Noisli - background noise and color generator ideal for working and relaxing. - <AUTHOR> http://www.noisli.com

<comment><USER2> very nicely done. I didn't figure out that I had to click the icons to get the sound, and was wondering why sound wasn't playing. (and for some reason, some of the sounds just stopped).

I REALLY like your background fade colors, it's all very nicely done.

How about along with the date, showing the time.

If you get more feedback (like mine) about people not understanding why sound doesn't play, or not knowing sound should play, how about a small label in the rain cloud to say "click to start sound" or something simple like that.

I agree with not doing auto-play, but it wasn't obvious to me how to get sounds to play.

I did try messing with the slider, but that had no affect. Maybe if I change the volume, but the item is not selected, it starts playing? That might help too.

Keep up the good work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi pedalpete, many thanks for you very interesting comment and for your appreciation. At the moment we are collecting inputs and suggestions to improve Noisli, and they are all very welcome and precious.

We would like to keep the interface as simple and clean as possible for both mobile and desktop experience. Just the essential. But we will keep all the suggestions in mind.

thanks again for your help :)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Soon we will also add more sounds and noises on Noisli. Any addition you all would like to see?</comment>


Idiocy and brilliance of American policy toward entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> http://scobleizer.com/2010/07/30/idiocy-and-brilliance-of-american-policy-toward-entrepreneurs/

<comment><USER2> And why you should be wary of sound-bite-driven public policy: while most reasonable people will agree that the MIT-educated top Burmese scholar should be able to work in the US, nobody has proposed a mechanism to extend a visa to her that isn't fraught.

The "Startup Visa" program Scoble pumps here is a good example. It designates --- officially --- a specific class of financier as a gatekeeper to immigration.

The US H1-B program is actually _less_ freighted with conflicted and/or incoherent incentives than the VC-centric "startup visa" (if you lose your H1-B job, you at least have several overtly specified options to change your status and get another H1-B spot without dealing with the cap). And the H1-B program is notorious.</comment>


Can Japan burn flammable ice for energy? – CNN - <AUTHOR> http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/31/asia/on-japan-flammable-ice/index.html <comment><USER2> Can we get this renamed to "frozen methane"? "Flammable ice" is kind of a ridiculous term.</comment>


Japan, the Edo period and outsiders (dont miss the comments) - <AUTHOR> http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/places/henrytricks/backward-glances?page=full

<comment><USER2> I find that people outside Asia are extremely ignorant about Japan. This kind of pop journalism fills the void, but doesn't actually shed any light. Visiting Japan is like visiting the home of someone who keeps everything in its place – not exactly a comfortable place, until you understand the system behind it.

Try visiting the countryside in Japan: you will not see a single stone out of place. No litter. No discarded auto bodies. No trash piles. Literally everything has a place, and is kept there.</comment>


JavaScript charting tools: an overview - <AUTHOR> http://roberto.open-lab.com/2009/12/21/javascript-charting-tools-an-overview/

<comment><USER2> No mention of dygraphs either, although it is only for time-series data. <http://danvk.org/dygraphs/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Good post covering all the popular javascript plugins for different libraries. Definitely want to see or build a Raphael library. Who's in?

<comment><USER4> There is a graphing library for Raphael. Last I checked it didn't seem very mature, but it might make a good starting point:

<http://g.raphaeljs.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> No Bluff? MIT license, and the only dependencies are JS.Class and ExCanvas (both are bundled with it).

<http://bluff.jcoglan.com/>

</comment><comment><USER6> I quite like OpenFlashChart (which uses JSON as an input format, though that JSON is typically made with a server-side language).

I use the Python bindings (which use Chart objects) and the output generally works with my brain. Users like that mouse-overs give exact values in the line at that point.

</comment><comment><USER7> As soon as you need to embed an image of the chart in a pdf you may run into issues with these libraries.

<comment><USER8> It's been my experience users always end up wanting to save the image for a presentation or report.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. We had the same problem with flash charts, it was like the most requested feature so we just ripped them out and replaced with a server side generated chart.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thanks everyone for enriching this list. You may find useful my delicious list: <http://delicious.com/robicch/chart>

</comment><comment><USER10> Anyone know of a chart lib that will do three or more y-axis, or a way to hack in three or more axis?

<comment><USER11> The jqplot library mentioned seems to do it.

<http://www.jqplot.com/tests/multipleYAxesTests.php></comment></comment>


Bootstrapping Is A False Prophet - <AUTHOR> http://techdrawl.com/News-Post/Fresh-Voices/Bootstrapping-Is-A-False-Prophet <comment><USER2> "Bottom line, you can't create a large, sustainable company without external funding. Think I'm wrong? Name me five bootstrapped companies of national significance."

Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Cargill, American Tobacco (now known as R.J. Reynolds), and McDonalds.

A lot of the other assertions in the article are questionable. Doubling-down on Ruby on Rails to power a scalable business? But I think the article's core point is a real problem: too many businesses are "me too" copies with very little innovative technology of their own. I really wish we could see more Googles, Amazons, and BitTorrents instead of an endless parade of social news sites.

<comment><USER3> The point seems to be that when bootstrapping, the only thing you _can_ build is a me-too business.

And BitTorrent is amazing technology, but I wouldn't celebrate it as a business. In fact, how are they still in business?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In Atlanta, startups wear "bootstrap-financed" like a badge of honor but I argue that unless you have a strong technologist co-founder and a really talented founding team generally, you simply must get funding to build a team to get serious traction. However, the angels and big VC firms here are looking for the huge deals of old and B2B plays. I know of no local angels here who invest in the consumer internet or real time data space other than a couple of really small investments made following Shotput Ventures.

Look how differently investing operates in the Valley (to which Atlanta has now lost at least 3 very promising entrepreneurs in the last 2 years). Look at super angels like Ron Conway of SV Angel LLC who has invested in 40-50 plays in the real time data space this year: <http://www.crunchbase.com/person/ron- conway>. These are relatively small deals, capital light -- but they do require some rounds of investment and are not bootstrapped.

It isn't just Atlanta. Boston and other cities outside of the Valley lose entrepreneurs for money, too. An example is WePay, whose founders are Boston College grads who didn't get into Tech Stars Boston but were accepted at Y Combinator last summer to test their beta product. After Demo Day, they recruited a couple more team members from the east coast and relocated to Palo Alto. They've recently raised a $1.65M round from August Capital, Ron Conway, Max Levchin (a founder of PayPal) and an A-list of other investors in their space.

Maybe a few startups survive bootstrapping and flourish, but most are just "strapped" and fold.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'ts hardly fair to ask to see 5 companies who have already grown from bootstrap stage to "national prominence" as a lot of the conditions that have helped create this "bootstrap friendly" environment are still fairly young. Open Source software, relatively inexpensive hosting / cloud computing, rapid development using "convention over configuration" frameworks, etc. are all part of the ecosystem that have led people to believe that you can build a technology company without outside funding.

I'd argue that most everybody noticing the confluence of those forces, and starting to build a company, have not yet had time to grow their company to a large size and level of prominence.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Point well taken. I was intending more technology companies, so I'd concede Microsoft. I wonder if opportunities like that are still viable. There might be a licensing strategy to super company play left... I'd also add Zappos to the list of good examples of how to build a business. A people- and service- driven take on the done-to-death e-commerce market. Tony is a beast.</comment>


Stupid security things - <AUTHOR> https://www.troyhunt.com/reckon-youve-seen-some-stupid-security-things-here-hold-my-beer/ <comment><USER3> > and I know for a fact 90% of the sites I personally sign up to online also > follow that same process.

This is a totally legit response. After all if something goes wrong they must have followed "best practices". No reasonable person would expect them to do more.

And it's true (if you only consider the needs of the business). This is a solid strategy for getting lawsuits dismissed. I've seen it in physical security too [+]. It only took one investment bank to put badge-checking turnstiles in place and then they all had to do it. That stuck with banks only for a while until one more conventional business did it...and now I was at Twitch the other day and _they_ have it.

Of course who's missing here is the customer. But the customer's needs aren't paramount: the business's are -- and more specifically the manager who has to spend the money on security. If they have put in _just_ enough that they won't get fired when it fucks up, and if they saved money and effort in the process: WIN!

[+] my favorite physical security story is old, so at the end: when leaving Intel's Santa Clara fab in the 1990s you would have to hand over your briefcase for inspection to make sure you weren't leaving with any Intel documents. They didn't care if you had floppy disks. Why? Because this was a defense against shareholder lawsuits and "what else could the guards do?" This is where I learned the explanation above: once anyone in the industry increased plant security they all would have to, which nobody wanted. So LCD was the name of the game.

<comment><USER4> > This is a totally legit response.

Apart from the fact that it is totally untrue?

<comment><USER3> Who knows if it's untrue? Although it almost certainly is. What's "legit" is the point "lots of other people do it so why should I go to any greater effort? And anyway I don't actually give a shit about my employer's customers."

(I was being sarcastic about "legit" \-- it's only legit from the selfish POV of the web admin)

<comment><USER5> Your point is a good one. I think "unfortunate but game-theoretically predictable" would have conveyed it with less confusion.

<comment><USER3> Sorry, I grew up in a culture in which being so explicit was rude, while being barely-elliptically witty is the normal mode of discourse. I sometimes forget.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is pretty horrifying.

But almost as bad: websites that insist on over-elaborate security measures for trivial stuff. Take a bow, HM Revenue & Customs:

> You've got a new message from HMRC

> Dear Fred

> You have a new message from HMRC about Self Assessment.

> To view it, sign in to your HMRC online account. For security reasons, we > have not included a link with this email.

> Why you got this email

> You chose to get paperless notifications instead of letters by post. This > means we send you an email to let you know you have a new message in your > account.

> From HMRC Self Assessment

And HMRC have mandatory 2FA. So to read the spam they've sent me - and it is pretty much spam, it says "you need to do your self-assessment before next January", I know that already - I need to go through the rigmarole of entering my Government Gateway number, which I don't remember but starts with a 4 or something and hopefully that will be enough for Chrome to autofill it, then authing with my mobile phone. Which I think I left upstairs or something. Wait while I ring it with the landline to find where it is.

Seriously, I might just go back to getting letters by post.

Edit: No. My Government Gateway number which starts with a 4 is my company one. My Self-Assessment login appears to be a different number.

People elsewhere in the world, whenever anyone tells you that the UK Government Digital Service is a beacon of usability and good practice, please don't believe them.

<comment><USER7> People elsewhere in the world: whatever anybody tells you when they're crapping on the UK Government Digital Service, make sure they're not using HMRC as an example.

Famously HMRC resists everything GDS has ever tried to do, and after GDS built a entire system for secure gov ID login which is deliberately _not_ tied to a single vendor, HMRC refused to use it and instead is building another one, which is locked to a single vendor in perpetuity.

Search "UK GDS HMRC" for a sample of just the most recent bit of tiresome Whitehall infighting.

[Edit: Oh, and -- the identity system that HMRC wants is a replacement for its nearly-20-year-old pre-existing one. This may or may not have anything to do with the fact that it's insecure in a _massively corrupt_ way. [http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38979144](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38979144) ]

<comment><USER8> That's so frustrating. The GDS is one of the shining beacons of government tech done right, I was very impressed with their work and team when I lived in London from 2011-2014.

I guess HMRC took one look and said "this not sufficiently bureaucratic for our needs". In general I liked the HMRC much better than the IRS, but I was sort of shocked to receive a paper cheque for my refund as it was the only time I ever saw a check in the UK. They have their ways I guess.

<comment><USER9> GDS has a great blog[1] which I recommend, and have published a lot of stuff to GitHub too[2]. I never imagined the words 'government' and 'IT' could be used in the same sentence without laughing before learning about this group.

Whenever I read of yet another multi-billion pound failed IT project by SAIC or the like, I always wonder why on earth they didn't just let GDS at it.

[1][https://gdstechnology.blog.gov.uk](https://gdstechnology.blog.gov.uk) [2][https://github.com/alphagov](https://github.com/alphagov)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Programmer (not me!) manually iterates over user file (passwords plain text natch). If he finds a matching username (format is enforced so dead easy to guess). He sets the auth cookie. THEN he goes looking for the password. You don't have to enter any password. At that point, just hit the back button a couple of times and refresh and BING! You can impersonate anybody on the system. Including the admin because guess what the admin's username is.

This guy is notorious for writing crap like this. But according to the powers that be, he's a 'god'.

The funnier bit? This site is RSA protected.

<comment><USER11> I used to work at a life insurance company that had a sessions page for the developers that wasn't locked down at all. If you could get someone's id you could go directly to this page and set your user id to that. Done.

They also had a contest for their agents and the database they used to store all of the entries and information was an access database that happened to be sitting in the public directory for the website to simply serve to anyone who knew to request the database.

Seeing so much "security" makes me realize that a large majority of sites out there are a complete shit show, especially if the companies I worked for / with couldn't get it right and they actually had some money to their name.

<comment><USER12> Yes, most medium-or-smaller sized companies, including ones in fields that should take security seriously like insurance and lending, will have tons of stuff like this. It shouldn't surprise anyone at this point.

<comment><USER11> Even large companies depending on how you want to classify one as "large". Back when Palm announced their new phone, the Palm Pre, I was given early developer access on their developer portal. I reported to them _multiple_ security vulnerabilities including one that allowed anyone to change a simple integer in the URL and instantly see everyone's SSN / TIN, payment information, etc. It took them 3 months to fully resolve, too (their first fix was simply changing a GET call to a POST, sigh). They never even disclosed it to anyone despite my pleas (I should have but was still sorta green back then and didn't think it through).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Huh, couple years ago Santander in the UK changed their web layout. No big deal, except that my password wouldn't work anymore - I rang them up, and they said "did you have any special characters in your password? If yes, then they have been removed because the new system does not support special characters. Please use the same password as before, but without special characters".

1) This is one of the largest banks in the UK and they don't accept special characters?

2) If you store my password encrypted(as you should be!), how could you remove any characters from it?

I sent them an official complaint, they replied saying their security is fantastic and there is nothing to worry about, I closed my account a week later.

<comment><USER14> They (as seems to be standard) ask you to enter 3 characters in positions of their choosing, so they need plaintext to be able to do that.

It's clearly not as secure as it could be, and it's annoying to work out too - I wish they'd just do normal 2FA. Those plastic keyfobs HSBC use are even worse.

<comment><USER4> I like the plastic keyfobs. They're much more secure than using your phone as 2FA. Basically the only thing keeping HSBC/1st direct secure.

<comment><USER15> How are they more secure than your phone? If by phone you mean SMS, then I agree. But as far as I understand, TOTP (ie Google Authenticator) is pretty secure. But I'm not a security expert.

<comment><USER16> This is getting into very marginal territory, but attack surface. Your phone is an entire network-capable OS with god-knows what security vulns or backdoors. Those dongles are an air-gapped, often tamper-resistant chip.

For the record, I think services should ideally offer all three options (SMS, TOTP and physical device), since the biggest problem in security is actually getting users to use ANYTHING at all, and something like SMS that offers 99% of the protection in return for easier setup/ease of use is well worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> That "What is the name of your grandmother's dog?" security question made me lol @ work.

This really makes me want to write a "Stupid security questions generator" website.

<comment><USER14> Why is that funny or bad?

If your grandmother is living and has a single dog, as 'security questions' go that would strike me as being pretty good.

<comment><USER18> When you want to retrieve the password for an account you created 5 years ago, but you only remember creating it between 5 and 15 years ago and you have 2 dog loving grandma's each of whom have 2-3 old doggos all the time....well, good luck in remembering and identifying the correct name of the possible 10-15 dogs

<comment><USER19> This is a case where you think of an _idealized_ grandma, and her perfectly preserved dog, `Mr. Mycroft Applebottom III`, who has been sitting on her mantlepiece since you were in gradeschool. [0]

The site doesn't have to know you're making it up.

0: Obviously, it'd be better if your idealized grandma spoke with your password generator beforehand, and therefore named her dog something less guessable, like `ff627f056c51b694e2e5d0bdc168c647`.

<comment><USER14> That's a good suggestion actually: just remember that you always ignore the question, and you've saved the actual securely generated answer as 'sitename- sec-question' or whatever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I feel like we need laws in place on software and hardware security. Laws to punish crimes is good, but we also need some regulation, simple ones, to govern how companies have the obligation to manage software and hardware security.

I think:

* companies running a website and collects customer data must have an incident response plan laid out.

If we punish bad service providers reported by consumers, why can't we do the same? We are talking about companies ignoring and downplaying even the most low-hanging fruit vulnerability, and companies that don't understand web security because the workers there have no clues what they are dealing. If we can't raise our cyber security awareness and education domestically, then we fail at being a top technology leader in this world. I don't expect every company hires a security engineer, perhaps under some managed services.

<comment><USER12> This is a very dicey subject. I think it's best to keep it loose as long as possible. Introducing a regulatory body into any field is perilous, but something as fast moving as software and security would be frightening. What happens when the regulation is that you have to use the algorithm that was cracked last month? Eek.

Voluntary, socially-enforced customs are better. Things like the MPAA rating system have successfully staved off government intervention. Such standards are much more flexible.

We already have this de-facto via TLS and the browser's angry messages if you don't comply with their expectations, but it'd be interesting if browsers started running a more thorough security verification program and giving preferential treatment to sites that implemented it.

That is also scary because it centralizes more control in browser manufacturers (which, today, means Google almost as much as it meant Microsoft in the oughts). But still better than the government I guess, and blocking a site in software is much more motivating than the risk of a fine for non- compliance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I remember when cookies was where every site kept their cached credentials in plaintext. It was so popular you didn't need a password manager, just a cookie and form manager.

In case most of you didn't know/forgot: a large amount of the modern security practices on the web are due to browsers making it easy for sites to attack users, and making MITM trivial. The most common attack vector is literally the browser and protocol design, not a bug in the browser.

Also, to replace passwords, all you need is TOTP. You can combine TOTP with a 2nd factor for a little boost, but TOTP is much better than passwords, and more convenient when automated. Combine this with password reset and one-time use codes and the majority of users would not need to remember more than one or two passwords (the password for their e-mail or OAuth provider). You can also password-protect the shared secret to protect data at rest (some VPNs do this as alternative to physical tokens)

A protocol extension could define a handshake to negotiate TOTP tokens. The browser would generate a token with a plugin and send it securely after prompting the user to authorize it, and optionally try to verify the identity of the site. It could be extended to rotate the shared secret after an expiration period.

Also, it's about time we defined a better secure mail standard so we can rely on password resets to be valid and eliminate phishing.

<comment><USER22> [https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/](https://www.w3.org/TR/webauthn/)

<comment><USER21> It's a nice idea, but their implementation proposal is lame. They keep depending on a phone like a phone is secure or ubiquitous (of which it is neither) or on keyfobs or "gestures" (of which the former nobody will use, and the latter is just a less secure password).

They rely on public key auth, which is more complicated and less reliable than a simple TOTP token. Considering that web browsers already support public key authentication but nobody uses it because their design is a UX garbage fire, I don't think that scheme will work well.

Other things are problematic too, like scripts (rather than the web server) having control of the process; this is an unnecessary attack vector. They also depend on browser-specific technology which limits how this system can be extended to other clients. This spec was clearly written by a JS developer, for JS developers.

This should not be a "web standard". Service providers that need strong authentication for HTTP don't only use web browsers. It will be more useful to be able to support existing applications through the use of an HTTP extension, rather than updating every single web app in the world to support this scheme.

In fact, now that I think of it, you could tack TOTP onto existing HTTP authentication right now! Just allow "TOTP:<token>" as a password entry. I don't know why I didn't think of that before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you contacted Rackspace's chat support while logged in, the representative _sometimes_ asked the security question. To which (remember, you're logged in) you could click "Account Settings", "Security Question" _copy_ _paste_.

A former employer of mine had internal security questions. _Five_ of them. They were all inane questions, the "favorite movie?" type, so I came up with a somewhat random answer and used the same answer to all of them. The one time I had to use it, the representative asked all five questions, and I gave him the same ridiculous answer each time. He did it all with a straight face somehow, and looking back, I don't know why I didn't stop him at the fourth question to ask "if I knew the first three, you really think I don't know the last two?"

</comment><comment><USER24> Thank dog someone is making a cable that reduces virus noises. I just don't know what I've done all this time without one.

<comment><USER25> Do you mean your grandmother's dog?

<comment><USER24> Precisely.

That actually was a typo. Amazingly, a typo that has earned me a -3 downvote so far...

People seem really freakishly touchy about word choice around here lately. Honestly, that's likely to make me care less about their delicate sensibilities.

<comment><USER14> I think it's unlikely you're being downvoted for the typo - far more likely for the jokey comment which doesn't really add value to the thread.

<comment><USER24> Fair enough. It just seemed of a piece with some other recent interactions I've had here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The number of webmasters who wanted me to set up ssl to 'secure' their site, while the backend emailed cc info in the clear to the orders dept is larger than I have digits, even the extra adolecent joke ones.

<comment><USER27> To be honest credit cards are a terrible system in terms of security. Everything to make a charge is on the card and people freely give it out to different websites.

<comment><USER28> Is this not changing though? I can't remember the last time I bought something online without having to either use password or 2factor auth, and there are no places here that do not require a pin code when using a cc in a store. I'm in Sweden though (but using mastercard).

<comment><USER29> Hmmm, that's interesting. I've never been to Sweden, but pretty much no shops in any country I've ever visited required a pin code for Visa or Amex credit cards. Is this really changing?

<comment><USER13> What do they require then? I've never in my entire life used my credit/debit card without typing in the PIN number(except for contactless payments, of course). I'm in the UK.

I think they can be used with a signature too? Maybe? I've never heard of anyone actually signing a bill instead of using the pin, and besides, I don't even sign my cards.

<comment><USER29> Yes, they require a signature. I'm not saying this is a safe practice, just that I've never seen a store where they asked me for a pin code for major credit cards such as Visa, Amex and (I'm pretty sure, but I don't have one) MasterCard. And I'm talking not only my own country, but also the US and several countries in Europe. When I was in the UK some years ago, they didn't ask me for my pin code when I used my Visa credit card, either. Maybe it's the type of card?

I'm talking about credit cards, mind you. Debit cards are different, and while in my country Visa Electron doesn't require anything but a signature, it's entirely possible if I tried to use it abroad they'd ask for a pin code. Not sure.

<comment><USER13> I have both British and Polish debit and credit cards, Visa and Mastercard(Visa Classic credit cards), I've used them in Spain, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain and Portugal, and literally never had to sign for them, be it in shops or restaurants.

I'm not saying there aren't cards that need signing,but I've literally never seen any.

<comment><USER29> My experience is the opposite: I've never used a PIN.

I've done some reading and now I believe it depends on the country which issued the card (as opposed to the country where you're using the card). So if you have a card issued in the US and Latin America, you probably won't asked for a PIN -- because you don't have one -- and instead you'll be asked for id and your signature. If you have a card issued in Europe, you'll be asked for a PIN.

Interesting. A PIN seems safer than a signature to me, or possibly the combination of chip + PIN, but it simply doesn't get used where I live.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why do we still use passwords? When I connect to Amazon.com I don't ask them for a username and password to verify they really are Amazon. I verify their certificate. Why can't I authentic with a certificate too?

<comment><USER31> You can. Client side SSL is a thing, and it totally prevents phishing - <USER2> much any browser has supported it for ten years.

It is also a UX nightmare. The browser you are reading this with almost certainly support it, but try to see if you can find the menu option to install one.

<comment><USER32> I've actually played around with that. Yes, the browser side UX is a nightmare. It was real fun (for extremely small values of "fun") installing the client certificate on Firefox and Safari (on the Mac, on the iPad and on the iPhone). I was rather surprised by the number of different browsers (and number of computers) it needed to be installed on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Wow, that might be the worst I've ever seen.

Does anyone here buy from auction sites often? Those are a nightmare, they let the sellers do pretty much anything and very few accept paypal (they're THAT stingy) - sellers on liveauction.com routinely ask buyers to provide credit card info over email. It looks like a lot of sellers are flocking to these because ebay is too strict, wait, I mean "sane".

<comment><USER34> Recently I won an auction at Galabid.com. They use Stripe and after putting my credit card, it was denied (I think because it was a large payment and I have no limits). Unfortunately, the Stripe JS popup didn't let me change the card. I don't know why - I tried incognito, diff browsers, but it was helpless. I had to send another Card number and all its data through email or the items were going to be auctioned again if I didn't pay in 24hs.

<comment><USER35> Our tollway providers site

        * inactivates your account if your account is negative.
        * one reason for negative account is the credit card is expired.
        * you cannot update your credit card if the account is inactive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Another example of possible poor security (which seems to be depressingly common with UK banks) is to ask for certain characters from your password. Like say, the 1st, 3rd and 5th characters in the word.

However, if the password was encrypted, they shouldn't really have this information should they? So by asking for it, they're basically admitting everything's stored in either plain text (very bad) or a reversable form of encryption (also quite bad).

There are other complaints about this too (like accidentally encouraging people to write the passwords down so they can figure out which character is the 3rd one or what not):

[https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/64589/is-it- bad...](https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/64589/is-it-bad-practice- to-ask-only-for-individual-characters-of-a-password)

And it also doesn't seem much like a good deterrent against keyloggers. But yeah, quite a few banking sites do this, which is a tad worrying.

</comment><comment><USER37> …and more. [https://twitter.com/PWTooStrong](https://twitter.com/PWTooStrong)

</comment><comment><USER38> I can't believe people still inform and try to counsel these tone-deaf corporations. The upside is so small and the downside is potentially quite large. Catch some moron CEO in a bad mood and they've got plenty of resources to make your life hell even if they don't have a legal case.

<comment><USER20> So what is your suggestion here?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> > And before we all lose out minds going "the password must die", nobody has > yet figured out how to make that happen!

If I were designing a new product today, I would never consider having usernames and passwords. While it is a shame Mozilla killed Persona before it could even have a chance, it is still way, way more reasonable to use third party signin buttons than to try to do it on your own. Again. Brokenly. For the thousandth time per person.

It is a shame that one button alone does not work, but just OpenID connect includes Google, MS, and Amazon (so one login backend and three click buttons and you are covering probably 99% of people, who will have one of those three accounts).

<comment><USER40> I would not funnel users into one of several privacy-sucking walled gardens to use my site.

If there were a true, privacy-oriented product whose sole job was identity, perhaps.

Usernames and passwords are not hard. It's just that a lot of people are stupid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Some of this stuff is absolutely terrifying. I mean, using the last four digits of a mobile number as a password? Damn, it's a site where a leaked username list is literally a major data breach.

LOL at 'reducing virus noises' too.

</comment><comment><USER41> If there's one thing that needs to go away ASAP, it's "security" questions. They are _so_ time-consuming, they increase the amount of information shared with 3rd parties, and the quotes I used are intentional because the questions provide no security whatsoever. Quite the opposite: these questions simply force people to share more information than they should be _required_ to share, and (for most people who don't think to lie) it increases the chance that sensitive secrets will be revealed and used to impersonate people.

It's even worse when these "security" questions are coupled with the "Monday- Friday, 9-5 ET" phone numbers. I once had a mobile login "lock out my account" on a Friday night and I was informed that I could _not_ unlock it without calling one of those numbers and answering my "security" questions. So instead of having access as a customer, I had over two full days of nothing, followed by the obligation to find time to call these people, followed by the awkward process of wondering if I would even remember the damned questions or answers. Every last bit of that process is broken, wrong, unnecessary, adds no security, and disrespects customers.

And in case you think account-lockouts are any better, consider that it is _TRIVIAL_ to use this as an attack. Someone you don't like? Odds are you can find their E-mail log-in. "Guess" their password 3 times, and they can't access their account at all for some extremely-inconvenient length of time. Ever-increasing delays between log-in attempts work just fine as an alternative to lockouts.

</comment><comment><USER42> I've seen the "Express <Form with Personal Data>" vuln before, but with people's SSNs, DOBs, and bank account numbers, _plus_ sequential numeric user IDs instead of emails. It's fixed now, thankfully, but, uh, yeah.

</comment><comment><USER43> That was a very entertaining, but very sad read...

</comment><comment><USER44> This reminds me of AT&To Gophone website. Your username is your phone number and your password is a 4 digit PIN. The same pin you can use to transfer out your number.

<comment><USER45> this is exactly why 2FA with SMS is not secure at all. If someone really wants to get into your account all you have done is added one extra step where they need to steal your phone account and then they steal your other account. It has been shown how easy it is to steal someones phone account and transfer the number to a cheap burner phone or online service. This also kills your cell service so unless you have another phone to use you cant even call to secure your accounts so the attacker has plenty of time to break in to all your other accounts

<comment><USER16> > is not secure at all

Absolutes are the wrong language. It adds a significant burden (steal the user's phone account), which if nothing else requires individual attention, which drastically changes the economics of an attack vs, say, mass automated attacks using leaked passwords checking for re-use. Sure, you and I might have unique randomly generated passwords for our accounts, but not everyone is so careful, and SMS verification can and does save many an account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Thanks, I needed this laugh (and cry) on a Friday.

</comment><comment><USER47> One of my pet peeves is that 1password doesn't seem to support security questions out of the box, so I have to manually generate random passwords with it, fields for Q1, A1, etc., then set those fields to type "password".

</comment><comment><USER48> @troyhunt: Have you seen the latest leak by Atlassian?

I got an email on 4th April, 2017 that reads as follows:

        Hello,

        This weekend, our Security Intelligence Team detected an incident
        affecting HipChat.com that may have resulted in unauthorized
        access to user account information (including name, email address
        and hashed password). Atlassian ID is used to manage access to
        your HipChat.com account and other Atlassian services you use.
        The password is encryprted using bcrypt with a random salt. In
        our security investigation, we found no evidence of unauthorized
        access to financial and/or credit card information. We can also
        confirm that we have found no evidence of other Atlassian systems
        or products being affected.

        As an added precaution, we have reset your Atlassian ID which is
        used to access all Atlassian services, including HipChat. Please
        go to https://id.atlassian.com/login/resetpassword and enter your
        email address to trigger a password reset email for your Atlassian
        ID account. If you have been using your Atlassian ID password on
        other sites, services or online accounts, we recommend that you
        immediately change those passwords as well.

        Please refer to the HipChat Blog at http://blog.hipchat.com for
        additional information about this incident. We regret any
        disruption this may have caused and appreciate your immediate
        attention. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to
        contact HipChat Support via our support portal or by sending email
        directly to email@example.com.

        – Ganesh Krishnan, Chief Security Officer

Nice of them to provide links to reset your password - anyone quick on their feet and with access to that database could have got people's passwords.

I think if you tweeted at them they would release an email list to you for updating the [https://haveibeenpwned.com/](https://haveibeenpwned.com/) website. I imagine there's still a lot of people that are unaware that their details are out there and that their accounts are vulnerable.

<comment><USER49> No, they couldn't have gotten people's passwords. They could have their passwords _encrypted with a random salt_. Which is, frankly, useless.

<comment><USER48> They have their email and their ID, added with the knowledge they are compromised. That's enough to build a spoof password reset email and get them to type in an old/new email.

<comment><USER50> Oh no! someone could send me an email confirming that I want to reset my password! Just like every other site out there that has a forgot password link.

<comment><USER48> They know their email and ID - so it's targeted. Without this information it is generic and easily spotted. Quoting your repository is a lot more personal and believable.

Additionally you can use the previous warning emails to really target somebody as one of the few that need "further recovery/security" steps. This _is_ a security issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> " _No really, I 've seen some very stupid security stuff out there the likes of which make the above example not just believable, but likely. Don't believe me? Here, hold my beer..._"

The "Here, hold my beer..." line is totally played out at this point, anyway, but the usage here doesn't even make sense. The implication is that you're about to do something stupid, not that you're about to tell us about some stupid things other people have done.

Why would I need to hold your beer while you tell me a story?

</comment><comment><USER52> Sadly British and other Commonwealth countries like Australia seem way too overrepresented in crap like this. Something about British culture leads to atrocious ignorance of security.

</comment><comment><USER53> email@example.com

test test test, Burdur, Eastern, Hong Kong , Hong Kong

Daytime Contact Number: 1234567890 ; Mobile: 55555555

</comment><comment><USER54> this is a bit hard to read with all the screenshots/images, headings , sub- section

i think the author is knowledgeable, but .. please make it more readable

</comment><comment><USER55> I'd much rather read a post detailing secure best practices on all these issues than "look at all these stupid people, lulz".

<comment><USER56> Where would you guess that security best practices are derived from?

And which will you remember better... a crazy story that you would _never_ do, or a dry 10-point list, half of which may not be applicable to you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is a huge problem and has been for a long time. We allow pretty much anyone to code up a website. It'd be similar to allowing anybody to start practicing medicine.

I've lost count of how many websites I've used that were blatantly insecure. Sometimes you have no choice but to do it, like when I had to apply for a Brazil travel visa. Their SSL certificate has expired, and has been expired for years now.

<comment><USER57> So you'd rather the government hand out certifications and only allow those certified people to create websites? That sounds better.

<comment><USER50> There would be benefits to licensing web dev. I wouldn't suggest that a license should be required for any web development but if the website is used to safeguard PII or secure financial transactions then I don't think it would be too unreasonable to do so to get rid of these clowns. I used to work in an SMB web development shop and the incompetence that I'd see daily from our competition really changed my perspective on the field.

I used to feel almost like an imposter when I first started but I've seen so many "experts" who have been selling their services for decades yet they don't understand even the fundamentals of their profession. We already require licensing professionals for many things which are arguably less important than a lot of websites. I think a fair balance could be struck here to make sure that large businesses like Betfair can't get away with this crap yet not stifle hobbyists or businesses whose websites don't pose any appreciable risk.</comment></comment></comment>


Tesla has applied for a patent for a new electromagnetic windshield-wiper system - <AUTHOR> https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a29025844/tesla-patent-windshield-wiper-blades/ <comment><USER2> _Tesla mentions that the mechanical components of the traditional wiper blade create a lot of friction, which requires more power to the motor that moves the arm back and forth._

I thought it was the friction of the wipers themselves on the glass that takes the most power...

In any case, some research reveals that typical wiper motors are <50W, which even if that was reduced to 0, would be an insignificant fraction of the total power draw of an EV, the motor powering the car being capable of over 200kW (200000W). I doubt this is going to have much of an effect on the overall range.

<comment><USER3> I think it's fairly obviously mainly a marketing move. These wipers (judging by the drawings) look cool and futuristic. If they ever implement them I'm sure that's going to be the main motivation.

I can be very critical of Tesla but if there's one thing they achieved it's making electric vehicles that look cool. I don't think many teenagers saw a Prius as an aspirational vehicle but I'm pretty sure you could find Tesla posters in many a bedroom.

<comment><USER4> > I think it's fairly obviously mainly a marketing move.

I wonder though if it's the right marketing move and the right deployment of resources.

Car manufacturers found out a long time ago that car sales are not driven by these types of improvements. Cars are purchased emotionally and to a lesser extent functionally. Obviously a Tesla is an emotional purchase since it doesn't really make sense for most buyers to burden themselves with the higher price and inconvenience of an electric car. This seems a great deal like a little icing on the cake of 'we are just a better purchase down to this type of detail'. That's separate from the GP assertion that there is little power savings.

Sure it gets employees thinking of power savings (similar to when Apollo was done everything mattered down to the last detail). But the development and implementation of this is not trivial and it will take meetings and decisions and testing. What else could be done with those resources?

<comment><USER5> The sum of many details that stir emotion is a whole that is emotionally compelling. If cars (or any consumer product) are purchased emotionally, and this feature is perceived as cool and futuristic, surely this will incrementally add to unit sales.

See also the Model 3's AC vents. Whatever their utility & whether its better than traditional ones, they are cool and futuristic and do their part to help the car stand out from the pack. Start adding all these up and you have something.

Car companies outsourced all these types of parts years ago, which severely limit their ability to pursue these types of innovations. That made economic sense when they were competing against organizations with similar cost-cutting strategies, and are a product of the era in which those choices were made and the business climate that encouraged those choices, but it leaves them at a disadvantage when a company takes a very different, tech-driven, vertically integrated approach to product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That looks like a linear motor, which unless I'm missing something is spectacularly power hungry.

By the looks of it, it also need linear bearings, which are difficult to seal against leaves, dirt, moss, ice and snow.

I'm going to wager £20 and say its not a game changer.

<comment><USER7> > That looks like a linear motor, which unless I'm missing something is > spectacularly power hungry.

They are, by themselves, not more power hungry than the corresponding type of rotary motors.

Their biggest problem regarding power usage is that they can't use gears to gain mechanical advantage. Since electric motor losses are roughly proportional to their torque (or force, in case of linear motor), it is often the case that the linear motor will require more power.

But a quick look at some of the windshield wipers mechanisms shows that rotary motors that drive them are in a mechanically pretty disadvantageous position, with a very short lever arm compared to what a linear motor would be. So it might work well in this case.

<comment><USER8> The primary advantage of linear motors are acceleration and precision, neither of which are useful here.

Certainly it will work for this case but ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 1990: Soon all cars will have ultrasonic windshield wipers

Still waiting on that.

[https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/10/business/patents- ultrason...](https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/10/business/patents-ultrasonic- vibrations-for-windshield-wipers.html)

[https://www.autoblog.com/2013/12/17/mclaren-ultrasonic- winds...](https://www.autoblog.com/2013/12/17/mclaren-ultrasonic-windshield- wiper-technology-report/)

<comment><USER10> Vaporware

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If they want to have one single blade move back and forth, that's cool, but this seems like a bafflingly complex way to do it. What's wrong with a normal linear actuator? It's powered by a regular electric motor (something right in Tesla's wheelhouse), can be built very reliable, and is plenty efficient. There's no reason to build the Space Shuttle when people just want an electric car, and won't be able to tell the difference under the hood anyway. Maybe they want as many solid state components as possible for durability? Talk about diminishing returns...

No, my guess is that this is to lock down the patent so they own it (and as many other even vaguely plausible concepts as possible) and can wield it in patent battles with other automakers. More charitably, you could look at it as clearing as much land as possible so that 10 years down the line their engineers are minimally encumbered by patent concerns and can build whatever they want. Typical corporate R&D, and not particularly deserving of a Car and Driver fluff piece.

<comment><USER12> Tesla is one of the most open companies with their patents [1]. I don't share your scepticism. I would think this is protection against someone else patenting the idea and inhibiting their ability to innovate.

[1] [https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong- you](https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you)

<comment><USER13> Tesla's way of opening up patents is interesting. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable on the topic can chime in, but my understanding is that Tesla's just saying they won't initiate a lawsuit if they believe you're using their patent in "good faith". Tesla's lawyer's clarification made their "good faith" restriction much more restrictive:

      A party is "acting in good faith" for so long as such party and its related or affiliated companies have not:

      -  asserted, helped others assert, or had a financial stake in any assertion of
         (i) any patent or other intellectual property right against Tesla or
         (ii) any patent right against a third party for its use of technologies
              relating to electric vehicles or related equipment;
      -  challenged, helped others challenge,
         or had a financial stake in any challenge to any Tesla patent; or
      -  marketed or sold any knock-off product (e.g., a product created by imitating
         or copying the design or appearance of a Tesla product or which suggests an
         association with or endorsement by Tesla)
         or provided any material assistance to another party doing so.

So it makes sense that no one major would take up Tesla's offer, because they're not going to waive the right to sue Tesla.

That's a little bit different than, say, Toyota, which offered to licenses out their patents royalty free with no strings attached and even offer consulting on how to use them for a fee. There's some guarantees there (or can be negotiated) that the tech/goodwill won't disappear on a whim.

<comment><USER14> Those restrictions sound pretty reasonable - you wave the right to sue them for _patents_ only. Would be kind of odd to use one of their patents freely while suing the opposite way.

Toyota announced the patent release five years after Tesla, and its mostly for technology released in 1997 for the Prius, hardly anything revolutionary now. By the way if you manage to find their contact form re. this, it says "We have closed accepting inquiries for technical support."

<comment><USER15> Patents from 1997 would have expired by 2017.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> OT: have you ever noticed that most scifi movies depict futuristic cars that can hover or fly but which still use traditional windscreen wipers. You'd have thought they'd add a force field that repels rain or a special coating but no, traditional wipers. Even Bladerunner 2048 did this.

<comment><USER17> I always think it's a bit incongruous to see them on the cockpit windows of airliners. Sort of like having a vacuum tube power supply for your computer.

(Two other solutions exist. One is spinning the window, you'll see it on ships. The other is making the window hot.)

<comment><USER18> Wipers work well, with minimal complexity.

Many airliners already use heated window panes for de-icing. Heated windows don't work all that great in a downpour, and wiping is a simple and faster acting alternative.

Blasted air is used minimally for windscreens, but it's a common plane de- icing method for the rest of the vehicle.

The complexity and weight of using spinning windows on planes makes that idea a non-starter.

hydrophobic coatings are also in use, but are generally avoided for the duty of primary windscreens due to most hydrophobic coatings lacking durability to physical stress and contact.

<comment><USER17> Oh, I know the airplane engineers are not fools :-)

The wipers are costly in terms of excrescence drag, and if there was a better way they'd do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well it's a patent application.

So I'm presuming it's not been seen or tested in the wild.

Seems a bit hyperbolic to call it a game changer at this point.

</comment><comment><USER20> "...is supposed to be more efficient and better-looking..." Not sure how it can be better looking—all luxury cars already hide their wipers below the hood line already. Seems overly complex with many more failure points. Wipers are the one thing you don't want to fail when you need them.

<comment><USER21> >the one thing you don't want to fail

I wouldn't dare correct you as I have no data, but I suspect many people would put brakes or a seatbelt ahead of wipers

<comment><USER20> Touché haha. The thing with wipers are they are typically not used often in most places, so you won't know they are broken until you really need them.

Brake and seatbelts typically display warning signs before failure (but not always of course).

<comment><USER22> Wipers are important, and underrated. Seatbelts are mostly muscle memory if not absolutely required, and you have to use the brakes basically to even start the car or get anywhere. But wipers you don't use on every trip.

One time I was taking a winter defensive driving course, and was the first person in the car to go. It wasn't my car, so it was unfamiliar. They had a number of skid pads, cones, etc. They were also pouring out water to make sheets of ice to help teach skid control.

Some of the water hadn't frozen yet, and the instructor told me to go through it. It put a full sheet of water on the windshield and I was fumbling looking for the wipers, because they weren't on the stick (it was a pull button for some reason). Of course, everyone else knew how to use the wipers by their turn. I didn't lose control of the car, and kept my cool, but it made me realize, ALWAYS check where the wipers are when driving an unfamiliar car. Even if it's not raining, if something gets on your windshield (mud, bugs, dirt), you need to know how to clean it, and fast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The Mercedes Monoblade was my favorite design, although it was notoriously expensive and unreliable.

[https://99percentinvisible.org/article/behind-screens- windsh...](https://99percentinvisible.org/article/behind-screens-windshield- clearing-designs-wipers-spin-windows/)

<comment><USER24> Unreliable how???

My family were a Citroen (hydropneumatic suspension ftw) family growing up, so we had a variety of 'monobladed' cars, the wipers weren't one of the unreliable parts.

<comment><USER25> The Mercedes wiper didn't simply sweep out a circular arc, like most monobladed cars (including IIRC Citroëns); it used a complex gearing system to vary the blade radius to better cover the windshield's corners. Naturally, this over-engineered system was prone to breakage.

* Photos and diagrams here: [http://www.spannerhead.com/2012/11/28/technical-curiosities-...](http://www.spannerhead.com/2012/11/28/technical-curiosities-mercedes-monoblade-wiper/)

* A slow-motion video of the wiper in action here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHtEAMwcWI4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHtEAMwcWI4)

* And a couple visualizations of how it works mechanically: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_quBiMLqNoc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_quBiMLqNoc), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdNu113Ep2U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdNu113Ep2U)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can't think of anything more wasteful than using 50 Neodymium magnets to do a job that could be done with two or three "standard" magnets or, Samarium Cobalt if absolutely necessary. It's grotesque, really, if you start thinking about natural resource utilization. Imagine a hundred million cars adopting something like this. Crazy, if you ask me. A conventional rotary motor has two or three magnets and they don't even have to be high grade.

For some reason I've had a feeling for a while that designers are abusing magnets. It seems they are being thrown into everything and for the most frivolous of reasons sometimes. Isn't this a finite resource?

<comment><USER2> Some windshield wiper motors don't even have magnets --- they're wound-field types.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Is like to see how this wears in practice. Guide rails in a road setting seem like they will get gummed up fairly quickly and degrade performance unless the entire system is somehow sealed.

It's great to see a push for innovation beyond powertrain and head unit, though.

<comment><USER28> First thing I thought of. Sliding tracks in a dirty environment are usually a headache, because of the big exposed bearing surface. There are solutions, involving bellows, seals, and such, but they're kind of overkill for a windshield wiper. Rotational bearings can easily be fully enclosed and lubricated.

Linear motors have been around for many decades, but are still a niche product. The first commercial linear motor application was as banal as a windshield wiper. It was the 1962 "Electrac by Kirsch®"[1], a linear motor for draw drapes. Back then, large commercial buildings like air terminals were first getting big curved glass areas, and people expected them to have drapes. The string and pulley systems were not good with curves. So Kirsch came out with a linear motor unit that traveled along the drape track and pulled the drape. Multiple motors could run on the same track, for very wide drapes, so it scaled up well. Worked fine, cost too much, had 120VAC in the track.

I once expected linear motors to be a big thing in robotics, but that didn't happen.

[1] [https://books.google.com/books?id=bdgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA164&...](https://books.google.com/books?id=bdgDAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA164&lpg=RA1-PA164)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Click bait title - not in anyway is this a game changer

</comment><comment><USER30> Some here say 50W is insignificant, but this is what going above 80% means, when you improve everything to get every possible advantage. The car biz is probably very cut throat if you fall behind in mileage. Oh, there is also weight savings without motors and with single blades.

</comment><comment><USER31> Why replace a simple but essential thing that works (i.e. current wipers) with a more complicated one that it will have lots of additional ways to fail?

<comment><USER32> > Why replace a simple but essential thing that works (i.e. current wipers) > with a more complicated one that it will have lots of additional ways to > fail?

Do you mean like door handles?

Presumably because it looks cool.

<comment><USER33> On the doorhandles I can see the point: to make the vehicle more aerodynamic. Every little bit counts, four doorhandles are quite a bit of disturbance of the airflow.

<comment><USER34> I was actually thinking that this windshield wiper design had some potential to be more aerodynamic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I hope this model of wipers get progressively improved and widely adopted. One of the issues with "semicircular" wiping is the areas which cannot be cleaned. If this works well, it will be a significant improvement in driving in rainy parts of the world.

</comment><comment><USER36> This may be a stupid question but, is there a reason cars don't just have a single blade that goes straight across, rather than wiping in this arc motion? It seems like it'd do a much better job of wiping and avoiding streaks if it just went straight across.

<comment><USER37> Mechanical simplicity and standardisation.

The windscreen wiper is very likely to be outsourced to a 3rd party company, and they can reduce costs by having a repeatable design. In terms of a blade going on a straight line, it's much easier to rotate a wiper blade from a motor than translate that into a linear movement.

It's worth nothing that other systems exist ([https://www.a1-windscreens.co.uk/news/windscreen-wiper- movem...](https://www.a1-windscreens.co.uk/news/windscreen-wiper-movements/)), but much less common.

<comment><USER13> I actually don't think they're outsourced and they're typically designed in- house. I remember the reason being the windshield wipers are almost always engineered last after almost everything else in the engine compartment. So the wiper engineers are typically given very oddly shaped small spaces that they have to fit the wiper system into, and those differ between cars so it can't just be generically outsourced.

Here's a Hyundai engineer talking about wipers: [https://www.digitalengineering247.com/article/the-back- and-f...](https://www.digitalengineering247.com/article/the-back-and-forth-of- windshield-wiper-design/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> There's a good movie called, "Flash of Genius" about the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper and his efforts to defend himself against the theft of his idea.

</comment><comment><USER39> I wish more cars would use the Benz approach. The wipers spray the fluid in the actual rubber lubricating them and keeping you from blinding yourself.

</comment><comment><USER40> Wiper blades fail.

One of the nice properties of the dual-blade setup is that if the one in front of the driver fails during a hard rain, it's possible to lean over and drive looking through the passenger-side of the front window -- at least until you can safely exit a freeway and find a safe place to stop.

Maybe less critical if the car is actually self-driving, so I guess I'm not surprised folks are thinking about this.

<comment><USER11> More critical in the case of Tesla, where there are cameras mounted behind the windshield (on the rear-view mirror). This is one of the typical talking points in the LIDAR vs optical debate, because the rain makes it difficult to see with passive optical sensors.

<comment><USER13> The area in front of my rear view mirror is the only area on my windshield wiped by both wipers presumably because all the sensors are there and they wanted some sort of redundancy.

<comment><USER33> So it is occluded _four_ times every wiper cycle.

<comment><USER41> There are three cameras there and they are spaced out so it is possible the occlusion is not as much as you imply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Have there been any developments on glass technology than can repel water? I use a anti-rain coating (a la Rain-X) which works pretty well, but you need to be above 80km/h for it to work effectively.

</comment><comment><USER43> Silicon blades are awesome, you need to be diligent about cleaning the windshield but the blade material is more of a game changer than the motor or wiper orientation to me.

</comment><comment><USER44> Seems like something a Californian would invent. Looks like it would fair poorly if wiper-well fills up with snow. Can it be left lifted clear of the windshield before a hard ice?

</comment><comment><USER45> Can't be lifted, when I want to squeegee the entire windshield at the service station. Can't be replaced without decoupling from complex mount. Probably less torque so mud/slush/snow will stall it.

A terrible idea, unless you're in California and drive in mostly fine weather.

</comment><comment><USER46> I was expecting an electrowetting/microfluidics solution.

</comment><comment><USER47> Tesla applies for a patent for new windshield wiping technique

</comment><comment><USER48> This is ok but I wish one of the weird cartech projects Elon would take on is creating a transparent A pillars in cars. Maybe using driver eye tracking and exterior cameras.

</comment><comment><USER49> So... What happens when it snows?

</comment><comment><USER50> Tesla is the future

</comment><comment><USER51> > Tesla was also thinking about its Autopilot system when conceptualizing the > patent for the wiper system. The argument is that traditional wiper systems > aren't as robust as this new electromagnetic system; time and weather can > lead to corrosion, making the traditional setup less effective over time. > The resulting lack of visibility could hamper Autopilot and other > autonomous-driving aids that use cameras to track lanes and objects around > the car. Better visibility is better for the cameras and, of course, for the > driver.

That makes no sense. Autopilot cameras are not in the passenger compartment and would be unaffected by wipers.

<comment><USER52> In a Tesla, isn't there a camera in the middle between the driver and passenger inside the passenger compartment at the very top of the windshield?

<comment><USER53> This! A friend actually used to work on those systems. Hilarious amounts of complexity figuring out auto wipers</comment></comment></comment>


Are functions that simply call another function a bad design choice? - <AUTHOR> https://understandlegacycode.com/blog/are-wrapper-functions-bad-design/ <comment><USER2> Functional programming would tend to disagree.</comment>


Google's lawyers are asking to find Oracle's lawyers in contempt of court - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/google-is-trying-to-get-oracle-in-trouble-for-a-1-billion-open-secret <comment><USER2> It is _huge_ that a lawyer would disclose in a public setting such important confidential numbers. I even have trouble seeing how something like that could be "accidental". It is basically a force of habit among experienced litigators to think and to say, in any number of contexts, "I know this may be relevant but I can't discuss it because it is the subject of a protective order" or "I know the attorneys know this information but it was disclosed under the protective order as being marked for 'attorneys' eyes only'". In all my years of litigating, I don't believe I have ever heard a casual slip on such information, even in otherwise private contexts (e.g., attorneys are discussing with their own client what an adverse party disclosed and are very careful not to disclose something marked for "attorneys' eyes only"). Certainly willful disclosures of this type can even get you disbarred.

But the significance of this breach is not the only thing that caught my eye.

These litigants have been entrenched in scorched-earth litigation for years now in which the working M.O. for both sides is to _concede nothing_ and make everything the subject of endless dispute. Big firm litigators will often do this. It is a great way to rack up bills. Clients in these contexts do not oppose it and very often demand it. And so a lot of wasteful lawyering happens just because everyone understands that this is an all-out war.

To me, then, it seems that the big problem here (in addition to the improper disclosures of highly important confidential information in a public court hearing) was the _resistance_ by the lawyers who did this to simply acknowledging that a big problem existed that required them to _stipulate_ to getting the transcript sealed immediately. Had they done so, it seems the information would never have made the headlines. Instead (and I am sure because it had become the pattern in the case), they could not reach this simple agreement with the other lawyers to deal with the problem but had to find grounds to resist and fight over it.

I know that we as outside observers have limited information upon which to make an assessment here and so the only thing we can truly say from our perspective is "who knows". Yet, if the surface facts reflect the reality, then it is scarcely believable that the lawyers could have so lost perspective as to take this issue to the mat, resulting in such damage to a party. Assuming the facts are as they appear on the surface, this would be very serious misconduct and I can see why Judge Alsup is really mad that it happened.

<comment><USER3> Suppose, for a moment, the judge believes that there's at least an open question as to whether the revelations were willful. Can the later conduct, in which they acted in such a way as to double down on the mistake, be used to support a finding that the conduct was willful?

<comment><USER2> Yes, the entire pattern of behavior is relevant, though I would note that judges are highly reluctant to ascribe bad motives to distinguished litigators (and the lawyer involved here fits in that category) and so I would be surprised if the judge took a super-harsh approach in spite of being upset over this. But, again, who knows?

<comment><USER3> Taking all the facts given us at face value for now, what is the range of punishments the court might impose here, along with what your gut feeling says the most likely outcome(s) are?

Based on the quotes, one thing the court appeared to contemplate was forcing them to inform all future courts of their conduct in this case.

<comment><USER2> Hard to say here. Federal courts have _very broad_ discretion to impose sanctions for violations of their orders, including those authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and also those based on their inherent powers. We are, after all, dealing with _contempt_ of a court order, which is very serious. I would say it is likely here that the court would refer this to the State Bar with a request that it be investigated and this would pose quite a risk for one or more of the attorneys that ethical sanctions would be imposed (these can range from private to public censure to suspension to disbarment, though here I don't think the more extreme remedies would apply unless evidence surfaced to show that this was somehow deliberate). A standing order to the firm or to one or more of the attorneys that they would have to do a formal filing in future cases (say, for a period of x years) disclosing this misconduct is also something I could envision here. This would cause large reputational harm to the lawyer(s) involved and would be fitting, doable, and probably appropriate for such a serious violation. Monetary awards/fines are also possible, though I cannot imagine an award that could reflect the actual damage caused to Google - such awards are usually limited to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in obtaining the contempt order. Discovery-related sanctions are also often imposed in live cases (e.g., limiting the use of certain evidence or treating some fact as admitted that is adverse to the party causing the violation or some such thing), but I don't think would apply here. Jailing of an offending party is also used in civil contempt but only as needed to compel compliance with an order (e.g., you will stew in jail until you disclose your non-protected sources for the facts in this story as you have been previously ordered to do) - again, these wouldn't apply here. So, I think the main sanctions would likely involve those hitting the reputations of the attorneys, either in future court proceedings or through State Bar sanctions. These, by the way, are not trivial. No matter how good a lawyer or a firm, being seen as tarnished can cost you clients, job opportunities, etc., not to mention public humiliation and embarrassment (no small thing for prominent lawyers).

<comment><USER4> My civpro prof was a collector of Rule11 stories. He liked judges who observed that the rule's "may" language doesn't forbid inventive sanctions. This isn't a rule11 situation, but if I were the judge, in exchange for not reporting the conduct to the local bar, I'd make them all go without cellphones while in the courthouse .. for a year. There are too many billions being thrown around in this litigation for any fine to matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> While this is a good story, the headline misses by far the point that the body makes - the only reason this is an open secret is because an Oracle lawyer revealed it in public.

A better title might be:

"Google is trying to get Oracle in trouble for revealing confidential figures"

<comment><USER6> That article was simply hard to read. I kept asking if this was a story or a news article.

<comment><USER7> Especially with that animated gif above the fold. I had to scroll to a point where the animation was completely hidden to be able to read comfortably.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As background, this opinion piece by the lawyer in question may be useful in understanding the mindset of the players. Hurst argues that because API's are not copyrightable, the GPL is dead and Oracle's valiant attempts to defend free software have been foiled:

 _The Death of "Free" Software . . . or How Google Killed GPL_ _by Annette Hurst (@divaesq)_

 _The developer community may be celebrating today what it perceives as a victory in Oracle v. Google. Google won a verdict that an unauthorized, commercial, competitive, harmful use of software in billions of products is fair use. No copyright expert would have ever predicted such a use would be considered fair. Before celebrating, developers should take a closer look. Not only will creators everywhere suffer from this decision if it remains intact, but the free software movement itself now faces substantial jeopardy._

 _..._

[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how- googl...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-google- killed-gpl-annette-hurst)

This wasn't an accidental "slip" by a poorly trained intern. This was a conscious disclosure made by one of Oracle's lead attorneys. She is one of the top IP lawyers in the nation: [https://www.orrick.com/People/2/6/2/Annette- Hurst](https://www.orrick.com/People/2/6/2/Annette-Hurst). It is in keeping with the "scorched earth" strategy that has been followed for this case. She knew what she was doing, and she (and her firm) should pay the consequences. If there are no consequences, it will legitimize and reward this strategy.

<comment><USER9> First comment in that article: (from Michael Tiemann, VP Open Source Affairs, Red Hat)

As a person who started the world's first company based on supporting, developing, and maintaining GPL-licensed software (Cygnus Support, 1989), and now a VP at Red Hat, I respectfully submit that you don't really understand the GPL, APIs, nor the fundamental premise of Open Source Software (both as a legal construct and as a short-hand for the business models that it enables). To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, "Your arguments are not right. They are not even wrong."

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This article reads very weirdly to me. Are they arguing that disclosing confidential information, and subsequently opposing steps to contain the disclosed information, is perfectly fine because ... it can be found on the internet, precisely _because_ of this disclosure? This makes absolutely no sense to me.

<comment><USER11> I think the author of the article didn't realize that all of those references were generated from the very subject of the article.

Very strange, I agree. It's an open secret _now_ but it wasn't when the events happened, which is why there's a fight.

<comment><USER12> I think they did realize it, because they mention in the article itself that was the source of the information.... I think it is more likely the headline creator didn't realize it.

<comment><USER11> On further review, I think the confusing nature of the article stems for the author not being careful to separate the original trial from the current contempt of court proceedings.

It's indeed a little silly / funny, although logical, that Google insists Oracle continues to redact things when it's now common knowledge. But the overall proceedings are certainly _not_ silly or frivolous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Oracle should pay, they knew exactly what they were doing. If it was them, they would be suing too. Live by the sword die by the sword.

<comment><USER14> Oracle would probably sue if Google said something about buying Sun...

>"She just blurted out the two numbers that mattered. She just blurted it out," said Judge Alsup. "If she had had the recipe for Coca-Cola she could have blurted it out in this court right now." Knowing revenue isn't exactly the same as knowing a formula. It's odd that Google cares so much.

<comment><USER15> I don't think that they care about that so much as making the point that nobody else should think about copying Oracle's tactics. The attorneys for Oracle were remarkably unscrupulous in the way that they conducted their case, IMO, and this is part of the payback, from the judge as well as Google's lawyers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Having read this article it reminds me somewhat of tactics in movies where lawyers deliberately ask an inflammatory question in front of a jury purely for the purpose of planting a seed, and before anyone can yell objection they immediately retract knowing that the damage has been done. The judge may strike it from the record, the judge may tell the jury to disregard it, but you can't unthink or unhear something that's been said. The bell has already been rung.

I don't (or can't, I'm unsure) believe that lawyers of this caliber make mistakes like this. So what was her play by doing this? Did it pay off?

<comment><USER17> I suspect (but do not know) that this is information that Google doesn't want out there. It costs them an information edge in negotiations that may cost them hundreds of millions of dollars (again, my guess). So it may be very painful for Google to have this information out.

Oracle may have done this deliberately just to make the lawsuit more painful to Google. The unspoken message is "Don't you want this to just go away? You could settle with us. If you don't, we can continue to make it hurt."

<comment><USER18> > The unspoken message is "Don't you want this to just go away? You could > settle with us. If you don't, we can continue to make it hurt."

To continue down this Machiavellian rabbit-hole; this then is Google saying to all lawyers who might agree to cooperate with Oracle in similarly murky shenanigans in the future "We will come after you"

<comment><USER19> Reminds me of Australian Federal Parliament. The previous Prime Minister obstructed the government of the day when he was an opposition leader by stopping "pairs" \- where if one member of parliament could not be present the opposition agrees to have a member abstain from voting.

He did that in a hung parliament, now they are in government the Labor party are doing the same hardball tactics. It's making the government's life hell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Off-topic, but I find it strange that money in the order of $1B can change hands between two mega-corporations without anyone outside having an inkling, while I could find websites saying exactly how much a low-level government worker earns in a social services center in my county. (Spoiler: much less than I used to earn as developer.)

Shouldn't the structure of accountability be in the other direction?

<comment><USER21> Could you explain more about why you think so? I think the ordering is pretty much what I want, even if I'm not necessarily happy with the absolute numbers.

<comment><USER20> 1\. Government workers are your fellow citizens, and they have a right to privacy as everyone else. I don't think "how much a specific low-level government worker earns" is anybody else's business. If you are worried about government spending, you should be able to check aggregate statistics.

2\. If companies can spend/earn $1B without anyone knowing, how are we going to tax them properly? If only the government knows and no one else, then we're basically asked to trust the government and corporations to be honest. When they are't, they cause much more financial harm to me (because my tax has to make up for it) than some county office giving everyone a higher raise than necessary.

<comment><USER22> I don't see how tax is a valid point. 99% of individuals and corporations do not have their spendings - that's not only the net flow, but also the breakdown of revenue and costs - revealed to the public. To imply that they might be dishonest, and that dishonesty will not be caught by the government, would mean that everybody has to release their spendings to the public. Mark Zuckerberg could be cheating on his taxes. You could be cheating on your taxes. Surely you don't want to cause financial harm to the rest of us?

<comment><USER20> With greater money comes greater power. With greater power comes greater responsibility.

Publicly traded companies already have to disclose salaries of their CEOs, but not their janitors. Same logic.

<comment><USER22> You complain about the status quo and then cite the status quo in your argument?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The judge tried to reveal the depth of this revelation by comparing it to that of the most secret thing he could imagine:

> If she had had the recipe for Coca-Cola she could have blurted it out in > this court right now.

(Seriously!)

EDIT: I wasn't trying to be snarky or silly, just pointing out an aspect of the story that struck me as funny. Serious request: if that is inappropriate, please let me know rather than just silently downvoting. In that case, I apologise and will delete the post.

<comment><USER24> What's wrong with that analogy? Coca Cola's exact formula is proprietary information, so saying it in court could cause damages (e.g. other manufacturers could make a perfect clone and undercut Coca Cola).

There's even an article on Coca Cola's supposed secret formula[0] which further validates the analogy by making it an archetype for proprietary information.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca- Cola_formula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula)

<comment><USER23> Nothing's wrong with it as an analogy; I would have found "this is like blurting out Coca-Cola's secret formula!" extremely apt, not least for the reason that you mention. However, the judge's wording

> If she had had the recipe for Coca-Cola she could have blurted it out in > this court right now.

seemed less like a comparison than a description of the dire consequences of this sort of behaviour, and it struck me as funny: surely anyone who's unconvinced of the seriousness of blurting out one business's proprierary information won't be convinced about the seriousness of blurting out another's?

<comment><USER25> Coca-Cola's formula is literally a textbook example of a trade secret. Everybody remotely familiar with IP law knows how important secrecy is for Coke. Many fewer people are familiar with how important it is for Google. The comparison shows that the same rule protects both, and that it should not be carelessly breached.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Off topic: I may be old and cranky, but I simply can't stand articles with animated gifs - it just seems ridiculously unprofessional.

<comment><USER27> I'm with you 100%. When I see an animated gif, it likens the article to clickbait or those 'my reaction when' pages. I'm here to read news, not watch funny images that appeal to to the lowest common denominator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Slightly off topic, but I've always had a hard wrapping my head around the stance the somehow an API is distinct from code. I understand that it's an abstraction in programming, and that industry practice has been that it's acceptable to take an existing API that you didn't create and write a new implementation.

But since the API is "implemented" in code, it seems like for the purpose of copyright consideration that the distinction is simply one of custom.

It's a programming abstraction, to create your own "implementation" of the API you still have to use code that is identical to original.

Alsop's original, overturned, ruling was that as a matter of law API's couldn't be copyrighted because they express an idea that can only be expressed exactly that way, and traditionally this would not be allowed (can't copyright an idea). As I understood it, his concept implied that to get IP protection over an API would require something more like patent protection. (I might be totally wrong on this).

<comment><USER29> > It's a programming abstraction, to create your own "implementation" of the > API you still have to use code that is identical to original.

Not if you think of it like this really rough analogy: if the software product is a closed box, the API is the different configuration of holes cut in the box, and the code is whatever is inside the box. So you can imagine that boxes, despite being cut with identical holes, could hold different things within.

Going a bit deeper would be to consider that software with identical API, and different implementations may have different run-time characteristics between them. That is, the same API call in one implementation may take twice as long to execute than in another implementation. Further, depending on how explicit/rigid the API spec is, a call in one implementation could have some "out-of-band" behavior (e.g. affect another software system unbeknownst to the calling routine; or every API call may be logged in one implementation, but not logged in another).

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Regardless of the outcome her career in litigating high profile cases is pretty much over. You simply do not utter highly confidential company information accidentally. It was intentional and it was done to paint a picture to the jury about how much money Google was making from Android and what it was paying Apple.

<comment><USER31> But you'd think her client would be happy about it, no? How would that end her career (even though it maybe should)?

<comment><USER18> In future discoveries involving her firm, this event will be raised by the opposing parties - hell, Judge Aslup said he _hopes_ that happens. I'm sure others will outright refuse to divulge confidential information to her firm and get away with it too. It probably won't end her career, but it will cost her and her firm a lot of business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> > Oracle attorney Melinda Haag

God I hate that woman. When she was a US Attorney for SF, she went around and threatened to seize buildings where medical cannabis dispensaries were located, in full compliance of the local laws. Because she couldn't do any thing to the dispensary directly, she threatened their landlords. This was _after_ Obama had said that DoJ would not interfere with dispensaries which were operating within the state laws.

<comment><USER12> Do you think it was her decision to do that? Or was she directed to by her boss?

<comment><USER33> In either case it was ultimately her decision. Following orders is not an excuse for unethical behavior.

<comment><USER34> You mean, "refusing POTUS's orders to undermine the law of the USA, is unethical?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> As someone who knows zilch about business, I don't quite understand why people knowing these numbers is so devastating. What will another company do with these two numbers that it otherwise wouldn't do?

<comment><USER36> Now everyone knows just how valuable Android is for Google so they can hold them over a barrel for more money, such as when Google is negotiating a patent licensing agreement for some critical patent in the Android ecosystem. If no one knows what the number is, you can at least play it down and get a better deal. Now there's no chance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> "... or Robin Thicke being forced to plunge his own toilet."

Can someone explain me this one??

</comment><comment><USER38> If a lawsuit of this scale can be considered the corporate equivalent of war, contempt of court is equivalent to being declared a war criminal.

</comment><comment><USER39> How can a public corporation keep those two numbers secret? Those are basic cost and revenue numbers that should be disclosed in their annual financial statements. The fact that it's legal to keep those numbers secret means there's something very wrong with how we do financial disclosure in America.

</comment><comment><USER40> Why now? The blurting happened in January.

</comment><comment><USER41> If anything, my only sadness is that more of Google's dirty laundry wasn't aired. This illusion that Google search is winning because people prefer it and that Google doesn't make money on Android are both claims I'm happy to see debunked. Google's anti-monopoly claims fundamentally hinge on concepts like these.

And if a lawyer did break the law by doing it, I say she belongs on the same high pedestal people put Snowden on.

<comment><USER42> > This illusion that Google search is winning because people prefer it

People preferring it and Apple or Mozilla asking Google to pay them to include the search bar are not exclusive.

If consumers prefer Google, and Apple couldn't make enough money with their own search engine to compensate for the lost users, it would make sense for Apple to pay Google for the right to use their search bar. Sure, Google could theoretically make money by giving it to them for free, or even by paying them to include it (see Mozilla), but why not get paid twice?

> and that Google doesn't make money on Android

I don't think anyone seriously believes that Android doesn't make money. Why else would Google put so much money into it in the first place?

<comment><USER41> It's well understood, I think, that the biggest determiner of what search engine people use is the default one put in front of them. That's why Google's willing to spend a billion dollars to be that default. Google's claims to it's antimonopoly position often hinges on the claim that it's a 'natural' monopoly, created simply by the fact that they have the best product. It's unsurprising, then, that they're so angry that this lawyer revealed Google pays so much to ensure their dominance.

Google has long held that Android is something like a charity project, to "ensure an open future for mobile" or something like that. You can still see signs of it in the terms of the "Open Handset Alliance", which is actually the group of manufacturers Google forbids from using open source Android, ironically. It's also commonly the defense for why Google isn't a monopoly here: It "gives Android away for free". In reality, Google collects billions in profit, and leaves all of the software patching and support burdens on manufacturers, who can barely turn a profit and are held to Google's increasingly controlling mandates over how Android must be distributed. (I'm sure many OEMs after this case are curious why they're getting such a raw deal on Android, which is another reason it's unsurprising Google is so angry at Oracle.)

<comment><USER30> So many lies. Google does not "forbid" their OEM partners from using open source Android. What they forbid is that a member of the OHA cannot create a fork of Android that breaks the CTS. If you want to do so then you're free to leave the OHA and create your own version.

As for your search engine theory, well, that's also incorrect. The default search engine on Windows is bing - in fact it's baked into the OS and cannot even be turned off. The default search engine on their browser is also bing. So it would seem people are going out of their way to either download Chrome and use Google as their default search engine or modify the default search engine in Windows to use Google.

<comment><USER21> It's also worth noting that a pure, pro-bono open source project would still likely be interested in such a provision to help ward off an embrace-extend- extinguish scenario by controlling access to the trademark.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hamming codes, h■w to ov■rco■e n■ise - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8jsijhllIA <comment><USER2> Visuals are amazing, as always! I've recently learned that 3b1b has his own animation library. [https://github.com/3b1b/manim](https://github.com/3b1b/manim) I wonder if there are any manim art out there :)</comment>


Run_later woes - <AUTHOR> http://blog.luckycal.com/?p=119 <comment><USER2> For a litmus test, to help isolate the problem, you might prefer to write the test in Selenium, and do a traffic analysis to compare the pattern of flow with Curl.</comment>


The coming zombie apocalypse - <AUTHOR> http://designmind.frogdesign.com/blog/the-coming-zombie-apocalypse-small-cheap-devices-will-disrupt-our-old-school-ux-assumptions.htm?utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=UX&utm_source=twitterfeed

<comment><USER2> Nothing new here, this is just the ubiquitous computing vision boiled down. One thing he was wrong about, a dynamo is a _generator_ , _not_ an electric motor.</comment>


A little-known Soviet mission to rescue a dead space station (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/the-little-known-soviet-mission-to-rescue-a-dead-space-station/ <comment><USER2> Movie about this event:

[https://imdb.com/title/tt6537238](https://imdb.com/title/tt6537238)

<comment><USER3> Thank you, it's free to watch on Amazon Prime.

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/0H7JK1304XXVGR09FD0GX...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/0H7JK1304XXVGR09FD0GXUC54O/ref=imdbref_tt_wbr_piv?tag=imdbtag_tt_wbr_piv-20)

<comment><USER4> Thank you, I'll be watching this tonight after my SO nods off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Small thread from 2018: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17068017](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17068017)

2016: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744920](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744920)

</comment><comment><USER6> Super interesting, but I don't understand the very last comment "We too have mustaches," referring to the controllers who caused the problem. Is he defending them, saying they were experienced? Seems there's more to be said.

<comment><USER7> I understood it to be a manliness thing. 'we too can do risky things too', that kind of thing. I'm not Russian though.

<comment><USER8> It's from a soviet cartoon. There is a cat and a dog. THey live in a vilige and sometimes they fight. SO the meaning is: "You have mustaches and so do I! I'm no worse than you."

<comment><USER9> This phrase is older than cartoons, it can be found in works of Tolstoy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Excellent read! Never knew about this. Thanks for posting.

When i read stuff like this, i wonder how much knowledge has been lost due to the Western Press' quest to undermine/badmouth/putdown/hide and label everything Soviet/Chinese/Communist as "bad" simply because they follow a different form of Ideology/Govt. Propaganda is insidious and destructive.

<comment><USER11> You're right and there's quite a bit that the US public doesn't know about Soviet space programs, but I'd like to point out that this cuts both ways.

Growing up in the USSR in early 80's, well after the end of the moon landings, for some reason I thought Americans landed on the moon only once. It just wasn't talked about much, and it very much was a sore point for the Soviet space program even many years later.

Turns out US astronauts landed on the moon six times with the longest stay exceeding 3 days, and rode an electric buggy on there. I only found that out much later. NASA rubbed it in pretty good. :-)

<comment><USER12> Very much so. My uncle, a well educated and curious person had no idea Americans landed on the Moon. He learned that only around 1989 and was profoundly shocked.

There was astronomy course in Soviet high school curriculum in 1980s but no mention of the landings in the textbook. And the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia article on Apollo 11 was probably one of the tersest in the whole publication :)

<comment><USER13> Being born in the USSR, my memories are quite the opposite. Everyone new that Americans have landed on the moon.

What's more, I've never heard about 'moon landing hoax' until the end of 90s.

<comment><USER12> Yes, moon landing hoax was not a thing. Soviet govt never tried to deny it, just to downplay. And no, "everyone" didn't know that. Space and tech nerds would know that for sure, but outside that it would be spotty: many would have heard of it, some didn't. Certainly not something they'd bring up 12th of April on TV.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I am and I will always be a foreigner (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://dariuszgalasinski.com/2016/10/06/i-am-and-i-will-always-be-a-foreigner/ <comment><USER2> Do us and yourself a favor, change the font color on your site, so that it's easier to read.</comment>