Google Home (in)Security - <AUTHOR> https://jerrygamblin.com/2018/10/29/google-home-insecurity/ <comment><USER2> So what's the concern here; that when someone gets unfettered access to your local network they can reboot your Google Home? Ya know what else they can do? Play Rick Astley on your Sonos speakers while printing 1000 pages of porn from every printer, casting Rick Astley music videos to every TV, getting Comcast to forward you piracy warnings and deleting all your Redis tables and Elastic Search indexes.

<comment><USER3> In my mind it's a pretty gross violation of the principal of least privilege[1]. All it takes is one bad IoT device on your local LAN to exfiltrate/pivot over to the Hub. Some of the data that's dumped is things like "noise levels" which borders on sensitive PII information. Not to mention any vulnerabilities in these services that aren't understood yet.

For all those reasons and more the IoT stuff on my local network goes into a VLAN that only gets to see the gateway and nothing else. No local UDP, TCP or the like, the Ubiquiti gear I picked up a while back makes it pretty trivial to setup.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege)

<comment><USER4> We need an internet of firewalls. I dislike tech legislation, but sometimes I think all networked devices should be required to have an internal firewall.

<comment><USER5> Many of these devices have to listen for something. Mdns, http, printer, etc. Having a firewall does nothing when you have to open up the ports that are being exploited anyway.

<comment><USER6> Well, they don't need to listen to everyone that knocks. I'm sure we would be delighted when devices would only talk to clients with valid certificates from the vendor, right?

Edit: disclaimer: I work for Google, but my only contact with the home ecosystem is having a Chromecast.

<comment><USER7> Would we? The next thing that would happen is those certificates would end up inside secure chips, and suddenly the only way to talk to an IoT device would be through an official vendor's app, over an official vendor's bridge. No thank you. Turning physical products into services is not what I want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This doesn't seem like a mistake, so much as a decision to assume the LAN is secure. It's a trade off that favors features over security. Which does seem rather "un-Googly" though...

If it's unauthenticated, apps/devices/services can easily integrate with it.

If it is authenticated, how? Pre-shared API key? How do you initially generate and distribute that API key? How do you access it? Now you need to encrypt that key when you use it. TLS? Great, now you need a TLS certificate that has to be trusted, updated, etc.

All solvable problems for sure, but at the cost of complexity, ease of integration, etc.

<comment><USER9> How is this difficult?

"This is the first time you are using this phone to modify the settings of your google appliance. Please locate your google device, and press <some button>, or tap the microphone firmly, to confirm your intent to trust this phone."

<comment><USER8> It's not super difficult, particularly when the other end is a Google-provided app on a smartphone. It gets more complicated with things like Home Assistant[0] or other automation software.

Amazon made the decision to force all Echo integrations to go through the internet.

[0] [https://www.home-assistant.io/](https://www.home-assistant.io/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Google Chromecast, and Home are actually pretty horrible when it comes to security.

For example, if you lose internet connection, they will start broadcasting SSID. At this point, there's nothing in place to prevent someone launching Google Home app and hijack those devices.

Even Chromecast and Hub displays codes, they are only to identify the device. Instead of the Google Home app asking you "what are the letters shown on your device?" it just tell you "Press OK if your device is showing ABCD" \-- that's very dumb implementation.

I don't know why they simply couldn't stand by to wait for the network connection to recover or require being present next to your device to press a reset button if their Network connection really needs to be updated -- or at _least_ used simple authentication process to provision the device

<comment><USER11> > and hijack those devices.

And do what then? Serious question, I'm not a heavy user of Google Home/Chromecast, but my impression is that even if you hijack a device this way, the worst you can do is start streaming netflix or spotify, but with your own account to boot (not the account owner of the device you hijacked).

<comment><USER12> > And do what then?

For Assistant devices (Home, etc.) You can record (and get transcripts of) any requests made sent a Google Account you control, which can capture personal information.

For Cast targets, you can stream content to them (audio and possibly video, depending on the device.)

> the worst you can do is start streaming netflix or spotify

Netflix or Spotify is probably not the worst unwanted content you could stream into someone else's home unrequested.

<comment><USER13> > _For Cast targets, you can stream content to them (audio and possibly video, > depending on the device.)_

But if you're already on the wifi network, you can already stream content to them by design. Same with the apple tv and fire tv stick.

<comment><USER12> > But if you're already on the wifi network

The proposed attack is a way to take control of Home (and attach it to a new Google Account and network) when it loses wifi connection, it neither relies on nor provides the attacker access to the rightful owner's wifi network.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Evokes a great quote: "The S in IoT stands for 'security'."

</comment><comment><USER15> I am 0 percent on board with home assistants and other IoT devices at this point. You either 1) buy an expensive surveillance device from a tech giant with an awful user privacy track record, giving them free access to your network and conversations (and even installing a spy camera in your home for some upcoming products, thanks but no thanks Facebook!), or 2) buy a shitty closed-source botnet-in-a-box that was either made by a home appliance company that has zero experience making secure software or from a startup that has zero experience in making either home appliances or secure software.

</comment><comment><USER16> These commands don't work on my Google Home Mini device despite it having the same open ports as the one in the article. I get a `HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden` response when trying to reboot it with this method.

<comment><USER17> Patched already perhaps?

<comment><USER18> I suspect these ports are only supposed to be open during the initial configuration phase. Maybe the author didn't actually finish setting up the device or maybe Google forgot to disable the configuration ports after setup.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If a bad actor get access to my LAN, rebooting my Google Home device is the least of my concerns.

> "I am genuinely shocked by how poor the overall security of these devices > are"

If there's a remote access exploit in the wild, then I'm going to be worried.

<comment><USER19> This looks like you could potentially hit from the browser with a DNS rebinding attack, just by visiting a website. (Although I'm not sure how far modern browsers defend against those by themselves)

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think they do protect themselves [https://twitter.com/bcrypt/status/955621661126008832](https://twitter.com/bcrypt/status/955621661126008832)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm in the "never permit these devil devices in my home" camp. A common rebuttal is "your phone is always listening, how is an Echo / Google Home / etc different?"

Well this answers that question: security! If my phone could be remotely rebooted by someone on the same Wifi network, it would be considered an enormous vulnerability. But in this thread we see lots of apologetics: "Well, the LAN is assumed secure..."

This reaffirms my decision. Offline-only, or no thanks!

<comment><USER21> The Chromecast model is intentionally designed so that anyone on your local network can play anything they want on your Chromecast, including full blast volume porn. Considering that, how is being able to reboot your Chromecast any worse?

The comparison to your phone doesn't hold. For one, your phone connects to all sorts of networks, whereas these devices are on local home network only. Second, Chromecasts are inherently shared and communal devices, whereas phones are personal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Of course this requires being authenticated to whatever network the Home device is connected to.

</comment><comment><USER23> ~Doesn't seem to work on my Google Home Speaker (non-hub) as of 8:40PM EST. Tried the nmap restart payload. `nmap --open -p 8008 192.168.1.0/24 | awk '/is up/ {print up}; {gsub (/\\(|\\)/,""); up = $NF}' | xargs -I % curl -Lv -H Content-Type:application/json --data-raw '{"params":"now"}' [http://%:8008/setup/reboot`~](http://%:8008/setup/reboot`~)

Works after I changed to the right ip range.

<comment><USER24> I tried it today with my speaker and it worked.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, my bad, my networks not 192.168.1.x

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I think only 2-3 endpoints should be protected. The others are there for information and they do provide some leakage but you already have most of that data anyway when you auth over the WiFi.

</comment><comment><USER9> Why doesn't everything like that (affecting operation of the google appliance) require a preshared secret that's negotiated once per remote device via:

\- pressing a button or some other physical presence confirmation on the google device when a remote network device tries to gain credentials (Best!)

\- NFC (good because of range limitations, but annoying because of range limitations)

\- some kind of audio handshake (hackable from longer distances maybe extending beyond property boundaries, but so is bluetooth, and maybe with multiple mics a device could detect a higher-powered long-range hack attempt and filter it?) This might be the best option other than a physical button- press. If the confirmation signal is to hit the mic gently, can you even mimic that remotely through glass or a wall without doing something that would possibly deafen any bystanders? Seems a _reasonable_ good compromise between ease of use and range limitation.

\- bluetooth, especially if power can be programmatically decreased to limit range to short-distance line-of-sight (obviously the normal bt range is a problem, but it's better than nothing)

This is a solved problem, is it not? You only have to do that once, per remote device that needs to use the API. What's the problem with requiring a physical button press to trust a new device that's attempting to do something?

<comment><USER26> All those would have limitations due to inter-vendor incompatibility. I think we need someone to develop a home IOT security standard protocol for how to handle this.

<comment><USER9> The app is specifically aware of the IOT device's API in order to use it at all. Why wouldn't it be aware of the IOT device's method for presence + intention verification?

I left out another option for adding additional authorizations (beyond the initial setup), which should work for "important" IOT devices, like google home or amazon echo, that are already associated with an account someone is using and monitoring:

\- Send a confirmation prompt to the primary Google/Amazon account holder: "Do the "do you authorize <device>/<app> to access the API on your Google/Amazon X device?"

Standardization would be great, but implementing one or two more API calls to deal with first-use verification of a remote app doesn't seem like a big deal when the app is going to be doing lots of other stuff with that specific device's API.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > I usually would have worked directly with Google to report these issues if > they had not previously disclosed, but due to the sheer amount of prior work > online and committed code in their own codebase, it is obvious they know.

Can anyone explain this? Is he saying others have already reported this and Google don't care?

</comment><comment><USER28> You might be interested in this keynote by James Mickens:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k)

titled "Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Security Is Possible?".

</comment><comment><USER29> What does it take to show that this is totally unacceptable? An overlay for Google maps which shows who's not at home and has lots of valuable stuff, along with an app to disable the alarm?

<comment><USER7> Did the Strava map debacle hurt the company? Doesn't look like it. So I doubt a similar map for Google would work either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Hopefully it also has the CORS headers for cross-origin access. ;)

</comment><comment><USER31> would this pass muster under the new california iot security law?

i think so, and the author should be ashamed.

</comment><comment><USER32> but where is the security issue? just reboot?

<comment><USER33> Availability is an important part of security, as much as Confidentiality and Integrity. Being able to reboot the device unauthenticated from the local network is a security issue, yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Wish I was clever enough to figure this stuff out.

<comment><USER35> Start by running a packet capture on your home network - [https://www.wireshark.org/](https://www.wireshark.org/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> It worries me that Google - a _Trillion_ dollar company - can make these security mistakes so easily exploitable.

My faith in these _smart_ IoT devices is completely diminished...

<comment><USER37> IoT -- where the S stands for Security!

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> In my very personal opinion, anyone who willingly decorates their home with networked IoT devices, especially those talking to a external service, has already lost. With the increasing number of gizmos it's more or less inevitable that one of them (or rather all of them) ships with a gross, easy to exploit (an definitely wormable, because you know it'll be) oversight compromising your network because you're one of a million people getting owned by a bored skid. You want less timeboms in your home, not more. It's silly. Scale back, stop trying to mitigate around it and just don't buy this crap. You wouldn't keep a hand grenade with a toothpick for a safety pin on your desk because it'll be fine as long as everyone is really careful with it. But like I said, that's just the very angry voice in my head shouting into the void.

<comment><USER39> Isolation is key if you use any device like this. Separate VLAN for them means stuff like this won't even work and even if they get hacked, they'll have no special access into your network.</comment></comment>


Good blog discussing algorithms and data structures - <AUTHOR> http://www.ihas1337code.com/

<comment><USER2> One thing that strikes me as odd is that this blog is completely focused on sharing "technical interview questions and tips." I just skimmed a few of the posts and there seems to be little to no mention of a practical application of the algorithms, only "asked in interview at X, Y and Z."

When interviewing candidates for PHP web development position, I used to ask simple questions about simple data structures. They were adapted from an assigment about stacks and linked lists from the 1st year of my CS studies. I was totally surprised that most candidates were absolutely clueless.

Without doubt, there are practical applications of knowledge about data structures and algorithms. I just wonder how relevant this knowledge is for an (entry-level) developer position and wether this kind of question is a good fit for interviews. Any opinions?

</comment><comment><USER3> I find <http://techinterview.org/> to be nice resource as well.

</comment><comment><USER4> agh, I refuse to visit a site called ihas1337code.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why? The content is quite good.

<comment><USER4> It was mostly a joke, I've just gotten tired of the "I has [blank]" and 1337-speak.</comment></comment></comment>


Escape Artist Houdini Was an Ingenious Inventor, but Didn't Want Anybody to Know - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/harry-houdini-ingenious-innovator-didnt-want-anybody-know-180961078/?no-ist <comment><AUTHOR> I never knew of houdini's relationships to patents. Seems like an interesting case where they don't really protect your work.</comment>


Internal Twitter Credentials Used in DNS Hack, Redirect - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/twitter-hacked-redirected/

<comment><USER2> Three little words I want to hear from every one of our service providers in 2010:

Multi-Factor Authentication

(We're a Dynect customer too.)

<comment><USER3> I'm not a tremendous fan of multi-factor authentication yet. The _idea_ is nice, but really it just adds a second password to the mix, and if the person can't get one password right...

My bank for example uses multi-factor authentication. Two of the three possible initial questions ask for a _color_. Let's see ... black, blue, yellow, green, red...

<comment><USER4> That's not multi-factor authentication.

True multi-factor authentication involves a combination of something you know (eg, your password), something you have (your phone, a fob, etc.) and something you are (generally biometric things, which for obvious reasons haven't picked up too much).

Multiple security questions are just additional things-you-know, and as such, aren't multifactor.

<comment><USER3> Ah, thanks, you're right.

My bank's website specifically calls it "multi-factor authentication", and I never bothered to double-check the term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> perhaps the twitter employee that used "password" as his admin password forgot to change it on all his websites</comment>


Villagers block Google Street View - <AUTHOR> http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/technology/villagers-block-google-street-view/2009/04/05/1238833236815.html <comment><USER2> This was posted in <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=544996> where it generated some discussion, but then it was deleted.

Another article covering the same story was in <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=544734> where it generated no discussion.

I'm curious as to why the first item was pulled, but the other remains.</comment>


Show HN All US doctors ordered by their opioid prescription count - <AUTHOR> https://www.opendoctor.io/opioid/highest/?hn <comment><USER2> OK, so am I reading this chart correctly? The top guy issues over 21,000 new opioid prescriptions per year. Not pills, but new, and presumably refill, prescriptions. So that's about 58 prescriptions per day of the year or 84 prescriptions signed per work day. Which is 10.5 per hour. So he spends on average 6 minutes evaluating each case before deciding a new or continuing opioid script is an appropriate treatment.

<comment><USER3> I believe he can have PAs under him writing prescriptions in his name also. For chronic pain I assume there's not much to evaluate but click "approve" in some medical information system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is that unexpected? Seems like it makes sense that doctors who specialize in pain management would make up a huge share of painkiller prescriptions. And oncologists make up a huge share of chemo prescriptions, etc. etc.

</comment><comment><USER5> well, yeah.

There are doctors who, for example, treat your kidneys. They never need to prescribe opioids.

There are doctors who perform surgeries, and prescribe a week of pain killers for recovery.

There are doctors who manage chronic pain. (Often anesthesiologists by specialty, hence that list is all pain management specialists and anesthesiologists.)

How is this surprising? Frankly, if the numbers are accurate (5% prescribe 60%), I'm tempted to think it's not concentrated enough-- sounds like docs of type 1 and 2 should knock it off.

But, what is this number "opioid prescriptions?" Is a script for 1 week of meds a 1:1 unit with a script for a month or 3 months? If you're using medicaid/medicare/insurance payer data, then probably, meaning these numbers do not reliably proxy amount of drugs or number of people receiving them.

By all means, we need to pay attention to the problems with opioids. But context-free clickbait numbers are a really bad place to start.

</comment><comment><USER6> Astonishingly, nearly every member on this list rates at between 10K and 20K claims a piece, multiplied by nearly 9,000 individual prescribing doctors.

So, a large city, and within that city, nine thousand sold-out stadiums, where attendants hold tickets to the prescription opioid show, and at least one doctor from this list is on stage.

Unfortunately, we don't have volume per claim, which is probably sensitive and confidential patient information on some level.

      EDIT: HN's patented "*hug of death*" is killing this site already...

</comment><comment><USER7> Gee whiz, you mean pain management doctors, surgeons, oncologists, and anesthesiologists are prescribing pain killers? Wow what a shocker!

This is stupid, and irrelevant.

If you're unfortunate enough to need surgery, have a painful injury, suffer from chronic pain or a severe pain condition, you should just 'deal' with it, right? The politicians, internet commenters, and media know better than your specialized doctor anyway, right?

</comment><comment><USER8> I'd love to see an analysis that finds a good way to try and discover inappropriate prescriptions. Doctors deserve some benefit-of-the-doubt for this stuff because these are legal medications that treat common symptoms. What is the most useful way to discover when a doctor is making too many prescriptions or not screening their patients for appropriateness of prescription?

</comment><comment><USER9> The top doctor on the list prescribes 20% more opioids than the next highest, and these are his specialties:

* Counseling

* Pastoral Counseling

</comment><comment><USER10> The stigma of opioids is going to painful for patients. My wisdom teeth were removed, and my surgeon did not want to prescribe any. I was in pain for a couple days before I screamed at them and something that worked. It was a very unpleasant experience.

<comment><USER7> The only result of the nonstop political and media onslaught against doctors, painkillers, and the imaginary opioid 'problem' is more patients in pain (like yourself), and more nonsensical political intervention in doctor/patient relationships with more cumbersome rules regarding prescriptions.

Doctors and their patients have literally nothing to do with drug addicts. Drug addiction is not a new problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This seems quite close to doxxing in my opinion. Flagged.

Edit: If there's a goal other than shaming these doctors and making it easy for people to harass them, please let me know , and I'll gladly remove my flag.

<comment><USER12> > If there's a goal other than shaming these doctors and making it easy for > people to harass them, please let me know , and I'll gladly remove my flag.

Well, if you're a patient who has been denied an opioid prescription from your current doctor, this list would likely be a great starting point to finding a doctor who is more pliable... :)</comment></comment>


Homelabos, a "Free Private Self-Hosted App Store" - <AUTHOR> https://homelabos.com/ <comment><USER2> Sigh. I wonder if this looks like a good solution to use for private on-site infrastructure deployment, but its so reassuring that the author is giving a testimonial of their own product! /s No thanks.

Going on-site is the way forward from the AWS, GCP, Azure cloud hype-cycle but this one is definitely not ready for this.</comment>


How Amazon is making money by giving it away - <AUTHOR> http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/19/how-amazon-is-making-money-by-giving-it-away/

<comment><USER2> This article misses the point entirely. LivingSocial just acquired a shit-ton of users for $10 each. Period. That's an extremely low acquisition cost for a lifetime user value of $50 or more. They now have more than a million credit cards and email addresses that they didn't have before.

[http://www.lifeinbeta.org/2011/01/why-living-social-can- sell...](http://www.lifeinbeta.org/2011/01/why-living-social-can-sell-20-of- amazon-gift-cards-for-10-or-the-economics-of-setting-fire-to-money-as-a-user- acquisition-strategy/)

<comment><USER3> Did they, though? What's the retention going to be on those users?

I signed up yesterday to get the giftcard, and my experience was pretty bad: I followed a link a friend gave me, and it asked me for some info, then took me to a landing page with my city listed explaining how LivingSocial works. It had a link for "Today's deal", but clicking on that link just took me back to the same "how LivingSocial works" page. Finally I clicked on the referral link I had again, and it took me to the Washington, DC page, which had the Amazon gift card. I bought it.

This morning, I received an email from LivingSocial for the current Washington, DC deal, which is some local pizza place. I unsubscribed. Looks like they didn't test well enough to make things actually work for the huge influx of users.

Furthermore, I'm not at all convinced that I'm missing anything. Obviously, the really good deals will be shared on Hacker News and other networks I already pay attention to, so why stay subscribed to a daily email?

<comment><USER4> FWIW, the deals are primarily local (Amazon is an exception), so the really good ones [for you] won't be shared here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The author didn't read the fine print on the deal - *Amazon.com is not a sponsor of this promotion.

LivingSocial is making the grab for customers and if Amazon isn't a sponsor of the promotion then they certainly aren't losing more than 6 million dollars as the author claims.

</comment><comment><USER4> In case you can't play or don't want to watch the video (an SNL commercial parody), here's the reveal:

"How do you make money doing this? The answer is simple. Volume."

</comment><comment><USER6> For some reason I can't play that video. Maybe it's because I'm in Canada.

Anyone have the tldw for the video?

<comment><USER7> I doubt it's because you're in Canada. Doesn't work for me either, and I'm in the USA, but also running Linux, which Flash doesn't get along with.

Granted, I am Canadian, so maybe it's just prejudiced against Canadians in general, not where you live... :-)

<comment><USER8> I doubt it's because you're Canadian ;)

Running Windows and Firefox (which Flash normally gets along with) but it's not working for me either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't watch the video (Chrome, US, Windows), but it's likely the change bank commercial.

[http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/first- citywide-...](http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/first-citywide- change-bank/229045/)

</comment><comment><USER10> tl;didn't watch answer?</comment>


Boys and Troubles in School - <AUTHOR> http://educationaloptions.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/boys-and-troubles-in-school/

<comment><USER2> I find it a bit disappointing when people, even on HN, argue on such topics like they are a method of opinion or life experience. If you read even a couple of books on evolution, even at a science popularization level (Richard Dawkins being a good example) it's pretty clear genders are far from identical. And that has been so since the first living things separated in genders. Everything, of course including behavior, is influenced by gender.

This of course doesn't mean we should "let things be" and trust mother nature. Some evolved behaviors are better then others in modern society, but it's really surprising how few they are compared to the mass which still apply.

</comment><comment><USER3> It advocates Nature, and supports it based on anecdotal evidence involving people who'd had over 5 years of exposure to Nurture, and the assumption that since they are young it must be Nature at work.

<comment><USER4> Do you have any children?

I've got an eight-month old boy. I can't claim to be the world's expert and I won't pretend this isn't an anecdote, but still, it's a data point. I'm also 30.

If you are 16 and you think you know what raising a baby is about, you're probably wrong, but if you make it to 30 without having some sort of good idea, you're... well, I won't call you an idiot but you've not been paying attention. So I had a good idea about how helpless babies are and a pretty good idea of how they got their needs met. I've not been surprised by the midnight feedings or anything else like that.

But I will admit to some surprise at just how mind-bogglingly stupid babies are. My son is toying with the idea of beginning "separation anxiety", which psychologists think is not merely "a phase", but the point at which the baby _begins to distinguish between himself and his parents_.

Think about what that means for a moment. We're talking about an entity _too stupid_ to realize that other people are not himself. This is a level of stupidity we can only comprehend symbolically; we can not really grasp this degree of stupidity.

My son is too stupid to realize that he is not me. He is _way_ to stupid to pick up on subtle social messages about what it means to "be a man", were I even trying to give any. There is simply no way that Nature is not the dominant force here; there's simply nowhere for Nuture to be living!

And yet... _he is a boy_. He likes to be loud, and I don't mean "cry", I mean be loud when he's happy. He likes to move and squirm. He likes cars and construction equipment, spurns the dolls of other babies (when he loves their other new things), and _really_ loves my laptop, which means there's a lot of fun to be had keeping him away from that in my future. (As in, "I don't want him to destroy it"; we're _years_ away from any actual use of a computer.) He likes to move around, and he likes to smack his toys to make them do things.

I've also seen several other girls of this age cohort now, and even the ones that are high-strung and nervous when it comes to crying play radically more calmly, have clearly different preferences for toys, and so on.

What social signals can we _possibly_ be sending a four-month old baby to tell them how their gender behaves? Screw "not understanding gender", a four-month old doesn't understand that things persist when they move out of their vision! How is a being that was only recently introduced to "color" (not that they can articulate it) picking up on these social cues? How can something so stupid that he doesn't respond to his own name suddenly get so socially smart that he realizes that the doll I just placed in his hand is a parent-being-funny trap, and he's supposed to drop it and pick the truck up again? (Which is what he did.)

Maybe a five-year old has picked up on it by then, but what accounts for the gender differences between 5- _month_ -olds? Until you have a baby, you can not comprehend the astonishing levels of stupid we all start out with. Actually, scratch that, _nobody_ can truly comprehend it; it's like trying to imagine being a fish or something, you can't really do it. The idea that all the parents I know have managed to educate our babies about their place in the social order despite them not responding to their name or indeed much of anything else is just absurd.

I have every intention of letting my boy, and any future children I may have, grow up to be whoever they are most suited to be, regardless of gender roles in society. But whether or not I bring gender roles to the party, it is pretty clear to me that the child will anyhow.

<comment><USER3> Why do you think impassioned personal appeals are worth posting in reply to a comment saying anecdotal evidence is worthless?

It seems more like you are trying to convince yourself than trying to convince me.

<comment><USER4> A lot of people have the wrong idea about anecdotal evidence. There's the people who thinks it substitutes for proof... but there's also the people who think it's worthless.

 _Both_ are wrong.

A universal claim can be disproven with a single counterexample. A nearly universal claim like "Almost all gender role is social" can be disproven with nearly a single counterexample. (Or, if you want to get technical, rendered so improbably as to no longer be worth considering.)

I don't need to convince myself. I never bought into the transparently-false idea in the first place. Having kids just made it more transparently false.

Don't buy into the "anecdotes aren't data" line so hard that you go around living life with your eyes closed. That's no more rational than ignoring science entirely.

<comment><USER3> No one has any anecdote which disproves "all gender role is social". For example, parents saying they didn't treat their opposite-gender kids different is useless. They did treat the kids different: different names, different clothes, and many other things. What they really mean is they didn't treat the kids different in any _relevant_ way. But how do they know that? Now they are making a philosophical and non-evidence-based claim. Hardly a courter example.

<comment><USER4> I actually cut you some slack and upgraded the point to "Al _most_ all gender role is social." To disprove "All gender role is social", it technically suffices to show only one example of a gender role that could not possibly be social. I actually cite many (as I consider each child I know a separate data point). It should also be pointed out that it's non-trivial, which is why I shared it in the first place; even very knowledgeable non-parents (such as I was) can be surprised by the reality.

I thought I might be overstretching with that bit about not buying into the "line", but maybe not. Logic 101, universals can be disproven with a single counterexample. Logic 301 or so, very-nearly-universals can be rendered implausibly unlikely with just a few counterexamples with little regard to distribution. That only works on very-nearly-universals, but it's perfectly sound. (I'm not out to show that gender is 100% biological, only that 100% social is an absurdity.) Anecdotes may not be "data", but there are logically- legitimate uses they can be put to.

<comment><USER3> Do you understand that an anecdote where you interpret a situation (possibly according to some bias or mistake), and a _valid_ data point which can be a counter-example to a universal, are different things?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


RISC-V Software Ecosystem Overview - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/riscv/riscv-software-list <comment><USER2> I wrote a RISC-V simulator library for modern C++ also: [https://github.com/fwsGonzo/libriscv](https://github.com/fwsGonzo/libriscv)

It doesn't use JIT but for small programs it was faster than the other simulators I compared with. It also has page functionality for simulating MMIO without performance drop.

Drawback is that I never finished RV64 support, although it's mostly ready to go. It has full RV32IMAC as well as most floating point instructions. I imagined that for a small device RV32 would be plenty. But I guess we will see, as I want to get my hands on a RISC-V board that is like Raspberry Pi.

</comment><comment><USER3> Beagleboard's projects around RISC-V :

[https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10549-linux_on_open_source_hardw...](https://media.ccc.de/v/36c3-10549-linux_on_open_source_hardware_with_open_source_chip_design#t=599)

</comment><comment><USER4> Are there c compilers for the smallest subsets of RISC-V (no floating point, system calls, atomics, etc).

<comment><USER2> Yes, when you build this: [https://github.com/riscv/riscv-gnu- toolchain](https://github.com/riscv/riscv-gnu-toolchain)

You can configure it with the extensions your system will support. The minimal is RV32I and RV64I. It will be full-length instructions which are easy to parse and no extras.

./configure --prefix=$HOME/riscv --with-arch=rv32i --with-abi=ilp32

I'm sure you can build a C standard library with these options as well, so you won't be as limited as you think.

System calls are done through the ECALL instruction, and while it's mandatory, you don't really have to implement it.

<comment><USER5> There's risc-v support in the newlib standard library, so it should not be too hard to use that as a starting point even if you need to rip out stuff.</comment></comment></comment>


Tiny electric car looks like a washing machine and costs just $6,600 - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/cars/citroen-ami-cheap-electric-car/ <comment><USER2> There was a previous thread here [1].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22438418](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22438418)

</comment><comment><USER3> _It has a top speed of just 45 kilometers an hour, roughly equal to 28 miles per hour_

In the USA, we'd call that a NEV (Well, almost -- NEV's are limited to 40km/hr), and they are significantly cheaper than regular cars since they meet lower crash standards.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle)

I wish NEV's were more popular here, they'd be great for short commutes, a 10 mile commute would take 30 minutes and you can fit more than one NEV in a traditional parking space. I thought about getting one for errands around town, but even though they may be legal on roads with speed limits up to 45mph, I'd be afraid to drive one even on a 35mph road since a 35mph speed limit means most people are driving 40 - 45mph.

<comment><USER4> 28 mph is pretty damn fast when you're riding an e-bike. I would absolutely not feel comfortable going faster than that. It's all a matter of perspective. If you're 14 feet up the air driving your pennyfarthing-SUV hauling your collection of outdoor wizardry to the steam-engine conference, then it's slow.

<comment><USER3> A NEV isn't An e-bike, some look like glorified golf carts, others are fully enclosed like a car:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENN](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZENN)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The ultimate problem with these kinds of cars is that they're generally intended for city driving. This is fine, except most city dwellers don't have a place to park electrics that also happen to have an outlet.

This leads most ownership to be on the outskirts/suburbs of cities where people will more likely have a domicile with some kind of garage or spec right where they live so they can drive to/from the city or to a mass transit station that serves the city and happens to have parking, yet too far out and it's more likely that those people will need a more robust vehicle for their driving needs.

There's definitely a market for these kinds of vehicles, but it exists in a fairly thin band right at the edges of urban areas.

<comment><USER6> For such a small car, perhaps it fits into a motorbike spot in a parking garage, there are plenty of these to rent in European cities, a moment's walk from the apartment.

<comment><USER7> Here in NYC, a parking spot in a garage can cost more than a car payment AND it won't have an outlet in most cases.

There is a small electric car charging pilot starting soon, but the rates are so ridiculously high (2x retail electric prices) that gas cars would be much more economical.

Source: I live in NYC and thought about getting an electric car to save money when visiting family + make a few road trips cheaper

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That senior writer at CNN sure must have a weird washing machine. But yeah, I guess a title like that generates a lot of clicks and more mental fuel (ignore the pun) to just point and laugh at EVs.

<comment><USER9> Had me wonder too. I am over 6 feet tall. Not too many washing machines I can fit into. I think ride on lawn mower would be a more accurate description.

<comment><USER10> I think the Renault Twizy [0] looks more like a lawn mower. At least this has real doors and windows.

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Twizy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Twizy)

<comment><USER11> Doesn't have real windows. Maybe the Korean version does but not the EU version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here in Norway you can buy a used 2013 Leaf with a 24 kWh battery, double the range and twice as many seats for less than that.

See [https://www.finn.no/car/used/ad.html?finnkode=169083854](https://www.finn.no/car/used/ad.html?finnkode=169083854)

<comment><USER13> I love comparing apples and oranges too. You can always find an older used car that is cheaper than a new car. Now compare what one of these would cost used in 7 years.

BTW, I recently bough a new bicycle that cost more than the first car I drove (the car was a few hundred bucks).

<comment><USER12> > compare what one of these would cost used in 7 years.

Probably nothing at all, unless it becomes a collectors' item.

In comparison with other voiture sans permis like the Ligier or Aixam then it's cheap. But if we allow comparisons with non-electric vehicles then you can get a new Dacia Sandero in the UK for GBP 6 995, only about 25% more than the price of the Ami: [https://www.dacia.co.uk/vehicles/sandero/configurator/summar...](https://www.dacia.co.uk/vehicles/sandero/configurator/summary.html?conf=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.co.rplug.renault.com%2Fc%2FBABBi0AhhAjHiHhHj%2FA843Y)

Not sure what you mean about apples and oranges comparisons. Both of the objects in question are cars, both the Leaf and the Ami are electric.

The Ami is much less car so one might expect that it should be much cheaper and it is cheaper than a new Leaf or Zoe, but my point was that new cars have to compete against both new and second hand cars. The only thing the Ami has in its favour is that people without full driving licenses can drive one. A point against the Ami is that it must not be driven on motorways and other roads designated as express way. When one can buy a much better second hand car with no such restrictions for the same or lower price why would anyone buy the Ami?

Only a very tiny segment of the population would find it attractive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I work under 5 miles from my home in a city in the Northwestern US. I ride a 50cc moped throughout the warm months here (anything over mid-50 F so late- March through mid-October usually). I think a reliable sub-40mph electric would work well for me the other times of the year provided it could drive in the snow if equipped with reasonable snow tires.

<comment><USER15> Why not just cycle? That is a <30 minute trip by bike

<comment><USER16> sweat, inability to bathe afterwards

<comment><USER7> I biked to work in a much hotter climate (DC area) and managed to survive by getting to work at 8am before the worst of the heat set in.

The afternoon was quite hot, to say the least, in the summer though.

With an electric bike I'd likely not have broken a sweat at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > In some ways, the Ami is reminiscent of Citroën's iconic 2CV.

Truer than the writer thinks. It's a deliberate homage: the original 1970s Citroen Ami was a part of the 2CV range. Our family had one. Very few survive now: I haven't seen one on the move for about 10 years.

</comment><comment><USER18> Doesn't look like a washing machine to me.

</comment><comment><USER19> I want to see "closed" electric bikes with wide tyres , basically a batpod with glasses. Good in traffic, and cold/hot as I need it to be. Also cheap enough for Mass use. China would buy two for each person.

<comment><USER20> [https://www.podbike.com/en/](https://www.podbike.com/en/)

I just submitted as its own HN thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22457511](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22457511)

<comment><USER21> thanks, totally slipped my radar

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Reading the comparison to a classic, I took the minimalist philosophy to manifest as a reduction in complexity, but I had to stop at the moment they mentioned having a smartphone for gauges.

I get that this is probably a cost cutting measure, but putting enough electronics in a car to make a smartphone an important component of it doesn't fill me with confidence in the minimalism (and robustness, accessibility, repairability) of the computers inside, straying from a chunk of what made classics in the 20th century classics.

EDIT: seems that my post was misunderstood. I'm all in favor of cutting cost and not having speakers or a radio, or gauges. But I seriously doubt that minimalism is the leading idea in this car, if it has enough electronics to drive a phone. The more electronics, the less minimalistic, and less repairable an object is. I would not consider very minimalistic a vehicle that has any digital electronics apart from the maintenance port mandated by law.

<comment><USER23> It says it has the gauges, the phone is for extra info like range and navigation. But I agree, having a car with no inbuilt radio/speakers will be strange.

<comment><USER24> > having a car with no inbuilt radio/speakers will be strange.

I actually like that part about it!

Most in-car infotainment systems (esp. in this price range) are useless anyway, and are basically already outdated on the day they leave the factory.

You'll always end up with using your phone instead of the build-in system, as it is orders of magnitudes better at doing everything. So why car manufacturers even bother with trying to build their own systems always seemed weird to me.

Not sure if the car has no build-in speakers at all, the article doesn't mention that. Maybe it does have build-in speakers with bluetooth connectivity, just no head-unit (frontend).

<comment><USER25> How do the speakers go obsolete? And in most cars the radio itself can be easily removed.

<comment><USER24> I wasn't talking about the speakers, but the head-unit itself. This is often not just a radio, but an integrated unit with display, controls etc for navigation, radio, HVAC etc.

In just about any car produced >2000 these radios are integrated in the dashboard, thus not easily replaceable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> ... _There 's only a minimal gauge cluster. An app in the driver's smart phone, placed in a holder high in the center of the dashboard acts like the central display screen in other cars showing things like driving range_...

Oh great. So without a working, compatible phone, the driver has no idea when the car is about to run out of battery?

<comment><USER27> What percentage of people don't have a smart phone? What percentage of those people would be in the target market for a little electric car?

<comment><USER28> Almost everyone I know has a smartphone.

Literally nobody I know has a reliable connection between their phone and their car.

<comment><USER3> My USB connections (for Android Auto) to my car are very reliable, maybe one day a month I have an issue and have to unplug and replug, or more rarely reboot my phone, but I've never not gotten it to work before my commute.

Bluetooth has proven to be less reliable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> What's even more remarkable is that it can also be leased for as little as €20/mo. That's less than many people pay for their cell phone plan.

<comment><USER30> It's €2,644 and then €19.99 a month [0]. Super misleading.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22438418](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22438418)

<comment><USER29> Good point! Still cheap.

<comment><USER31> If you're looking to spend 20/mo how likely are you to have about 132 months of payments available up front?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I still think it's a good item at the right time. Lots of people are on e-scooters or gyrowheel because they don't want a car, but it's unsafe.

Full fledged EV are over-sized for many urban users.

</comment><comment><USER32> Another link to the same announcement, with more pics, including a side glimpse of the interior: [https://www.autoevolution.com/news/this-french- electric-sofa...](https://www.autoevolution.com/news/this-french-electric- sofa-car-spins-out-of-your-bedroom-141483.html)

This car even uses what looks like orange cloth straps for the inside door handle. Cost cutting... or just another reference to classic model.

</comment><comment><USER33> I like the concept of these, bridging the Gap between a small bike/golf cart and a EV like the leaf, but at least for the US they unfortunately would need to be bigger, from a safety and speed perspective, to catch on.

Maybe something smart car like with a 40-50 mph top speed, sub highway but capable of matching speed on larger roadways. Unfortunately at that point you're probably close to EV cost.

<comment><USER15> It's so sad that vehicle ownership has become a kind of security dilemma, where people feel forced to constantly buy bigger. I used to cycle to work every day and in recent years I feel less and less safe to do so as more and more cars in the roads have become these massive SUVs and Jeeps. Cyclist deaths are on the rise and it's no wonder when drivers have less ability to see around their vehicles and far more momentum to hit others with.

What you are basically saying is that there is never going to be a market solution to this problem, since no alternative could "catch on". We obviously need government action if we are ever going to kill the addiction to fuel- guzzling vehicles and carbon in general.

<comment><USER33> The only market solution I can see would be an increase in gas causing people to buy smaller cars. In 2008 SUVs and trucks did poorly vs sedans and hybrids.

For example the Ford F series models sold 690.589 units in 2006 and 413.625 in 2009, but has since climbed back up to around 900,000.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Very cool! However, I would be concerned about the safety of driving such a small car.

<comment><USER35> The trick is that you wouldn't take it onto roads where people go over 30mph.

<comment><USER36> That's the problem with this car. Only 30 mph means city centers only. In those places there are already many other options for quick trips: public transit, Uber/Lyft, old-fashioned taxis, membership car rentals (Car2go, Zipcar), bicycle sharing, sidewalk scooters. With all that I don't see them selling too many of these. You buy it, you have to park it, which would be expensive in many of the cities in which you could use it. All those other options don't need to be parked (not at user's expense at least.) Even for car rentals parking is a pain because you have to find it, even if you don't have to pay.

I could see a market of selling them to fleet operators who team up with cities to get free parking for them, as Zipcar and Car2go do, but that's about it.

<comment><USER37> > Only 30 mph means city centers only.

Or around towns. I could use this to go around my town, and to the surrounding towns.

And people could use it around suburbs too.

So useful to people in cities, towns, suburbs, which is most people.

<comment><USER38> I'd say a moped offers more utility and range, and can be had for like a grand used right now, but those haven't caught on in the burbs either. People have a highway mentality in the suburbs. They'd rather get on for one mile and take the next exit than take a parallel running surface road. Plus, suburban commutes are long, even errands are long. This EV claims a 40 mile range, so 30 miles in practice. That can make some trips pretty tight whether or not you get stranded, and there isn't going to be much infrastructure in the suburbs where you can pull off and charge. With more range it would be more viable.

I think a city setting might be better, for cities without too much congestion at least. Otherwise it's another vehicle on the road that could be a moped taking up way less space to move a single butt from their home to their desk in some office building. Cars pollute, but part of their harm in an urban environment is also the amount of physical space that they demand. You can fit way more people in an electric subway train than you can in a similar length line of traffic of these vehicles, for instance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> That lease pricing seems off, 5 years x 22$ per month = 1320$ which is likely less than the depreciation. Include say a 2,000$ down payment and sure that works except then the monthly fee is just deceptive.

<comment><USER40> The lease price is actually with about a 2000 euro downpayment, so your math works out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> So it is a golf cart? I must be missing something. I'm not sure why a golf cart would require such fanfare. I guess because most golf carts don't have doors?

<comment><USER42> I wouldn't want to drive a golf cart in the cold or rain. But, this little car looks like it could work ok in those conditions.

<comment><USER38> Provided the range doesn't take a nose dive due to the cold

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I like the fact that they just designed one door and one front/back.

It looks like this really reduces costs because the price is so low.

<comment><USER44> It doesn't. There are cheaper cars that don't skimp on these things.

<comment><USER43> Can you name some? I am curious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> If it is narrow enough to get down the little alley that leads down to house, I'm in.

</comment><comment><USER46> I'm 6'4" (193cm) and cannot imagine I could fit in that thing?

<comment><USER38> Hopefully they have a sunroof package

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Battery cars were never meant to be expensive</comment>


Let's Make a Voxel Engine (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://sites.google.com/site/letsmakeavoxelengine/ <comment><USER2> He open sourced (GPLv3) the whole engine at: [https://github.com/AlwaysGeeky/Vox](https://github.com/AlwaysGeeky/Vox)

<comment><USER3> That's absolutely fantastic! Given the status of all of the social media, I assumed the game was dead and source lost forever. Instead we get the game in active development and completely open!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What library is the user using? It doesn't look like anything I've seen so far and he doesn't say anything about the environment he's using to create his game, so it's not easy to follow.

<comment><USER3> 'Most of the rendering code for these guides will be written using my own personal rendering library, which is essentially a wrapper around OpenGL, where I abstract away the OpenGL calls or group together common OpenGL functionality into a single renderer function, to make the game code easier to manage. Anyone who understands OpenGL should have no problem translating my native renderer code back into OpenGL, and in some instances I will provide the OpenGL calls in these guides.'

Edit: Readability

<comment><USER4> I had missed that, thanks.

<comment><USER3> Apparently many people did, for some reason a quick copy-paste is reaping the karma.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So tired of these technically voxel engines but not at all the voxels I remember. Anyone remember Delta Force or Ken Silverman's Voxlap? Those are voxel engines. These Minecraft clones may use the data structure of voxels however they lack the beauty of a true voxel engine. (I think Delta Force faked some of it's voxels, but I digress.)

</comment><comment><USER6> I actually have many ideas for making a better Minecraft; however, I'm a terrible programmer.</comment>


Obama threatens veto of CISPA bill - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-obama-threatens-veto-of-cispa-bill-20130416,0,5917419.story <comment><USER2> I call BS on the veto threat. Obama gave the National Counterterrorism Center authority to examine government files of U.S. citizens for possible criminal behavior, even if there is no reason to suspect them. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732447830457817...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> I call BS. It's a cheap strategic move to weaken public opposition. The same thing happened with NDAA.

<comment><USER4> It's ridiculous this is being repeated ad nauseum. Yes, he threatened to veto the NDAA unless specific changes were made. The changes were made, compromised was reached, and he didn't veto it.

Agree or disagree with the NDAA, saying he threatened to veto it and then backtracked is just wrong. He threatened to veto it _unless_ it was modified, and it then was.

<comment><USER5> This is exactly the point being made. Threatening to veto unless minor changes are made is just a way of getting the public to accept a form of something they previously opposed entirely on principle. As the previous commenter said, it's a strategy to erode public opposition. NDAA was augmented and yet indefinite detention without charge is a reality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This was issued on Tuesday, before the bill was passed in the House by a veto- proof margin of 288-117. The only hope for rejection is Congress mustering less than 60 Yeas.

<comment><USER7> My understanding is a bit different:

* If he vetos, they have to vote again

* On the second vote, both houses need 2/3rds (not just the house)

<comment><USER8> You are correct. Both houses must vote again, and by that time many votes may change. A two-thirds majority in both on revote is required to override the veto.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if Obama will do a better job vetoing CISPA than he did the NDAA. Probably not.

<comment><USER10> Why doesn't he just veto it instead of threatening to veto it?

<comment><USER11> He can't. It has to pass for him to be a able to veto it. Currently it has only passed the house. It has to pass the Senate. Then it will come up on his desk for his signature, and then he can veto it by refusing to sign it.

Him saying he will veto it, is like a courtesy notice to the Senate saying "don't even bother with this, it will get vetoed."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> One of the things that seems to be missing is an easily findable "Why CISPA is bad" page. There are tons of people speaking out against it, but all in generalities because they assume you know what is in CISPA already.

Now, let's see if he actually does it.

<comment><USER13> > One of the things that seems to be missing is an easily findable "Why CISPA > is bad" page.

<https://www.eff.org/cybersecurity-bill-faq>

<comment><USER12> So all it does is make it easier for government agencies to request data from online providers?

I guess my biggest question is why the amount of time required to get the proper judicial papers can hamper government investigations.

I feel like when I talk to people about it I need to give them something to think about and a simple question to ask their rep/sen. Sure, it'll be skirted with "it's a requirement to ensure safety" but some people won't just buy that and will feel like they are having smoke blown up their ass.

(BTW, thanks for the link. For some reason I didn't find it myself on the EFF site.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The administration has threatened to veto a number of bills and followed up by signing the bill. It is how the administration plays lip service to their concerned constituents.

If I recall, we were also supposed to get a number of days to evaluate a new law before it is signed.

</comment><comment><USER15> Yeah the last time I trusted Obama to do something.......

Won't get fooled again on this one.

</comment><comment><USER16> I really hope this is legit. My understanding is that a veto threat is often just used as a bargaining chip. (As mentioned previously, Obama also threatened to veto the NDAA, so...)

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm a cynic. All I can see here is Obama positioning himself to appear to be on the people's side diverting attention from the people's original demand of opposing CISPA in its entirety.

This posturing is just the thin end of the wedge, a mechanism to get CISPA accepted in the people's mind. It's classic car salesman technique; 'what don't you like about the car?'. Once you are in that dialogue it's just a series of checks to tick off before you are buying a car.

</comment><comment><USER17> My last comment tried to justify why he wouldn't veto this. I am happy to be wrong. Still though, I see it as drawing attention to the bill to put pressure on the Senate. I just don't see how passing this bill as a Senator could be that bad. Pros: $$$, Cons: Young people don't like you. I tend to think that young people are less of a concern in congressional elections.

</comment><comment><USER18> Can't we at least be happy he's in some way opposing this publicly?? Clearly if Congress gets its way this is fast-tracked no-questions-asked.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't know who on the Obama team is spearheading his tech policy-- but thanks. You're doing better than I ever expected you could.

<comment><USER20> He also threatened to veto the NDAA[1]. I wouldn't put my money on him vetoing CISPA.

[1 [http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-obama-sign-2013-ndaa-after- th...](http://www.ibtimes.com/why-did-obama-sign-2013-ndaa-after-threatening- veto-992860)]

<comment><USER21> Obama disagrees with some details of the bill, not with the broad outlines. He wants the bill to pass, but he wants some also wants some changes made. He's using (threat of) veto power as leverage to get those changes made. A veto would be a blunt and somewhat counter-productive response, but veto power is the main piece of leverage that comes with the office.

So yeah, he actually likes the bill and the likelihood is that he will sign it or some form of it. The veto threat is just part of the dance.

<comment><USER22> Sorry for the dumb question: Is your comment about the NDAA or CISPA?

<comment><USER21> It's a general strategy, so it applies to the veto threats to both of those bills, as well as a number of others. I think it applies moreso to CISPA than to the NDAA, because my impression is that he has smaller reservations about the details of CISPA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Just like he threatened to veto NDAA. He will sign it just as soon as it hits his desk. This is a straight up lie.</comment>


Nokia Expats do what Nokia should have: Jolla Mobile - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/07/jolla-mobile/

<comment><USER2> What's that ?

Create a platform with no apps, no media store, no ecosystem, no gaming integration, no cloud based services, no developer story, no payment platform etc etc.

Supporters of Nokia's failed Meego need to understand that there just isn't room for so many mobile platforms.

<comment><USER3> > Supporters of Nokia's failed Meego need to understand that there just isn't > room for so many mobile platforms.

What so no-one should try anymore? People said similar things about Android. I would agree that this is a hard fight to take, but it is not unreasonable. As the major players create more closed off ecosystems there will be a market for this. The question is how big and how well these guys can fill it. Given the audience size is in the billions, you only need to pick up a few % market share for this to be viable. So I would think the challenge is not market saturation, but building a quality system and not getting shot out of the water by competitors legal teams.</comment></comment>


What are the best digital marketing channels? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> wide open question? "best"

cheapest? based on size of budget? best ROI? easiest to manage? current customers versus new customers? marketing goal? Direct response versus branding? what kind of product?</comment>


Hong Kong pupils banned from political activity - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-53336191 <comment><USER2> The answer from the Education Secretary in the LegCo, in full: [https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202007/08/P2020070800306...](https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202007/08/P2020070800306.htm)

The obvious flaw in the answer given is that he goes from 'such right [para 1, art. 13 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child] is not absolute' given para 2's provisions to a seemingly disproportionate restriction of all political activity ('no one…should…hold any activities to express their political stance').

Notably, para 2 of art. 13 requires that 'the exercise of this right…shall only be [restricted where it is necessary]…(a) for respect of the rights and reputations of others; or (b) for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health and morals.' This does not to me seem to encompass a blanket ban, e.g., of advocacy of universal suffrage (the stated aim of the Basic Law), or an alteration of the tax rate, or public subsidy for the beautification of local streetscapes by artists, or a change in the timing of a traffic light.</comment>


Can You Build an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Anywhere? - <AUTHOR> http://pointsandfigures.com/2012/02/25/can-you-build-an-ecosystem-anywhere/

<comment><USER2> Nope. A place has to be a right amalgamation of good universities (where the talent will come from), with good transportation and basic infrastructure and the last thing comes 'weather'. Yes with lot of cash and political will power it might possible to start as it is with Startup Chile(startupchile.org). But the long term viability of the ecosystem has to be proven yet.</comment>


Chats.io, new HTML5 / Node.JS-powered social group chat, launches - <AUTHOR> http://chats.io

<comment><USER2> For a web based chat platform I think it falls short, but from what cmatthieu said about making it, Chats.io is really a weekend project. Not really something that 'launches' anyways.

As far as what he could do to improve it, here are some ideas: 1\. IRC is a solid and robust chat platform that has been around for a long time, you should really look towards what makes it strong and how it is used. Take that and apply what works towards the web app.

2\. After building the foundation on solid chat technology, add in things people expect from a web app. I wouldn't mind seeing actual profiles with publicly available logs and what channels they frequent. You could add friends and what not and know when they login and what channels they frequent as well.

3\. Since Node.js is so versatile, look at making it compatible with IRC so that IRC clients can connect to it and function as you would expect. This would be an added feature, but could be huge. Not everyone likes using their browser to chat, I know I don't.

Good luck with it, glad to see someone making some fun stuff with Node.js and showing it off.

<comment><USER3> Also:

4\. Prevent people from switching nicks arbitrarily.

5\. Cap message site / rate. It's incredibly to just spam the room to hell with massive messages.

6\. Don't call it "social". It's chat. It's been done a million times before.

<comment><USER2> 4 & 5 go with my number 1 advice which is to use what works from IRC.

I agree with 6 as long as it is just chat, if he provides more community features outside of just the chat areas, it could be considered more social.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seems like everyone trying out node.js for the first time wants to make chat- room apps. At least this one doesn't have an immediately obvious script injection vulnerability :)

Interestingly, none of the chat apps I've really used are built on node: convore is python, mibbit is java, irccloud is erlang. Too new I guess.

If anyone's interested in a tasteful, persistent, web-based IRC client (ie, bouncer-like) - albeit not using node.js - mention HN in the invite box on <https://irccloud.com/>

<comment><USER5> I like the look of it but imho the Gold plan is too expensive - €12 of VPS could get persistant IRC and a lot more.

<comment><USER6> Where are the prices mentioned? I couldn't find it anywhere on irccloud.com

<comment><USER5> Under "More info" on the homepage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Chris - this is awesome! Love that it's open source too:

<https://github.com/chrismatthieu/CHATS.iO/>

</comment><comment><USER8> As opposed to an anti-social solitary chat? :)

</comment><comment><USER9> It's not loading for me =/ Anyone else have this problem?

<comment><USER10> I am. All browsers -- seems to be a network issue (I'm on Verizon FIOS).

<comment><USER9> Ah, it seems like it can only handle so many users. If you keep refreshing, you'll get lucky eventually (I'm on FIOS too).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's also running on <http://nodester.com> \- the free and open source node.js hosting platform.

<comment><USER7> Out of curiosity, it looks like it's down right now. Can you provide some info about why? I thought the node stuff was supposed to be able to handle all the simultaneous traffic requests with ease. Just curious!

<comment><USER11> I really hate when something being down automatically translates in peoples' minds to a reflection upon the tools. That's like blaming plow manufacturers for a snow day; while _possible_ , there's far more explanations that are likely before plow failure is a consideration, such as a lack of manpower to drive the plows.

I see this at an ISP, too, all day long: _oh, my site's down, what's wrong with your platform?_

<comment><USER12> It's not 'automatic'. The above poster asked about excluding the possibility of the tool being poor as opposed to the infrastructure being bad, or the tool wielder lacking competency.

<comment><USER11> I have to disagree, based upon my reading the question. "You're down. Why? I thought Node could handle it." I don't have any stock invested in Node, personally, but it sounded like a conclusion had already been made by the asker.

<comment><USER12> Here's an analogy.

Man to Plumber: "The pipe burst! What happened? I thought that steel could handle that water pressure".

Subtext: Which is it: do I not really know what steel can handle, did you expect lower pressure than you got, or are you just a bad plumber?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For some reason I'm reminded of AIM and I miss AIM. I'm going to start a start-up that remakes AIM that you can log in with Facebook.

<comment><USER14> uh.

You realize that facebook supports xmpp for chat, so you can use any IM client for facebook chat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Thanks Chris. This is handy, for sure. I gave it some love on The Next Web, if you want to monitor the comments.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We have already received 4 pull requests and merged code with new features and a new UI today! The power of the crowd is amazing!

</comment><comment><USER16> Error 324 (net::ERR_EMPTY_RESPONSE): The server closed the connection without sending any data.

Edit: looks like it's back up!

<comment><USER17> Chats.io, new HTML5 / Node.JS-powered social group chat, launches... and crashes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> On Chrome(Win), the windows doesn't autoscroll on joining/leaving announcements. It scrolls normally when a new message arrives.

<comment><USER19> Someone already fixed it and has a pull request on the github repo. <https://github.com/chrismatthieu/CHATS.iO>

<comment><AUTHOR> just merged pull request and scroll is now working!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I like this very much, and I would love to see markdown or some other rich markup for chatting.

</comment><comment><USER21> Would love to see this ported to coffeescript.

</comment><comment><USER22> I got disconnected after a couple minutes.

</comment><comment><USER23> Please don't shove an alert in my face. It's rude.

</comment><comment><USER24> The site never comes up for me.</comment>


Biz Idea – Employees buying online at work through affiliate portals - <AUTHOR> People buy things online at work. Companies provide affiliate revenue. Why doesn't someone start a company that redirects employees traffic through affiliate programs so that when John logs into Amazon to buy something at work, his company gets the affiliate revenue.
The start up would provide the simple code, then sell it to IT departments to reduce their costs (they would get a share of the revenue). They could also have an easy DIY download for small businesses.
Thoughts? <comment><USER2> Yes, employees shop at work, but it's unlikely that any employee's time spent shopping would be paid for by affiliate payments.

<comment><AUTHOR> But say John logs in at work and buys something from Amazon, if he went through an affiliate program Amazon would pay it.

So if the affiliate program was based on the companies intranet redirecting traffic wouldn't they receive money? I agree it wouldn't be large, but in aggregate the company could make some money off of it at no cost to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Note that you can't get affiliate income for purchases you make - I believe this will apply to companies and employees as well.</comment>


Ask HN: Stark Trek - How far are we? - <AUTHOR>

Seeing Star Trek last night (a great movie, btw), I couldn't help but genuinely feel depressed that I wasn't born 500 years from now.
For you physicists, and those knowledgeable about this sort of space development, how far do you estimate we are from becoming a universe like that of Star Trek? Sure, it's just a movie, and apologies if this may come across as a silly post, but I've always been pretty amazed at the thought of a space world.
I'm not a physicist by any means, or a person who has any significant grasp on physics theory, but hopefully this post will spark some interesting and educational (for me) discussion about physics, the future of space development, and how far we are from making significant steps towards space societies.
EDIT - Just to clarify, I'm speaking more to the technological side of achieving such societies, and less about the social dynamics, etc. <comment><USER2> The biggest inhibitor I think would be the lack of economical justifications for it. We don't need the space (or rather, what we would like is the space to be close. Take a plane trip across the U.S. and you'll find a whole lot of empty), and our natural resources will last us for the foreseeable future.

What benefits are there? What we would need is a space 'gold rush' if we wanted to realistically expect any sort of real progress in that direction. Maybe we'll discover that there's oil (for example) on Mars. Maybe we'll see a lot more space speculators.

That's it for financial issues. Of course finances will drive the technology. The most prominent pieces of technology we're missing are faster than light (or warp) engines, and artificial gravity. Warp would let us travel very far very efficiently, and artificial gravity would allow humans to spend extended periods of time in space. A couple other things we're missing are materials to build such starships (not sure if we have anything that would hold such large ships together in space), replicator and transporter technology, phasers, shields/forcefields, and last but not least, proton torpedoes. If anyone knows of technology listed above that exists today, please let me know.

<comment><USER3> Well, if I understand correctly, 99% of the cost of space travel is getting out of Earth's gravity well.

Once you're up there, moving around is pretty easy.

So, space elevators that could bring down surface-to-orbit costs would probably drive a huge boom in space exploration.

No idea how soon we'll have those though.

<comment><USER4> That depends on what you mean by space. LEO to Geosynchronous orbit is still a lot more than 1% of energy to orbit.

Anyway, orbit is only 17,000 MPH which is way to slow to go travel to the next star. Traveling at at 17,000 mph would take about 40,000 years to travel one light year. The good news is you slowly accelerate in space over a long time, so smaller high efficiency engines would work just fine. The bad news is the closet star is over 4 light years from earth.

So getting something the size of the space shuttle to the next star in 1,000 years would take 2x (168^2) as much energy as it takes to get to LEO. ~56,500 * 2.2 * 10^12J = ~10^17 jules for comparison that's ~28 thousand megawatt hours.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We're still trying to get back to the moon, haven't built a nuclear power plant in decades (US) and our bodies fall apart in zero G.

I doubt we'll be touring other planets in even the next 100 years.

<comment><USER6> And yet we went from the first powered flight to landing on the moon in 66 years.

Its 106 yrs (nearly) now since the wright brothers first took to the air and barely 40 since Apollo 11 touched down. So I'd suggest that 100 years is an _age_ to fix those problems in :)

The issue is, I think, that we lost interest in the moon and stars. The space race was driven by politics and so we got there by sheer force. Then it all slackened off again. But I think the next generation will have grown up with enough modern Sci-Fi to think "I wonder if...." and hunger for the sky :)

<comment><USER5> If star trek taught us anything it's that we're a plucky race that can do almost anything (provided we overcome our violent history).

But I'm judging the next 100 years on the past 20. We did squat compared to what we're potentially capable of. NASA lost about 50% of it's unmanned Mars missions. What a joke.

<comment><USER7> But we did the internet. Personally I think it's an accident of human history that space exploration came before the information age. It would have gone the other way if not for the Cold War.

<comment><USER5> The internet is mainly a set of protocols and business rules humans created. Space exploration has to tackle rules the universe created. Much different story.

<comment><USER8> If a set of rules is created (or emerges for you Hayekians) whereby there is significant incentive for the creation of increments contributing to overall advancement, we will advance in space exploration.

The cold war was such system. The next one will (hopefully) be more peaceful & market driven. Space flights for tourism provide a few of these increment. Asteroid-mining might be another. Military probably has a few more to play.

None of these have been paying much dividends in the last 30-40 years.

The _of protocols and business rules humans create_ may be capitalism (or some sort of cousin). The _rules the universe created_ need to be tackled no matter what we do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We already have all of the technology we need for a spacefaring society, and probably have had it for some decades. Our economy is stuck in a local maximum, where there is no short-term economic benefit to going there.

Read Zubrin's _Entering Space_ for details.

[http://www.amazon.com/Entering-Space-Creating-Spacefaring- Ci...](http://www.amazon.com/Entering-Space-Creating-Spacefaring- Civilization/dp/1585420360)

For example, the original Orion project had a means of traveling to Saturn in a year. (Using nuclear bombs to power a spacecraft.)

The various studies on space colonization are also interesting. T.A. Heppenheimer summarizes some of them (in particular, the famous Stanford Summer Study) in his book "Colonies in Space."

Interstellar travel is another thing entirely, though.

</comment><comment><USER10> The future is weird. Asking how many discoveries away from reaching _Star Trek_ is like asking how many Ivy League degrees you need before you turn into Obama.

The whole space opera thing is fairly unlikely. It's more likely that the world we'll be able to simulate in our own solar system will be much more interesting than any world we'd be able to visit outside of it.

The future depends on what you extrapolate; _Star Trek_ goes from trains to planes to space; right now, lots of interesting fiction goes from PCs to ubiquitous computing to uploads. Whatever's next is unlikely to resemble any of that in any way.

<comment><USER11> "It's more likely that the world we'll be able to simulate in our own solar system will be much more interesting than any world we'd be able to visit outside of it."

Good point, I had never thought of it like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> We need to solve the problem of producing energy. I think that human progress, even in the short term, depends entirely upon "breaking" the first law of thermodynamics. Clearly, no one will successfully create energy out of nothing, but I hope that physics will one day invent a way to cheaply and cleanly tap into energy sources which produce a huge yield. We have nuclear reactors today, but they are enormously large, expensive, and difficult to maintain. The day that you can buy a car --- or a wristwatch --- powered by atomic energy, you can say that the future arrived.

This energy source does not have to be atomic, except we don't know of a fuel more densely packed with energy than atoms. E = mc^2 and all that. In most science fiction, this problem has been solved using mumbo-jumbo technology, such as matter-antimatter reactors. Whatever; maybe someone will one day think of a way to make that work. Solving the energy problem means that the vast amount of effort currently directed at, e.g., oil production, stable trade with parts of the world which produce and sell hydrocarbon fuels, and climate maintenance can free up to really push things forward.

Just think of the rockets we could build if they didn't need to use awful rocket propellants (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_propellant>) or nuclear explosions for fuel. And I'll try to make sure the controlling software for those rockets uses Lisp. :)

</comment><comment><USER13> > I couldn't help but genuinely feel depressed that I wasn't born 500 years > from now.

The thing is - we have no way of knowing what life in the future will be like. There might not be anything we recognize as human life there in the first place.

I'm continuously amazed by the here and now. I've been all around the world. I have friends all over this planet. I communicate with people all over the world via the net every single day. And my friends? Ha! They could be anywhere and all I have to do is pick up my cell phone and call them. ('Uh, can I call you back, I'm in Singapore for some work thing and it's 4 am here..').

I love speculative sci-fi, but not to the extent that I want to not be born in this age. Put things into perspective if not living in the super-happy-fun sci-fi future gets you depressed.

<comment><USER14> Agreed. I'm happy to live in this future where we can at least play around with this caliber of imagination.

I'm not cut out for farming or the floppy wigs of the past.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Space exploration as portrayed in "Accelerando" by Charles Stross, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando_(novel)>, seems far more practical than portrayed in Star Trek. In Accelerando interstellar spaceships are the size of beer cans and full of electronics.

</comment><comment><USER16> I also found Star Trek to be disappointing in its depiction of technological change. It is, at base, little different than all the other sci-fi depictions of housewives in space and Colossal-sized vacuum tube intelligences.

It's a common bias to overestimate technological and societal change in the short term, and underestimate them in the long term. Think of those McCarthy- era AI guys promising GAI in a decade: I bet you $100 that their vision for the next 4 decades was surprisingly conservative and unimaginative. The same men who imagined GAI in their lifetimes were most likely the same men who could not imagine the full societal implications of civil rights legislation.

I should expect the world in 500 years to be as unimaginable, complex, and alien as the world now is to someone from the 16th century. I hate to make an argument from fictional evidence, but there is no reason at all to prefer a Rodenberry future as opposed to an Egan future. The former is refuted by witnessing how pervasive and tempting it is to anchor future change on the present.

If Charlemagne and Shakespeare could understand the future, it's a bad indication for how realistic you are being.

</comment><comment><USER17> you never know, the thing with physics, is that a single discovery can turn everything upside down and lead to millions of inventions

<comment><USER5> My lucky lotto numbers are 1,11,17,21,44,69

<comment><USER17> That doesn't look that lucky, I've never seen a lotto drawing that had 1 in it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Interesting question. In the developed world, the last three decades seem to have only entrenched class power and moved us further from a post-monetary society; however there are many encouraging developments in the periphery that could bear much fruit over the next quarter century. History, as always, will be written from the future.

</comment><comment><USER19> You need to take Star Trek and the reality it posits within the context of its time. Star Trek was initially pitched as "Wagon Train to the stars"; think back to the westerns of the 50s/60s and you will see a lot of similarities in narrative structure as well as the idea of roving "law enforcement" wandering around a lawless frontier dispensing "justice." The basic problem is that if technology progresses along a line similar to what the TV shows and movies suggest then there is no way that society will remain in a late-20th century stasis to match the shows/movies.

There is some good "hard" sci-fi out there that you should read if you want some interesting suggestions regarding "what will life look like in X years" and I will let others jump in with some of their favorites (e.g. Vinge, Bear, Stross, etc)

</comment><comment><USER20> What are the market forces driving deeper space exploration? There aren't any I can think of except recreation and science experiments.

What's hot right now in aeronautics seems to be better communication and navigation satellites. Maybe these will push the boundaries of space technology?

<comment><USER21> Asteroids. No corporation driven by quarterly returns will spring for that, but there is an enormous amount of raw material there. If we had a very cheap source of propulsive energy, it might be profitable to transport it back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think physics is not the only answer to this. The following technologies and organization maybe more useful in certain case.

1\. The capability to have all my DNA sequences stored.

2\. The capability to create an organism that has exact DNA sequence as me.

3\. The capability to have all my memory inside my brain read out.

4\. The capability to restored all my memory to the organism created in step 2.

5\. The capability to remove aging effect on my brain and body.

6\. An organization that is willing to keep the technology and data above passed down by time without errors and is willing to teach the resurrected me what the new world is and help me to fit in without questions and still grant me freedom or treat me as a 2nd class citizen.

If there exists such technologies and organizations, we are all endowed with eternal life and are capable of seeing all new possible technologies in Star Trek to show up...

<comment><USER23> A solution to (trans)personal space exploration might be synaptic level brain imaging with blue brain -simulation and becoming V-ger yourself. But what comes to capability of seeing all the possible new Star Trek technologies, the only good solution is eternal life as movie audience. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There is a very interesting book Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku ([http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Impossible-Scientific- Explorat...](http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Impossible-Scientific-Exploration- Teleportation/dp/0385520697)). It is exactly about those questions.

</comment><comment><USER25> _I've always been pretty amazed at the thought of a space world._

Great! 'cos you're living on one :)

Very far. We can't travel faster than light and at the moment not even close to it. We have vague ideas that warp drives might be possible, but generating, containing and manipulating enough energy to work in some of the suggestions is also currently unthinkable. We're at the stage of needing multiple unpredictable breakthroughs to get anywhere close, and that leaves travel to the nearest extra-solar _anything_ taking many years.

Also, the Star Trek technology is very inconsistent, I don't think we are going that way. I haven't seen the new film (yet) but from the TV series, there are numerous questions. How come nobody else ever has Geordie-style visors as an option? Or any kind of optical or neural enhancement or display? Or any kind of body armour?

Why is there no nanotechnology anywhere except when the Borg turn up? Why isn't there an anti-Borg good cyborg species? They destroy entire star ships so frequently and inconsequentially that they must have tremendous manufacturing capability, but wouldn't that have more ramifications somehow? How come Picard has a replacement heart and Geordi a brain-connected replacement vision, and everyone can be rebuilt by the teleporter, but they all have wrinkles and age and die? Why don't they throw half the Enterprise away and replace it with a much smaller holodeck with simulated rooms? Why does nobody ever ask the computer anything interesting? Why can't Data improve himself or replicate himself? Or merge with the ship's computer? Why has nobody built a machine to pick up what Deanna Troi's empathic sense does and done away with the whole "Computer, where is x?" "x's badge fell off so I can't find them" thing?

Why is nobody sitting at home on Earth and using the magical instantaneous subspace communication to explore with unmanned spacecraft?

So, yeah - space: big, cold, empty. planet bankruptingly expensive.

<comment><USER26> "Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence." -- Leonard "Bones" McCoy, 2009

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think the main problem with the Star Trek scenario is "faster than light travel". Of course, traveling faster than light really isn't possible however most of the alternate mechanisms proposed, e.g. worm holes, etc. don't seem that feasible either.

I think more realistic is that man gets a toehold on space by being able to harness resources from other planets / asteroids. If people can become self- sufficient in space, perhaps generation after generation, we can creep out further into space.

But it takes a big initial commitment and it's unlikely we'll ever resolve all the problems on earth so I'm not sure how much of a priority it will be.

<comment><USER5> You're not trying to travel faster than light, you're tying to bend space.

To understand, take a piece of paper and imagine you're on one end of it trying to get across. Instead of traveling the length of the paper just fold it in half and jump to the other side.

<comment><USER22> I hated this example of folding space. This example just shows us how confused we are about "folding".

When you folding a paper. Your reference frame is outside that piece of paper. You also possess energy supply outside the paper to exert the deformation of the material on the paper. But you did not posses the energy to fold the "space" around that paper.

In fact, even you fold it, you and that piece of paper are still in the same 4-d space time. Unless you are the lucky intelligent beings that are living on that piece of paper such as a colony of bacteria. Now it is the time to jump to the other side the paper!

So I guess the first step to construct a warp drive is to figure out questions:

1\. "Can we as bacteria living on that piece of paper evoke help from extra dimensional source and energy from it?"

2\. "Can we as bacteria living on that piece of paper control this mechanism?"

3\. "Can the above mechanism to be achieved without ruining basic physics laws such as law of matter energy conservation, laws of thermodynamics in marcophysics scale".

As long as we figure the possibility for those questions in physics, then we will know can we travel like Star Trek.

Don't get me wrong. I love Star Trek. And my undergraduate major was physics. But I know very few general relativity theory and problems. What I just said is just consider what is necessary if we want to fold the space time.

<comment><USER5> I'm happy you edited your reply to try and clarify your point but you're still over complicating an attempt at a simple explanation.

My original point was that going faster than light in a straight line isn't the goal. The goal is to bend/fold/warp space around you and get to another physical point is space before light does.

Edit: I'm saying bending space, which happens all around us, is more likely a scenario than traveling faster than light. Is this statement wrong?

<comment><USER28> Yes, but eugenejen's point is that you're vastly oversimplifying a complicated concept. It's easy to use paper as a metaphor for our universe, but unless you've got any practical ideas for how we, as members of it, can use technology to accomplish this bending, it's not really very useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'd say about 20-30 years away: [http://markii.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/kurzweils- singularity...](http://markii.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/kurzweils-singularity- time-line/)

</comment><comment><USER30> Our society isn't nearly as hierarchical, militaristic, conformist and fascist as that depicted in Star Trek but I could see us there in a few hundred years.

</comment><comment><USER31> we barely know enough about what's on this planet and how it works let alone go anywhere else. 500 years might not be enough.

</comment><comment><USER25> _> I couldn't help but genuinely feel depressed that I wasn't born 500 years from now._

What does it mean to say you wish you were born 500 years from now?

Explain: what would have to happen for that to be so?

<comment><USER32> Maybe we were all born 500 years later, only it was 2009 instead of 1509.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Be happy you weren't born 500 ago instead!</comment>


What a tech guy learned from only re-tweeting women - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-web-we-make/79403a7eade1

<comment><USER2> I find Twitter to be a goldmine to find unique voices if you take the time and look for them. A lot of people who shy away from FB (too personal) and LinkedIn (too professional) feel at home on Twitter. I connected with like- minded people on Twitter by searching and commenting on things of common interest and that started great virtual relationships. Being mindful on Twitter does pay off.</comment>


BitTorrent's Plan for 2013? Go Legit - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/bittorrents-plan-for-2013-go-legit/ <comment><USER3> Comparing BitTorrent's client users to Netflix/Hulu/Spotify subscription customers is apples to oranges.

And historically as a company, their biggest competition is themselves - <USER2> wants to pay money for content with DRM when they can pay nothing for the same content without it?</comment>


Facebook Legacy - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151391609962845

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a product concept I've been thinking about for some time and wanted to put out there for discussion. I do not work for Facebook.

By marking posts as Legacies, your favorite memories would be shared with family for generations. Imagine receiving a photo today from your grandparents, taken when they were exactly your age. The idea here is about preserving and repeating important life moments rather than letting them disappear down the Timeline - or worse, limiting their view to just your current list of friends after death.

As a side effect, by tagging a post as a Legacy, you're in effect scheduling it as an event to repost to ancestors in the future who would be seeing it for the first time. With millions of these updates scheduled for the future, Facebook would have a stronger outlook for the long-term and greater odds of future generations coming on as users.</comment>


Product Management as a Service (for startups and scale-ups) - <AUTHOR> https://universalabs.com/startup-product-management <comment><AUTHOR> After 9 years in the Software Industry (~4 of which in Product Management), I've decided to help startups that don't have a PM yet (and scale-ups) with ad-hoc or subscription-based Product Management strategic advice and hands-on execution. Here's my Linkedin profile -> [https://www.linkedin.com/in/paunul/](https://www.linkedin.com/in/paunul/)

I'm open for questions.</comment>


Android TV update puts home-screen ads on multi-thousand-dollar Sony Smart TVs - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/04/google-pilot-program-puts-a-row-of-ads-on-the-android-tv-home-screen/ <comment><USER2> Every time I see one more way advertisers force their garbage on you, I think of drug dealers. Wake up, we are allowing this to happen.

As for Google - shame on you.

</comment><comment><USER3> After the shit Samsung, LG and now Sony did I don't plan to connect any TV to internet, ever. Separate box&remote is small price to pay.

<comment><USER4> What did LG do? (I've got one.)

<comment><USER3> [http://doctorbeet.blogspot.com/2013/11/lg-smart-tvs- logging-...](http://doctorbeet.blogspot.com/2013/11/lg-smart-tvs-logging-usb- filenames-and.html)

Or lets look how LG explained it to advertisers: [https://youtu.be/jffJWEPMt1E?t=46](https://youtu.be/jffJWEPMt1E?t=46)

<comment><USER4> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


CNAME support for GitHub Pages - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/blog/315-cname-support-for-github-pages

<comment><USER2> this is practically unreadable on the iPhone.

<comment><USER3> This is practically unreadable on my Nokia 3200.</comment></comment>


Alan Fong on teaching starcraft at Berkeley - <AUTHOR> http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft/features/2457

<comment><USER2> The name in the article is "Alan Feng"

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, thanks for pointing that out.</comment></comment>