French court gives prison time to both operator and users of OMGTorrent - <AUTHOR> http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/french-court-gives-prison-time-to-both-operator-and-users-of-omgtorrent/ <comment><USER2> I thought it was common knowledge that criminals are deterred more by high probability of punishment than by high severity of punishment.

"some high profile convictions" as a "deterrent for others operating file- sharing platforms" is the opposite of what the Audiovisual Anti-Piracy Alliance needs.</comment>


Card Games and Tile Games from Around the World - <AUTHOR> http://www.pagat.com/

<comment><USER2> I'a ma huge fan of boardgame and cardgame thanks for the link</comment>


Cassini Celebrates a Decade in Orbit Around Saturn - <AUTHOR> http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/06/30/cassini-10th-anniversary/ <comment><USER2> This has been an incredible mission. Ignoring all tremendously profound scientific discoveries that have been made, it would have been worth it just for the pretty pictures [1].

I hope someday we can have missions like that to Uranus and Neptune as well. That's still so far away, sadly.

[1] [http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/photos/halloffame/](http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/photos/halloffame/)

<comment><USER3> Unfortunately, even if launch prices drop dramatically over the next several years the absence of Pu-238 production in the US will sharply limit our ability to send probes to the outer planets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can't believe it's been 10 years already. I still fresh rememeber the long night on #space IRC channel counting down the Titan descent and visualising the first transmitted data ( good job, Rene Pascal! ). Seeing the alien landscape for the first time gave me shivers and made me think I already live in the future.

What is the next major event?

<comment><USER5> New Horizons will be doing a close flyby of the Pluto/Charon system next year - that should be pretty good.

<comment><USER6> Yes. I was reading ([http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2014/06/hubble- telescope-lo...](http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2014/06/hubble-telescope- look-follow-target-pluto-bound-probe)) that they got a bunch of Hubble time to look for Kuiper Belt Objects to target after they swing by Pluto. They need to know now so they can get the gravity assist correct.

Given the lack of complete knowledge about the mass distribution of Pluto- Charon system, that must be a hell of a hard problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great way to celebrate is to give this another listen: Carolyn Porco: This is Saturn [http://www.ted.com/talks/carolyn_porco_flies_us_to_saturn](http://www.ted.com/talks/carolyn_porco_flies_us_to_saturn)

I haven't heard it myself for years but still think of it often. It is one of the most inspiring things I have ever heard.

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm shocked something hasn't hit the spacecraft yet and obliterated it. It's been great to see the photographs from out there!

<comment><USER9> Space is big, and as such, things that'd hit a spacecraft hard enough to do damage are few and far between. I'm not aware of a single spacecraft in history being disabled by naturally occurring debris.

<comment><USER10> I believe Cassini also flew through a gap in the outer rings during its initial positioning, using the communications dish as a shield against residual dust. There was also a recording released that transposed the energy dispersed from the impacts into audible noise. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: Here we go. Info [1] and sound [2]

[1] [http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Cassini- Huyg...](http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Cassini- Huygens/Hear_the_passage_through_the_rings)

[2] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rrc5pxRdLc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rrc5pxRdLc)</comment></comment></comment>


How Long Does Mass Extinction Take? - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-long-mass-extinction-180949711/ <comment><USER2> I'm impressed, that's a surprisingly good pop-sci-style article. The writing is clear, correct, accessible, and a nice summary of the scientific context for the paper in question. The original PNAS article is also clearly linked.

At least with geoscience, science journalists usually manage to get things horribly wrong. Judging from previous articles, Helen Thompson (the writer) looks like she might be a biologist instead of a geologist, but she nailed the subject matter, regardless.

<comment><USER3> I agree - well written. Perhaps the only quibble is that my intuition was that it would be much shorter. 60,000 years (or even 5,000) is a long time to react.

<comment><USER4> you say react as if there's an awareness by the group of organisms that they are dying out, when that's far from the truth. Think of a species as a network, with the leaf nodes around for only a specific length of time. Add in several events that isolate portions of the network, and it dies off in spurts, as each isolated portion becomes less fit and eventually ceases reproduction.

With the decline in our birthrate, it will be interesting to see (from a historical perspective, I'll be long dead) if we die out, or if we get out of this funk we're in now.

<comment><USER3> I think the decline in birthrate helps us. If we get to under a billion, we strain the planet less. But there are plenty of other ways for us to make ourselves extinct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This reminds me of the recent episode of Radiolab that suggested the extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous might have taken only a few hours[1]. If you thought this article was pop-y, you might be in for a surprise, but I found it quite entertaining.

[1] [http://www.radiolab.org/story/dinopocalypse/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/dinopocalypse/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Its a great way of trying to get a more precise timeline. Now I wonder if we should start planting radiometric time capsules, time capsules with long half life materials, a description of what is happening, and a bit of isotope and its stats. Every 10 years you could do another one. And when the next extinction hits, should the life after that be intelligent again, they could find this set of events and date them relative to where they are now. Perhaps we could finish with "Hey we were too silly to leave the planet, don't make that mistake, its totally worth it to figure out how to survive off planet."

<comment><USER7> I've heard this "survive off planet" concept over and over, and inevitably someone points out that even after the worst conceivable environmental disasters, Earth will still be more habitable than any planet within 1000 years travel.

And I've never heard a compelling response to that, so why do people still think leaving the planet is important for our survival?

The only scenario I can think of where a radiation-soaked pocket in the Canadian mountains is less habitable than "off planet" is when the Sun starts dying. But that's not really a pressing concern.

<comment><USER8> If we had a self-sufficient colony on Mars (or wherever), that could provide a reservoir of both population and (perhaps more importantly) civilization and technology that would allow our descendants to return and re-colonize the Earth (or rebuild its infrastructure) after a major disaster.

Even though Mars is clearly less habitable than Earth in general, the point is that the humans living there would be _ready_ for it. If there were a disaster here that killed off most of our crops or something, society would collapse and have trouble recovering.

<comment><USER9> Given the relative conditions on Mars and Earth, the hypothetical disaster befalling Earth would have to be pretty horrendous for life on Mars to represent a positive alternative.

I think we should colonize Mars, not because things on Earth might become impossible, but just because it's another planet, suitable for some adventurous, hardy souls to colonize.

<comment><USER8> I'm not claiming that life on Mars would ever be _easier_ than life on Earth. But there are plenty of ways in which nasty things could happen on Earth that the population here is simply not prepared for. A major asteroid impact or supervolcano eruption could cause terrible weather for years (even if we don't go all the way to the "atmosphere is a pizza oven" point), and it would be awfully tough to keep feeding our cities. At that point, most industry collapses, and we're all interdependent enough that the ripple effects could wipe out the vast majority of the human population, or even all of it.

Having a self-sufficient population on (say) Mars would make it likely that _some_ portion of human civilization would survive such a disaster. I guess you might argue that we could achieve much of the same effect by using the same technologies to establish self-sufficient populations in safe(r) locations right here on Earth: underground or deep underwater, for example. But those would still be _more_ affected by local disasters than a colony off- planet would be, and I feel like it would be harder to recruit people to live there (and harder to guarantee that they were truly self-sufficient). As you say, Mars would attract the adventurous. The Underground Civilization Vault would just attract the astoundingly paranoid.

<comment><USER7> We already have massive redundancy on earth: Different cities. Different continents. A supervolcano would destroy at most a few continents.

<comment><USER9> > A supervolcano would destroy at most a few continents.

Just for perspective, 70,000 years ago a supervolcano eruption in Indonesia with global effects nearly wiped out the human race ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory)). On the basis of genetic diversity studies, it's estimated that all but somewhere between 3,000 to 10,000 people were killed.

We may think ourselves immune from the consequences of a similar super- eruption today, but for most people in the world, people who aren't rich and who can't create a well-stocked underground shelter, the risk is very high.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I really enjoyed this article, well written and informative.

That being said, it seemed to be posted with perfect timing; I was thinking about this walking to work today. What if all of these mass extinctions (hypothetically or other wise) were caused by some species on the planet similar to us. Granted there is NO EVIDENCE for this, but what if... It seems that all mass extinction events happen in similar ways, each time some parts of an ecosystem are disturbed and it collapses.

Then, the most highly adaptable (fungi, bacterium, viruses are the most due to their short lifespan) survive. It's interesting to note that it took 30,000 - 50,000 years for the humans to develop this extremely complex society and ecosystem. Perhaps so short that when if we were destroyed this very day nothing would remain, say from nuclear war. All of our buildings would decay and there would be very little remnant in the fossil record.

I am not claiming any of this to be true, nor do I even believe any of it to be true. It was just an interesting thought I had that horrified me, and I felt I would share it.

<comment><USER11> I doubt there wouldn't be evidence. A steel building frame probably preserves better than bone. A global population of tool making beings should at least leave some fossil evidence even if their timeline was only 30-50k years. Lastly, the distribution of natural resources might leave some evidence (like not finding ore where you would expect it).

<comment><USER12> Have you seen a steel bridge lately? They require constant maintenance to prevent them from rusting away. Even stainless steel will rust eventually. The only thing that lasts more than centuries is stone, and only the really hard stones will last for thousands of years.

The other problem is location. Humans like to build on coastlines, and coastlines shift. We have very little evidence of ice-age era settlements today, but the few sites we do know of show that there were some pretty sophisticated societies around at the time. It's very likely that there are/were more sites, but today they're under a few hundred feet of water off our coasts.

As far as natural resources: apparently there are extensive empty holes in the ground around the great lakes that used to be full of copper ore, based on what's left in the walls. So much copper ore that the mining must have gone on for centuries, or involved tens of thousands of people. No one knows who did that, but a likely possibility is the Phoenicians during the Bronze Age. So that's one example of the type of evidence you're talking about, albeit for a more recent period. To go back much further, we'd have to know what kind of resources they were after and where, and hope that the landscape hasn't changed so much that we can't recognize the evidence of resource mining.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> John Baez's excellent Azimuth project has a really good summary of current scientific understanding of mass extinction events: [http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Extinction](http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Extinction).

</comment><comment><USER14> Previous mass extinction took 60000 years so even if another mass extinction event is happening now we won't even notice it.

<comment><USER15> Because a_k = x implies a_{k+1} = x for all k.

<comment><USER14> how did you know?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Between 12,000 and 108,000 years

</comment><comment><USER17> Mankind has most likely already passed an extinction level event with the creation of solid-state circuits.

So I guess we'll be finding out shortly (i.e., the next 100-1000 years)

<comment><USER18> I don't follow. Care to expand?

<comment><USER19> I think what he's trying to say is "we're all gonna die!!!!"

<comment><USER20> But how would that follow from solid state circuits?

<comment><USER21> In one word: Skynet</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Marsh Chapel Experiment - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Chapel_Experiment <comment><USER2> Yikes, that's not a good wikipedia article. It doesn't address the adverse events experienced by participants, and it is written in heavily biased language.

Leary was probably a net force for good, but his drive to evangelize psychedelics apparently prevented him from doing good science.

<comment><USER3> Can you be more specific? What adverse effects?

<comment><USER2> Having a panic attack and being tranquilized

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> would be more interesting if if this was paired with a study of people expecting to have some profound experience vs not.

" a considerable doubt on the assertion that mystical experiences catalyzed by drugs are in any way inferior to non-drug mystical experiences in both their immediate content and long-term effects "

is as much a statement of scientific 'fact' as it is a theological position -

how does one define a 'mystical experience'?

how does one 'grade' these nebulous 'mystical experiences'?

in terms of quality? severity of experience? ethical content? uniqueness? whether one hallucinated what they thought might be a divine presence or not?

These are all questions which ultimately stem from philosophical/theological beliefs. Of course if ones philosophical/spiritual belief is vague and relativistic, then anything goes, and these can all be conveniently 'meaningful' in some conveniently abstract and conveniently qualification-free sense.

The 'intellectuals choosing to consume spiritual experiences through specific quantities of purchased chemicals' shtick can just as easily be seen as an exercise in the narcissistic self-validation of ones own preconceived notions as a 'meaningful spiritual occurrence', if one chose to be so cynical - it all comes down to the theological context.

YMMV

<comment><USER5> > how does one define a 'mystical experience'?

This seems to be the current approach used:

Factor Analysis of the Mystical Experience Questionnaire: A Study of Experiences Occasioned by the Hallucinogen Psilocybin

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539773/#](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539773/#)

...using these survey questions:

APPENDIX - REVISED MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE (MEQ; 30 ITEMS)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539773/bin/NIH...](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539773/bin/NIHMS409614-supplement- Supp_Appendix_S1.docx)

This survey seems to be a variation of the above:

[https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jfkihlstrom/ConsciousnessWeb/P...](https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jfkihlstrom/ConsciousnessWeb/Psychedelics/States- of-Consciousness-Questionnaire-and-Pahnke.pdf)

Some research into bad trips:

The Challenging Experience Questionnaire: Characterization of challenging experiences with psilocybin mushrooms

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549781/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5549781/)

There's a surprisingly large body of proper scientific knowledge out there, despite the long-standing ban on conducting research. And depending on how open-minded one is, there is also a massive amount of anecdotal experiences from individuals, although these all suffer from not following a standard survey, among the other obvious problems one can easily imagine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Makes sense.... the ability to deceive yourself into believing something would only be enhanced by ingesting a drug that alters your perceptions of reality and changes how your brain functions chemically.

Empathy and creative thinking tend to get enhanced by psilocybin, not critical thinking and logic skills :)

<comment><USER7> Why the smiling emoticon? What exactly do you mean? Could you elaborate?

<comment><USER8> con·de·scen·sion noun

an attitude of patronizing superiority; disdain.</comment></comment></comment>


Top 5 Podcasts to expand your mind - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@yonishechter/top-5-podcasts-to-expand-your-mind-dea1f7cfdc30#.jf9ahcvmh <comment><USER2> BBC Radio 4 In Our Time:

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/episodes/downloads](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/episodes/downloads)

Although the OP might have had a different idea about mind expansion...</comment>


Some thoughts on mobile - <AUTHOR> http://cdixon.org/2013/06/01/some-thoughts-on-mobile/ <comment><USER2> I agree that tablets lend themselves to more graceful interaction in _some scenarios_ , and that the cognitive delight of the interface is itself a feature that may spark new kinds of uses.

However, I have to place bets that the future of touch is going to be 99% consumption. And the production that's done on it will be "production-lite". Can anyone who currently produces multimedia at a professional level -- e.g. video, photos, music -- imagine that a sophisticated touch interface will replace their keystrokes and mouse?

In other words: is it possible for touch-gestures to replicate even just a handful of the keyboard commands (nevermind the keyboard + mouse combos) that we take for granted? And if so, would this new set of physical interactions be more intuitive to learn than Ctrl-A, Ctrl-Z, Ctrl-C, Alt-Tab, etc. etc.?

I don't think so. Sure, "Alt-Tab" and "Alt-tilde" don't map to natural human experience the same way that swiping four-fingers (or is it 3?)...but maybe that's the point. The function provided by Alt-Tab is very computer- dependent...multi-tasking between running programs. If "Alt-Tab" seems too non-natural of a "gesture", it's because it's handling a non-natural concept.

Already, we can see the problem with how Apple has tried to map iOS features to multifinger swipe. Does anyone else have problems remembering what 3 fingers in one direction does versus four fingers horizontally? And that's not even getting to the imprecision of detection, which I'll concede is something that will improve vastly in the near future.

But it's been about 6 years since Apple made the touch interface ubiquitous. And it's still cuss-word-excruciating to do something as simple as highlight a select few words out of a line (especially if they're in a overflow input field), copy and then paste them.

And 5 years later, Apple still hasn't come up with a better way to "Undo" something than by shaking your device. I wonder how many production professionals here could retain their sanity with Cmd-Z?

<comment><USER3> > And it's still cuss-word-excruciating to do something as simple as highlight > a select few words out of a line (especially if they're in a overflow input > field), copy and then paste them.

vs.

> "I think there are lots of kinds of content that can be created on the iPad. > When I am going to write that 35-page analyst report, I am going to want my > Bluetooth keyboard. That's 1 percent of the time. " Quoted from OP/Steve's.

Aren't the functionality that you mention like highlighting, selecting, pasting text come within that 1% '35 page analyst report' frame that Steve indicated?

IMHO, content created via iPad shouldn't be seen through lens of existing content, i.e text (HTML coded characters), images and plugins around it. Keyboard and desktops are good for that type of content. But with the iPad and tablets there could come by another form of content which rides on touches and gestures?

<comment><USER4> > _Aren't the functionality you mention like highlighting, selecting, pasting > text come within that 1% '35 page analyst report' frame Steve indicated?_

I can't speak for everyone's use case, but cutting and pasting text is certainly not something I only do at work or in 1% of situations. Sure, there are ways to circumvent it by building in functionality directly, but it's a consistent and jarring reminder of a touch screen's current limitations.

<comment><USER3> Yes, cut-paste is certainly a very fundamental functionality given the existing landscape of computers, existing content and the way people have expressed using the medium so far.

I find typing on iPad's virtual keyboard clunky enough that I generally doodle my messages to my friends/wife when on the iPad. Good thing is that I am able to write in Hindi, my mother tongue, by doodling!

Cut-paste experience on the iPad is horrible. It's not just clunky rather an impossible feat for my fingers given the text being in a small area that I want select and paste elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> People who want touch to not replace traditional keyboards are the same people who still like terminals. I like terminals, but I also see two year olds able to pick up touch interfaces while I see adults struggle with a mouse and keyboard.

That's a huge shift.

<comment><USER6> The difference being that the number of things you can do with a GUI as opposed to a CLI is much greater than the number of new things a touchscreen enables.

The author mentions that new programs like powerpoint were invented when the GUI was created, and thus concludes there will be a similar shift in the tablet space.

That conclusion doesn't actually make any sense. A GUI allows you to see the graphics you're designing. A touchscreen does not provide you with any new set of information, merely a new way to manipulate that information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't see any reason to believe that a switch to "Android first" is imminent for most developers, particularly those in the U.S.

Not only are iOS users much better sources of revenue, but the iPhone continues to be the best-selling phone in the U.S. _plus_ the iPad is growing 3x as fast as the iPhone did _plus_ the iPod touch has sold 100 million units. It's not a small market.

On top of that is the diversity issue. Android may have greater total marketshare, but to access that full marketshare, developers must target and test a huge variety of hardware specs and OS versions.

<comment><USER8> It isn't about iPhone and iPad as end-user products. And with device costs being fairly low, I don't think BYOD is going to have a lasting influence.

The reason Android has an advantage in enterprise IT projects is that you have the full range of options, from an app-store download to heavily customizing an off-the-shelf Android product to building a fully custom software load. That's more flexibility in configuration and deployment than you have with Windows. You can turn Android into a mobile "dashboard" for every role in the enterprise.

Compelling enterprise software will go deep into the environment, be sensory, be partly wearable, and be heavily customized, down to the hardware. I have clients who are making operating systems based on Android for their products. I expect that kind of embedding, plus lots of micro-controller-based sensors and acutators, will appear in industrial and office equipment, that tablet and handset devices will interact with. That's where Android, for now anyway, has a leg up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think there is a strong future in touch - and I think it'll enable a lot of the things the mouse should have (and did, sort of). I think (hope) we'll see real styluses become an integrated part of the touch experience, probably with a couple of buttons (and possibly the use of both "ends" - eg: one for draw, one for erase).

(This is just as we don't finger paint as much as we use brushes, pens, crayons and pencils). Maybe just "finger tip"-like styluses.

I also thing basic multi-touch will go further, with more "snap-to", select- and/or-do-what-I-mean-like behaviour will become the norm (eg: double-tap > select sentence).

I hope we'll see some development in the line of smalltalk and similar meaningful GUI environments.

When I first saw the intro to the ACME-editor[1] for plan 9, I thought: Wow, that might get me off vim -- when I get around to buying a stylus -- there's no way I can work like that with a mouse - my RSI is far to troublesome for that. But for something like a high-precision windows 8/GNU/Linux tablet -- why not?

[1] <http://research.swtch.com/acme>

</comment><comment><USER8> The article is right about a lack of vision regarding what kind of software you can run on mobile devices. Android is a subtle and expressive OS. It has yet to see the best software written for it.

Enterprise software for mobile devices is not going to be distributed through a retail app store. So the app store model really has little influence on the development of enterprise software for tablets.

Enterprise IT, and software vendors, will soon start targeting big-budget development projects at tablets. But that's only part of a big change that's coming. The whole idea of being tethered to a cubicle so you have a work surface on which to put a computer is going to go away. Tablet software is going to be a key element in making that workplace change work. But it will start slowing and experimentally.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting post!

Tablets are definitely a new and a separate category. FWIW, there must have been reasons why Steve dismissed smaller tablets (or phablets) earlier... and that seems to be the new type of content that could come by with larger surfaces.

Handwriting and doodles?

iPad introduces doodles and handwriting very nicely with its immersive experience and ample space to express that way. Mind you it is not about HW recognition, but only real handwriting. Such content wasn't possible or easy enough on pre-PC devices like desktops or even smartphones.

Well, that's what we hustlers at Bubbles (<https://bubbleideas.com>) think and are betting on - we're trying to reinvent mails with doodles and handwriting. Also another pointer to share here is that lately note-taking and note-sharing has already moved doodles, so what would be next? :-)

[Edits: Additions/subtractions etc.]</comment>


Help me HN: I've become obsessed with buying 8 bit computers - <AUTHOR> When I was a kid in the late 1970s we could not afford a home computer. I spent all my time dreaming about them and reading computer mags.
Now in my 40's I can't stop buying the damn things even though I can't really afford to. I'm still seeking that ultimate high of finding a classic machine with all the optional extras in mint condition.
I dream of getting the time to sit down for a few months and program them in assembler and he the programmer I always wanted to be when I was a kid.
Argh! I seem to be obsessed with the past but in a strange way I find these old 8 bit machines just as interesting as the latest in software development technology.
So many machines. My house is filling with boxes. They arrive and I don't even open them to have a look... I just accumulate and want more. <comment><USER4> Find a low-income school in your area. Dedicate yourself to becoming the school's free computer science department. Get yourself background checked, etc., and get all the paperwork in place to that it's legit. Pitch your ideas to principals who understand the importance of computer science education.

When people ask why use these old computers, explain how their simplicity makes them an ideal fit in an education setting.

Use your acquisitions to teach the kids the things you wish you were taught when your were their age. Donate your time and your equipment to the cause.

This feeds two (or more) birds with one loaf. Focussing your attention outward may help to stem the acquisition urge. The kids get an education in something that will change their lives. And you get a lot of those computers out of your house.

</comment><comment><USER5> Perhaps separate the nostalgic element from the desired experience of learning to program a simple computer and participate in its development culture.

You could get into the contemporary 8bit scene, which has an advanced homebrew side and a kid-friendly scholastic one:

[http://mega65.org/](http://mega65.org/)

[https://hackaday.io/list/2402-homebrew- computers](https://hackaday.io/list/2402-homebrew-computers)

[http://playpower.org/](http://playpower.org/)

Or even Pico-8:

[http://www.lexaloffle.com/pico-8.php](http://www.lexaloffle.com/pico-8.php)

If nothing else, it might help you figure out what your obsession is really attached to...

</comment><comment><USER6> We guitarists/musicians call it GAS - Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

It helps me to write down how much time and money I spend on research and acquisition. I also periodically try to go through the stuff that I absolutely, undeniably _had_ to have and then ended up catching dust in a drawer.

<comment><USER7> Back when I experienced this, we called it "Gear Lust." I made a rule that I had to do a significant project or performance with each piece of music gear I bought before I would let myself buy any other gear. That worked and was also a lot of fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've got about 11-12 8-bit machines in the loft. My rule is keep the best condition machine of each model and sell anything else.

I suspect the overall task of dealing with them all is just too much. So, what about picking one model type and getting all of those out? Then see what you have working and keep the best 1/2 working models. (just research how well the PSUs survive not being turned on for many years before you switch them on, e.g. [http://www.retro-kit.co.uk/page.cfm/content/BBC-Micro- PSU-X2...](http://www.retro-kit.co.uk/page.cfm/content/BBC-Micro- PSU-X2-capacitors/))

Then sell the rest aside from the best. Next, pick another model and repeat. If you divide the task down into manageable sections, that should make it easier to get started. And write a blog somewhere, I want to see what you have :).

</comment><comment><USER9> Photographers have a similar urge called LBA (lens buying addiction)/ gear acquisition syndrome.

There's many articles online that discuss LBA and how to avoid it. Perhaps those would be of help to you.

</comment><comment><USER10> Sell them to me for my museum (well over a 1000 60-80s (with some late 80s - begin 90s ones which I had to have like SGI/Sun) computers) and come here on vacation to play with them :) (including programming, hardware fixing, hardware extending).

<comment><USER11> You got an Interact? I can sell you one of those with lots of extras.

<comment><USER10> I do not; that looks really good... Can you mail me ; see my profile? I cannot find your email / contact otherwise I would.

<comment><USER11> I was only half joking. I do have the machine and about 20-30 tapes including Microsoft Basic, most of the old Interaction newsletters, and some misc. Oh, and my machine has an extra ROM that was created by a W. Hendrickson IIRC. I've been thinking of finding a good home for it for quite some time. You can use my HN ID at gmail to take this offline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is HN, not a psychologist forum. I mean most people won't be able to help you as they are not experts on addictions.

They will tell you: "just sell them", but the problem is that you will have an emotional attachment that will make it nearly impossible. I for one sold my Spectum Z80, Atari, and Apple computers without thinking about it and they were part of my life because I care little about things, I care about animals or people.

I will ask those who know: psychologists, specifically someone specialized in breaking habits. If you don't have money you can read self help books or videos audiobooks on libraries, or even pirate them, everything is online, you only need to know what are you looking for.

The other alternative is putting your computers to great use. Create a channel on Internet about old computers history. Donate it to a Museum so other people can watch it and volunteer to explain the history of those computers to audience while they can interact with the machines.

The fact that those machines are useful to other people instead of collecting dust will be a great way of getting rid of...ehem, improving your life.

</comment><comment><USER13> Such machines back in time were much harder to acquire, especially as a kid. Today as an adult you are free to get as many as you want. It is not necessarily bad, unless it is harming you somehow, which seems to be the case.

I have books I haven't had the time to fully read but somehow I still getting more, and I sure that am not alone in this.

This TED talk about addiction from Gabor Mate is very interesting: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66cYcSak6nE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66cYcSak6nE) .

Now, I would ask:

What are you getting from your addiction? does it make you feel a sense of happiness, control, success, of comfort (e.g: revisiting your childhood in the 70s)?

I would ask you to not try to satisfy your emotional needs through consumerism but rather through another activity. There are communities about retro- computing, e.g: [https://www.reddit.com/r/retrocomputing](https://www.reddit.com/r/retrocomputing) . You can have conversations with them to know better the machines you already have rather than buying more.

</comment><comment><USER14> Well, make a rule. If you buy it you have to open it and do something with it. That might slow you down.

<comment><USER15> My wife came up with a similar rule for my car hobby: you can buy another if you sell one first. Makes you focus on what you really want, rather than just a good deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm 45 and have a similar addiction. I decided to limit myself to just one system; a C64 decked out with old and modern accessories. I do have C64-SX and Apple II, but that was before I limited myself.

Hell, I passed up (on Craigslist) a PET with dual floppies. Also an eBay within driving distance an Imsai 8080 with dual 8" floppies and Heath H19 terminal, loaded with S100 cards.

It's really more about the room than the money. Most of these things are cheap, but I don't want to turn into a hoarder. I did that years ago (pre marriage) with old UNIX workstations; Sun, HP, SGI. I got rid of them all.

Also helps to know that there are millions of some of these systems out there. How many C64 were made, 20 million? It's not like I have something rare and unique; most would consider it junk.

Also, CRT cost $20 each to recycle now. It's easy for this to become a money pit. My father in law had 10 old monitors in his basement he got for "free". Well it wasn't free to get rid of them.

</comment><comment><USER17> If you can find the root cause of this unwanted compulsive behaviour and address it then you won't need to burn through finite supplies of willpower keeping it at bay.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, either to you or to the HN crowd, but you should probably try talking to a professional as self-diagnosis can be somewhat dangerous.

<comment><USER18> +1 Addressing the root cause of the obsession is the healthy solution. This sounds more of a psychological issue rather than technical. But know it can be addressed, and I also encourage you to seek professional assistance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Introduce a struck rule: If you don't touch it for a year throw it out. And do the same thing with all your stuff. Freedom man

<comment> proto-n Except for the fire extinguisher, of course.

<comment><USER20> Well, most fire extinguishers need to be checked every two years. So perhaps you extend the period to two years for those.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If this message is helpful, it is only by way of empathy. I have some amazingly hotrodded Commodores and Apple IIs myself, although you really should consider opening those boxes and playing with the goods. I enjoy discovering games I'd never played, and spending my should-be-work days writing 6502 or 65816 assembly. In fact, I'm pretty sure that if I ever get the chance to retire, the 8/16 bit world is going to see some awesome new warez from me...

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm with you, brother. I have a veritable fleet of old 8-bit machines - <USER2> the systems I coveted, but could never afford as a teenager.

Except now I can afford it. :)

My advice to you: find a local hackerspace and get involved in some creative archaic computing workshops. Its the only way to convince yourself that there is absolutely nothing wrong with collecting old machines and keeping them running.

For my part, I'm a huge Oric-1/Atmos/Telestrat fan, and have perfect mint- condition working examples of them, along-side the C64, ZX Spectrum, and Amstrad machines. There is _nothing_ quite so satisfying as running some brand new - as in, written in the 21st century - software on the old Oric machines .. truly a delightful way to spend a few hours, not just reminiscing - <USER3> rejoicing in the delights of newly-coded software for these old, humble machines. (Visit [http://oric.org](http://oric.org) and [http://www.defence- force.org/](http://www.defence-force.org/) if you wanna see what I mean..)

Remember this: old computers never die - their users do!

</comment><comment><USER23> You have inventory. Now is the time to start selling them. See it as an opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER24> It's better to have a great collection of one brand / type than to have a lot of scattered stuff. Remember: anything you need to maintain is a burden. Cars, houses, pinball machines, old computers.

</comment><comment><USER25> I would suggest finding a project that will allow you to focus upon a particular computer or (limited number of computers), then focus upon discussing those projects with others. There are plenty of online forums for vintage computers, while many excellent books on programming those computers are now freely available. Since you mentioned wanting to learn assembly language programming on those systems, that may help you tackle your acquisitions problem while helping to fulfill a dream.

</comment><comment><USER26> Is something like the MIST FPGA ([http://harbaum.org/till/mist/index.shtml](http://harbaum.org/till/mist/index.shtml)) not an option?

While not the "real deal" it may be good enough and it can emulate a wide range of 8-bit machines. I was thinking about buying a unit to emulate my very first computer (a MSX) and the machine that I also wanted as a kid (Amiga) :-)

</comment><comment><USER27> Make a YouTube channel about these computers if it's enough unique and enjoyable you could pay for this hobby. I'm mean many people has some expensive hobbies be it gaming, buying many types of Manga and anime, buying merchandise and comics. If you don't like that you spend so much on these computers then find a way to force yourself to stop. Be it self help book or something else.

</comment><comment><USER28> Actually using them for something might get your mind off buying more. You probably spend a great deal of time looking for computers to buy. Use that time to learn the ins and outs of one of the machines that you already own instead.

I have a lot of old machines, but lately I have a hard time justifying a buy without a concrete social or creative purpose.

</comment><comment><USER29> Did you get a BBC micro ?

Nowadays it has an SD Card reader attachment. I got mine full of ROMs.

It is also possible to make PROMS for it.

I have a BBC FORTH rom in mine. I use it as a test machine because of the fantastic I/O : A/D, D/A, 8 bit parallel bus, serial all with a monitor.

If your 8bit machine has serial you can use it as a Unix TTY and connect it to the Internet : read your email on a C64!

<comment><USER30> you are not helping :D

<comment><USER31> Eh, it's at least a few ideas for moving from "buying more" to "do things with those he already has", which _might_ be part of the problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I have something like twelve BBC Micros and Masters. Getting a bit silly - it's like classic cars, they'll (mostly) sit in my spare room until I'm retired and have time to do something interesting with them all. I have one hooked up constantly to play games on though.

</comment><comment><USER33> I would suggest joining a museum instead of opening one. You can help find, set up and/or maintain the hardware along with a team of like-minded people. You'll have a much larger collection to play with, and someone else makes the purchasing decisions!

</comment><comment><USER34> Here's a thing, how about getting into making biological computers, artificial wetware. Thre are researchers doing this with some degree of success. I' pretty sure you could research the state of the art online and to try to grow your own Manic Miner...

</comment><comment><USER35> I have the same problem except mine is typewriters. I love the things. The engineering, the clack of the keys, the coolness factor of sending typewritten letters to people who frame them like lost relics from an old library.

</comment><comment><USER36> Open private museum of computer hardware! Keep buying!

Idea: [http://www.computerspielemuseum.de/1210_Home.htm](http://www.computerspielemuseum.de/1210_Home.htm)

</comment><comment><USER37> Use emulators. Much easier and fun because you don' have to deal with real hardware

(Get and MSX 2+ or a TurboR (16-bit) - as an emulator - btw)

<comment><USER36> More fun because don't have to deal with hardware? soo... where is the fun?

<comment><USER37> Oxidation, faulty connections, composite video input, flaky FDDs, I don't miss that in the least

At least get a driver emulator hw that reads from SD/CF or maybe USB drives ;)

<comment><USER38> > that reads from SD/CF

Great way not to miss that oxidation and faulty connections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Also: If you're interested in selling, let's talk!

</comment><comment><USER39> Send me some? :-)</comment>


The Calculus of Grit - <AUTHOR> https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/08/19/the-calculus-of-grit/ <comment><AUTHOR> I really liked the idea that when we go from disciplinary to multi/interdisciplinary to non disciplinary, we need to let go of traditional methods of measuring "depth vs breadth". The concepts of rework, reference, and release make a lot of sense to me for writing, software, and art. Do they make sense in other contexts as well?</comment>


Automattic hires employees without meeting them or talking to them on the phone - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/automattic-hires-employees-automatically-2016-1 <comment><USER2> 251 resumes in 18 months? I wonder if that'll change with publicity like this.</comment>