1427270856&sr=8-2&keywords=inventors)</comment>


Programming Music - <AUTHOR> http://joshaust.in/2013/05/programming-music/

<comment><USER2> I agree that music helps to induce a trance-like state that can be highly effective for coding. I also agree that upbeat music without lyrics is most effective (I listen to trance and new age instrumental while coding). What I don't agree with is insisting that your entire team listen to the same thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right that everyone shouldn't have to listen to the same thing. It's not like that. Sometimes we all want to hear something on the stereo but sometimes we use headphones.

The unofficial policy is that if a programmer has headphones on you are not allowed to interrupt them.</comment></comment>


Seethe and Grin: My Life Going to Tech Events - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/9b14f05a9832 <comment><USER2> I'm about to lose -100 karma but holy crap that was some serious tripe.

 _This only gets worse with the addition of alcohol, which is always plentiful._

What tech conference are you going to where they serve alcohol at the actual conference?!?!? Hell, I've been to no fewer than 30 conferences in the US over the past 15 years and not one has served alcohol. They serve alcohol at the pre-conference networking events, and they serve alcohol at the get-togethers. So don't go to those things. Problem solved.

 _The reward for winning the conversation seems uncertain except that everyone thinks you're an asshole but can at least admit you are not ignorant about whatever obscure aspect of computing is on the table at the moment._

That's just absolutely absurd. There is no "winning" and for her to think there is just implies a lack of understanding of "the point" of tech conferences. The point is "to learn stuff" and, for some, "to network". Those are the two and only reasons to go as an attendee. If you are a speaker, the only reason to go could be summed as "To raise my consulting rates" or "To get more customers". If it's the latter, then the situation explained describes every single conversation in which a guy/gal wants to be "The Man" in front of the consultant.

 _On the way out, they'll turn to me and ask for a t-shirt._

Bull$#%(. That's just not happening. Zero chance of actual occurrence in real life.

 _"I am just blown away that someone that looks like you knows so much about these things."_

Holy jeez, you've won the genes lottery and you're complaining that people are complementing you? Wow. Ridiculously small minded things.</comment>