The Great Garfield Car Window Toy Craze (2016) - <AUTHOR> http://mentalfloss.com/article/87936/great-garfield-car-window-toy-craze <comment><USER2> I found the ubiquitous "BABY ON BOARD" signs far more annoying. As though everyone around the minivan in question would quietly, meekly scuttle past at 5 MPH above the speed limit lest they disturb baby and then go right back to their Road-Warrioresque shenanigans.

<comment><USER3> My understanding is that the BABY ON BOARD sign is to notify emergency personnel arriving to a car accident that there is a child/baby in the vehicle who will not be able to get out of the vehicle on their own etc.

Personally, I've also looked at the BABY ON BOARD signs as a heads-up that the person driving that vehicle may be more cautious or slower than other cars. I treat it like a student driver decal.

<comment><USER4> I don't believe the emergency services would check based on a anything like a "baby on board" sign. If they can check then they will, regardless of _any_ sign. For a start, anything like that is going to fall off in a significant crash. Secondly, plenty of cars don't have them, and other cars have them when there isn't a child on board. Thirdly, a plastic sign would be one of the first things to melt if there was a fire. And lastly, if it was true then the emergency services would recommend drivers have them. They'd give them away as promotional items. No one would need to buy one.

It _can 't_ be true.

<comment><USER5> Wishful thinking on the part of the parents. It doesn't have to actually be effective for that to be the intended use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> ...of 1987, fwiw

</comment><comment><USER7> Ugh, between the pop music of the time (e-NUFF with the fewkin' synths already) and the height of the Garfield era, the '80s were a dark time. I always suspected that Garfield was just a marketing company in disguise, a natural outgrowth of what _Peanuts_ had become, without the benefit of the pop psychology. I mean, _The Family Circus_ shows more long-term originality.

<comment><USER8> Garfield exhibits the perfect banality of good entertainment.

It's not edgy, its something everyone can empathize with, it talks about normal work-a-day problems (without too much depth), and most importantly, it makes you think (but not too much).

It's literally entertainment, for entertainments sake - there is no higher meaning other than to be a distraction for a couple minutes, and perhaps to be reminding that, yes, someones life is worse than yours.

<comment><USER9> [http://garfieldminusgarfield.net](http://garfieldminusgarfield.net)</comment></comment></comment>


What's Happening at IBM (it's dying) - <AUTHOR> http://www.cringely.com/2016/03/08/whats-happening-at-ibm/ <comment><USER2> _Apple or Google could buy IBM with cash on hand_

Times change.

There was a time in the 1980's that IBM could have bought Intel with petty cash they had on hand. In fact they did buy 20% of Intel to keep it from falling into the wrong hands.[1]

In about 30 years we'll be reading how someone else could buy Apple or Google by using cash on hand.

C'est la vie.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/29/business/ibm-ends-intel- fi...](http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/29/business/ibm-ends-intel-financial- support.html)</comment>


Wattvision allows Kickstarter hardware to upload anywhere - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wattvision/wattvision-the-smart-energy-sensor/posts/302489

<comment><USER2> Interesting ploy -- throwing in a last minute perk to try to make their funding goal. First time I've seen that. They do look close enough to hit it (maybe even without this).

</comment><comment><USER3> We have a blue line innovations reader, and found it pretty helpful. Their software is atrocious, though, and the reader stopped working after 6 months. WattVision a far superior UI and has always looked interesting to me, but I'm not sure I want to spend $200 on it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Too bad wattvision doesn't make anything that can read my meter :(

<comment><AUTHOR> are you a PG&E customer?

<comment><USER4> SCE</comment></comment></comment>


Emacs Major Mode for Sequence Diagrams - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/josteink/wsd-mode

<comment><USER2> This would be more accurately titled " _Emacs Major Mode for Web Service for creating Sequence Diagrams_ ", since all it does is be a client for www.websequencediagrams.com and is completely dependent on that Software-as-a- Service.

<comment><USER3> Author here. This is completely correct. But my main motivation for creating this was getting something working in a easy and portable fashion.

Basically I wanted to have something I could share with my colleagues and which could be accepted as "documentation" if checked into source-control. For that using a dialect of diagram-generators which nobody else can get working isn't going to cut it. Those solutions are hardly "out of the box"-friendly, and even less so portable.

This package relies 100% on websequencediagrams.com, and for that it is restricted by whatever the website supports.

But because of that it's also 100% portable and should work out of the box on any machine, without any other prerequisites. And I think that is quite nice.

I just thought it was useful and wanted to share. If my needs are aligned differently than yours I'm not going to take offence :)

<comment><USER4> Well done. Do you accept feature requests?

<comment><USER3> This isn't a full time project for me, but just something to scratch an itch: writing out big UML processes in a HTML textarea isn't my idea of an ideal editing process.

It's hard to promise anything up front, but if you register an issue on the github issue-tracker I can at least consider it.

I may like the idea and take on the challenge or I may decide that for me it doesn't seem worth it. But I do also accept pull requests :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The two screenshots really do a great job of explaining what it is.

<comment><USER6> Maybe. The pretty generated picture, how is it generated? It references "www.websequencediagrams.com" but when I go there I get a 500 error.

Aside from the pretty pictures it's pretty devoid of information.

<comment><USER7> I think they submit the sequence description file to that website and capture the returned image.

<comment><USER3> Author here. I used the api as provided by the site author. Details here:

[http://www.websequencediagrams.com/embedding.html](http://www.websequencediagrams.com/embedding.html)

<comment><USER6> Very cool. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I love the DSL for sequence diagrams the most. I've always wanted a structured text notation for architectural concepts (databases, queues, load balancing, failover, etc) as well as more atomic (non-text) graphical symbols for each. UML specifies a symbol for database, for example, but not for most of those other things. Perhaps I should get serious about scratching this itch.

</comment><comment><USER9> It might be interesting to update this to use [http://www.mcternan.me.uk/mscgen/](http://www.mcternan.me.uk/mscgen/) or the enhanced [http://sourceforge.net/projects/msc- generator/](http://sourceforge.net/projects/msc-generator/) to remove the websequencediagrams.com dependency. I know others have suggested planetuml, but I've always liked the msc-gen stuff for sequence diagrams, a bit more.

</comment><comment><USER10> I used graphviz dot program to create [https://github.com/maksle/xslt- dependencies](https://github.com/maksle/xslt-dependencies) (xslt 1.0 dependency viewer) for EMACS. I was about to look into this and drop using dot but this also relies on an external service. Nothing wrong with this or dot though, I just thought it would be cool to be entirely self contained in EMACS. It was surprisingly easy to create a nice node graph with dot though.</comment>


The Emergence of Gravitational Wave Science [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2016-53-04/S0273-0979-2016-01544-8/S0273-0979-2016-01544-8.pdf <comment><USER2> This article makes it clear that I'm missing a lot of math background. Anyone have a good source for getting up to speed on tensors and manifolds?

<comment><USER3> Here's a standard Topology textbook which will get you up to speed on manifolds: [http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/munkres2.pdf](http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/papers/munkres2.pdf)

And here's Schroedinger's Space-Time Structure which has an intro to tensors: [http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/schrodinger-st- struc...](http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/schrodinger-st-struc.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
       s/Science/Sect/

<comment><USER5> Not following you here.

<comment><USER6> I think that's a vim replace command, swapping 'Science' with 'Sect'

<comment><USER5> Yeah I got that much, but what does "The Emergence of Gravitational Wave Sect" mean?

<comment><USER4> The meaning is the difference between a verified by the scientific method approximation to the truth (some aspect of it) and a chimera, created from math formulas.

Not everything which could be described with a set of equations necessarily exist as a physical phenomena. Most of abstractions have no existence outside peoples heads, except those verified by scientific method, which means multiple independent replicable experiments which exactly the same results.

Unverified assumptions are called beliefs. Followers of some set of beliefs and dogmas together is called a sect.

From the philosophical point of view, strictly speaking, this is a non- science. When people trying to "prove" an abstract theory (a product of imagination instead of a product of a process of reduction) they perform not scientific tests, but complicated _simulations_. Any simulation, by definition, cannot prove anything about existence or non-existence of a simulated model, not even validity of the model. What could be concluded is only that the simulation matches the model. Or not.

This performing of a simulation instead of controlled observations is the essence of modern bad science, be it in economics, "medicine" or whatever is based on a sophisticated models based on abstractions.

Simulation prove nothing. Observations do.

<comment><USER7> Have you heard about the (relatively) recent results coming from experiments testing gravity waves?

Hopefully they live up to your standard of science.

Even if they don't, I think labelling maths and models and simulations as 'non-science'is disengenuous.

First, theorycrafting is an important step in science, it is a formalised way of building hypotheses. If an individual or an entire discipline is devoted to theorising what may be, while others test those theories, they are doing science.

It is also science to test models with simulation. Proving a model does not prove the system being modelled, but we still need to know if, for example, the model is consistent. There are many situations where a model has no closed solution, and so the only way to test it is through simulation. Models are a key part of science; claiming that the testing of those models is somehow not science seems a pointless pedantry even if it were true.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Books vs. Cigarettes (1946) - <AUTHOR> http://orwell.ru/library/articles/cigar/english/e_cigar <comment><USER2> > Adding the other batch of books that I have elsewhere, it seems that I > possess altogether nearly 900 books, at a cost of £165 15s.

In 1946, one pound was ~$4 [0], making 165.15 roughly $660. Using a US dollar inflation calculator [1], $660 in 1946 dollars is $8534 in 2018 dollars. Fudging a little, this works out to about $10 per book.

Later, he estimates his annual reading expense as 25 pounds, which works out to about $1300 annually. That's more than I spend on books+e-books+subscriptions, maybe by about double, but this is George Orwell we're talking about, I'd expect he'd be a better reader than I.

[0] [http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist- graph.htm](http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist-graph.htm) [1] [https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/](https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)

<comment><USER3> To put another spin on it:

In Australia, at $56 for 40 grams of loose tobacco at Coles, the 170 grams or so he smoked would cost ~$240/week in 2018. If you added a pint at the pub per day at city prices that's another $70/week.

That's $16000/year and would buy you a _lot_ of books.

(This comparison for amusement purposes only... sin taxes seem to have increased much faster than inflation!).

<comment><USER4> > sin taxes seem to have increased much faster than inflation

I think that's because back then, everyone smoke & drank, and rather more than we nowadays do, whereas now it's common to look down upon smokers in particular. They're a despised minority, so the ruling class see no problem increasing their taxes. After all, they're free to quite any time they like!

<comment><USER5> Smokers often overestimate the numbers, and underestimate how much of a minority they are. I read a number of ca. 10% (of adults I guess) for Germany. In some circles it feels like 99% and on average like 50%. Observation bias persists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Footnote from Good Omens, by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman:

"NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One shilling = Five Pee. It helps to understand the antique finances of the Witchfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system:

Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and one Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.

The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated."

<comment><USER7> And now five cents is a nickel, two nickels are a dime, five nickels a quarter, four quarters a dollar, a hundred dollars a benjamin, ten benjamins a grand, etc.

Like now, most of that is nicknames and people didn't use them in combinations. For reference, the actual currency was pounds, shillings and pence. Ratios of 1, 1/20, and 1/12 respectively.

In modern decimal London, 20 pounds is a pony and 100 is a ton. We still have the colorful shorthand.

<comment><USER8> Yeah US money was on the old "another coin for every doubling". But base-ten doesn't admit to that very well. So we used 1-2-5-10-20-50. We had 1 penny, 2 penny (gone), nickle, dime, quarter(? where is the 20-cent piece?), 50-cent- piece (no name for this?), dollar, two-dollar (gone, then back, then gone again), $10, $20, $50, $100

<comment><USER9> > 50-cent-piece (no name for this?)

That's a half-dollar

Unrelated to your post is two bits == quarter, if memory serves me it's by way if Spain.

<comment><USER10> Spanish real, pieces of eight. Two bits == two pieces == one quarter.

<comment><USER11> From when you would literally cut up the single coin into bits to use for smaller payments.

<comment><USER10> I'm not finding aany substantiation of that. The coin was actually 8 reals, not 1 real as I'd indicated above. Also known as a peso or Spanish dollar.

Peso: "a weight" [https://www.etymonline.com/word/peso](https://www.etymonline.com/word/peso)

<comment><USER11> You are right. "pieces of eight" seems to come from the phrase pieces of eight reals, with the real being the Spanish unit of silver money. Although I would guess and this site states that they did get cut up from time to time to make change[1].

[1][https://www.history.org/history/teaching/enewsletter/volume3...](https://www.history.org/history/teaching/enewsletter/volume3/march05/iotm.cfm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So odd to get this window into a different time.

"The economics of content" were very much a topic back then!

Aside:

"Eight pounds a year covers the cost of two daily papers, one evening paper, two Sunday papers, one weekly review and one or two monthly magazines."

Folks read a lot of newspapers back then!

<comment><USER13> > Folks read a lot of newspapers back then!

Well, there was no internet back then.

It wouldn't surprise me of we are actually consuming more (written) content in 2018 then we did in 1946.

<comment><USER14> I am certain that we are reading more. The quality of that content has fell sharply imho, tho.

As we are littered by content via our always-on lifestyles, we tend only to skim and read shallow stuff, or stuff that's gonna help us get by our current hurdles. That odd quick read on StackOverflow counts as that too.

Sitting down and actually grasping a full book is becoming a rare skill, because of this imposed-adhd lifestyle of ever-greater everything.

<comment><USER15> > Sitting down and actually grasping a full book is becoming a rare skill

Nope. People are more literate today than 70 years ago. People are better educated today and have more schooling. On average, more people have read a full book than before.

Strange to think that people are nostalgic for an era were women ( half the population ) were discouraged from going to college and minorities were denied equal access to education. Even stranger that people think that people were better educated then.

It's statistically impossible for your version of the past to be true.

<comment><USER16> _People are better educated today and have more schooling_

Proof by insistence? When you see the written reports the kids produce at my university you can only disagree violently. Two or three years in, and they still have no command of their own native language. If they read books or the daily paper you'd expect them to pick up proper usage by osmosis, but no, not here, not at this regional 4-year college.

<comment><USER17> Sounds like a case of "elite bias" that crops up in history naturally. Previously mostly the far end of the bell curve would be the only ones you tended to hear about because they were the ones writing stuff down in detail. Roman graffiti while insightful doesn't tell you much more than humanity doesn't change much when it is just some guy boasting about his sexual conquests or insulting his neighbor. Not good for telling you who is in charge or how good a job they did.

The noneducated got largely forgotten because they left little trace. Go to a retirement home and ask about what they did for a living and how much education they had - you will find a very high percentage without even a high school diploma - and that is the recent enough that they are still alive past.

Look at the internet - when it was just universities everyone was more technically knowledgeable but now that it is widespread and accessible there is a broader range. That doesn't mean that technical adeptness is going down.

<comment><USER16> You see the Miners Institutes in South Wales and the Workingmens Institutes in Yorkshire - and the people who founded those were in school until they turned 16 and then went to work for their coal mine or cotton mill. No university required.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> An NYRB Classics series paperback costs about $20. That is right around the price of two of glasses of of one of the least expensive wines at the nearest bar to my office.

</comment><comment><USER6> "These figures are guesswork, and I should be interested if someone would correct them for me."

Interesting to see that the standards of internet journalism are not entirely new...

</comment><comment><USER19> "Given to me or bought with book tokens"

Book tokens?! Is this some kind of 40s cryptocurrency?

<comment><USER20> Seems like an early kind of gift certificate scheme. [https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/nov/17/weekend...](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/nov/17/weekend.lucymangan)

<comment><USER21> We still have book tokens here (Ireland). They're a gift voucher that's only redeemable for books, and not tied to a specific shop

<comment><USER22> They were/are much prized as an 'improving' birthday present or prize for children.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What does "twelve and sixpence" mean? Is it 12 pence plus 6 pence? Is it 12 shillings and 6 pence (so 12x12 + 6 = 150 pence)?

The article would be more enjoyable if converted to decimal currency _and_ adjusted for inflation.

<comment><USER24> Second is correct. 20 shillings in the pound so 12 and sixpence is 5/8 of a pound

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This article made me wonder: if you had 900 books, how would you ever be able to reference anything in those books?

For example, today, I might think "Let me look up that quote in one of the books in my Kindle app. I know I highlighted it so I can just search those."

Back then, did people have their own mini card catalogs or notebooks with quote-book-page data?

<comment><USER26> I guess it depends on the person, but my grandfather's flat used to be filled worth annotated books with little bits of paper bookmarks going out. I guess one would find a way. You could also make an index notepad listing quotes accompanied by the book name and page number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I thought this was going to relate to the printing of cigarette ads inside of books, and immediately thought of Harlan Ellison's "dead gophers" interview ...

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

</comment><comment><USER28> As a Yank, I don't think I'll ever fully understand British financial nomenclature. Bobs, Shillings, et. al.

<comment><USER29> "NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One shilling = Five Pee. It helps to understand the antique finances of the Witchfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system:

Two Farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three Pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and One Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea.

The British resisted decimalised currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated."

\-- _Good Omens_ , Pratchett & Gaiman

<comment><USER30> The interesting part to me is that currency is indivisible past a certain point, so it actually makes sense to have something with more factors! Compare to distance or mass units, for example, where the sub-units are irrelevant. No problem having a distance of 1/7 foot, say, even though a foot has 12 inches in it. £(1/7), on the other hand, is impossible.

Since the divisibility argument is often trotted in defence of continued use of non-metric measurement systems, it seems odd it's more rarely used to defend non-decimal currencies, where it might actually be useful. Though the fact nobody uses meaningfully-non-decimal currencies any more is some evidence for arguing that this just isn't as useful as the convenience of the easy decimal numbers.

Still, however many currency sub-units you have, inflation makes the issue less pressing over time.</comment></comment></comment>


Crowdsourced Censorship: The irony of HN - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/fc45ec5dc96e

<comment><USER2> since the author himself has asked for downvoting/flagging, please consider doing it.

<comment><USER3> Why? I think he makes good points. If you submit a good argument, article, etc., it should get upvoted to make it more visible to other users.</comment></comment>


PHP.net manual pages all gone? Am I missing something? - <AUTHOR> http://php.net/manual/en/function.date.php

<comment><AUTHOR> Well I cannot seem to view any of the pages, I know they had been looking to role out a new design, but why take down all the docs?</comment>


Nice HTML5-based Online Modeling Tool - <AUTHOR> http://www.anchormodeling.com/modeler/ I was reading up on database design esp. 6NF and came across this website on Anchor Modeling. It has a HTML5-based Online Modeling Tool that looks nice and fun to play with. <comment><USER2> Looks nice, but the constant floating around and 'wiggling' really bugged me. It took me quite a while to figure out how to add and remove things.

It also reminded me of an ORM tool which I helped build in college called nORMa. It was a plugin for Visual Studio and was great for designing complex databases.

[http://www.objectrolemodeling.com/AboutORM/ORMTools/NORMA/ta...](http://www.objectrolemodeling.com/AboutORM/ORMTools/NORMA/tabid/87/Default.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER3> The fluid movement + ghosting is well done. There are the beginnings of a pleasant interface here.

One issue: I couldn't figure out how to connect two nodes to make loops. Adding and deleting worked just find-- but not connecting existing elements.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a bunch of video tutorials on their main site that shows how to create a 'tie'. <http://www.anchormodeling.com/?page_id=186>

But yeah, I was confused in the beginning too.</comment></comment>


The Drugging Of The American Boy - Larx-3 http://www.esquire.com/features/drugging-of-the-american-boy-0414 <comment><AUTHOR> Next can we talk about SSRI's? My little brother was prescribed Paxil as an adolescent. Now he's in prison for murder. Now Paxil is not allowed to be prescribed for adolescents and children but my brother will die in prison. He behaved exactly how kids prescribed this medicine behave, in a murderous rage.

<comment><USER2> So long as the chemical imbalance myth is perpetuated and one in ten Americans are on anti-depressants, all SSRI prescriptions are sacrosanct. Sadly, society isn't ready to have this discussion.

<comment><USER3> True, that. Its really hard to talk down addicts from their high.

<comment><USER4> It seems the only one who can talk down the addict is the addict itself, and even then the odds aren't great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To me, as an adult, getting a diagnosis on ADHD was a godsend. However, after a couple of years, I see the drug's affects waning. I can also see how damaging this dependency creation can be for children.

Fortunately, when I was a child back in India, ADHD was virtually unknown (probably the case today as well). Most of the time, my parents chalked off my inattention to "lack of discipline" and were happy as long as my grades were good. I found the coursework very easy (despite studying for only 1-1:30 hrs a day) and topped most of my classes.

University here in he U.S wasn't hard either. My problems started once I started working. Couldn't code continuously for more than 15-20 mins at a time. Things got boring very quickly once I got the "aha". I couldn't hold a lot of program state in my head. I was always searching for that "flow" people often talked about.

Adderall really helped me. I use it very sparingly these days (especially on days that I have to code some important pieces) though.

Bottomline, looks like this is purely genetic and fixing the dopamine pathways isn't exactly like curing malaria, you can juice things up but the brain will want more. Parents can choose to give it to their children but they'll suffer some time down the road. I'd rather let the kid enjoy childhood and help him in other ways (exercise, note-taking, engaging activities etc) and put him in a reasonably good path to success. Let them take drugs if necessary once they've wised up as adults.

<comment><USER6> I actually was never diagnosed with ADHD as a child or an adult. I exhibit a similar coding pattern as you did, and still do, since high school. I get bored very, very quickly and kind of live off of the "aha" moments, from one to the next. It's not that it's not genuinely challenging or interesting to me, but I just can't focus much of the time. This is true for just about everything I do these days. Thoughts and ideas come, I act on them, and they leave again just as quickly as they came. It definitely makes it hard to get much of anything done at work or home, despite having quite an agenda at times.

I've only taken Vyvanse offhandedly (without Rx) and it worked miracles for me. I quickly learned to ration it and use it sparingly as you do, partly because of the negative effects on my appetite and general well-being. I'm still debating going to see a doctor but I think they might write me off as an addict since I'm in my 20s but still quite young and a lot of kids come out of college abusing the stuff to get through exams and maybe never really drop the habit.

<comment><USER7> This sounds an awful lot like imposter syndrome, but with your own health instead of programming ability.

See a doctor. Be honest. Let them do their job and then trust their diagnosis.

<comment><USER6> Honestly, I had to look that one up and I do recall reading about that last week via a post linked on HN actually and telling my coworker that that didn't describe me much at all. In both my health (physical fitness) and other accomplishments , I can say I take them very well, and have an ego a large portion of the time because of them.

I should definitely go see a doctor anyway, if not just to make sure that this isn't all in my head.

<comment><USER8> > I'm still debating going to see a doctor but I think they might write me off > as an addict since I'm in my 20s...

> Honestly, I had to look that one up...that didn't describe me much at all

When I was 18 and two years into college, I started to realize that everything non-drug-related I had done with my parents and therapists in the past wasn't working as well as it used to. Not quite a couple years later I was super tired from having bronchitis for six months, and everything imploded around me because I had no energy left to do anything. The new therapist I saw during then thought that I was being ridiculous by thinking of myself as a drug- seeking addict when drugs I had never actually tried before were the one thing I really needed at that point. I was so convinced I was in the wrong that I had been crying for over thirty minutes straight about it to her.

tl;dr impostor syndrome with my own mental health.

I'm in my mid-20s now and nobody that knows me thinks of me as an addict. I don't know what I would do without Adderall at this point - and that's in combination with a decent amount of behavioral strategies/techniques too. Sure, there are lots of people out there that abuse it, but I am just a total mess without and there's no way I'm making excuses up to keep on being a mess because of what other people do. Seek help because maybe you do have a problem, and you may come to realize that dealing with a known problem (or knowing that you don't have one) is like night and day compared to what's going on right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My third grade teacher apparently had every boy in her class tested. As a boy, and frankly as a boy who was independent, mouthy and unlikely to do work in school unless I wanted to, I'm glad I had great parents and a great pediatrician. My pediatrician had my parents and teacher run an experiment: my mom would choose a pill with active ingredient or a pill with nothing in it, and my teacher, without knowing which I took that day, would record notes on my behavior. Turns out, no correlation between the two.

I don't doubt there are people in this world for who ADHD is a real thing. But I think we are too quick in the modern age to drug without thinking. Parents demand antibiotics for illnesses which are just small bugs... guess what, now we are having problems with drug resistant bacteria. Lawmakers, administrators, and teachers (in that order) want to turn classrooms in to machines which churn out educated people like clockwork. Turns out, humans are animals, not machines, so we load everybody with some stimulants to make children just sit still.

I'm not anti-medicine in any way. I have personally seen Ritalin work on a friend who actually had ADHD growing up. And I have also seen another friend buy Vyvanse illegally so he could study for 15 hours a day. I believe in prescription drugs. I just don't always believe in the prescription.

<comment><USER10> I like the idea of the experiment! Is it generally accepted that one would see same-day behavior changes when switching between an ADHD drug and a placebo?

<comment><USER9> That's a good point, I'm not sure. The friends I've seen use the drug as a study aid certainly respond to it quickly but the scientific rigor of the experiment didn't much matter: I think my parents were skeptical that I really had a problem anyway, and lo and behold, I'm an adult now and I never did actually have a problem. When you tell the parents of every boy in the class their kid has ADHD, the claim becomes pretty weak.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why don't you read a fucking ADHD support forum and wonder whether the suffering caused by poor executive functioning/nervous system disorder is real?

Why didn't they mention how many more times you are likely to die in a vehicular accident than non-adhd users?

[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=adhd&hl=en&as_s...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=adhd&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5)

Google scholar for ADHD, why don't you realize that these ADHD articles are more akin to anti-vaccination articles?

<comment><USER12> Your response doesn't actually address the article, which acknowledges that ADHD is a real condition, but suggests that fewer than 1 in 5 boys have it, and that a large number of misdiagnosed cases is bad, considering that they're given serious drugs because of it.

In fact, the only number it suggests as being inaccurate (based on an old study) is 25% of cases - that 1 in 4 cases is misdiagnosed. However, given the number of total cases, that means something like 5% of boys are being given serious drugs for potentially no reason.

I think that deserves serious consideration, and not your knee-jerk, strawman response.

<comment><USER13> Also it's worth pointing out that if 1 in 5 boys have it, it's not a disorder. It's part of the normal range.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure if it's that black and white. Roughly 25% of deaths in the US are due to heart disease. Should we not intervene because heart disease is part of the normal range?

<comment><USER15> I agree that it's probably not that black and white but a comparison with heart disease isn't a fair one.

The grandparent post does make a point. If such a large proportion of the population has a 'condition' is it really a condition or perhaps just how we (as a species) are? Especially in the case of something that's psychiatric/psychological.

For example, I've heard estimates that around 10% of the population is homosexual and for many years people wanted to 'fix' them. Around 10%-12% of people are left-handed and (I believe) that historically this was also something that people tried to 'fix'. I doubt many of us think twice about these anymore.

To a sibling comment that suggested what if 1 in 5 boys were born deaf, I'd say that the world would be a _vastly_ different place. So different that we may not even entertain such a question. If, instead, 1/5th of boys were _beginning_ to be born deaf, there would be a medical emergency. Unfortunately, in the case of things like ADHD it's difficult to know if we've always been this way or if there's really been a change.

<comment><USER16> Being gay or left-handed doesn't inherently impact your quality of life. Not being able to concentrate on anything does. So even if it were part of the normal range we should work on fixing it, like we do for myopia.

<comment><USER15> _Being gay or left-handed doesn 't inherently impact your quality of life._

It does if everyone else is telling you that you're abnormal (and need to be 'fixed'). That was the point of using those examples.

 _Not being able to concentrate on anything does._

Only if society has defined as valuable the ability to do only one thing, without distraction, for whatever period of time. Therefore, anyone who cannot do this must be 'broken' somehow.

 _So even if it were part of the normal range we should work on fixing it, like we do for myopia._

The first part of your sentence doesn't make sense. If it's 'normal' then by definition it isn't broken (and therefore doesn't _require_ fixing). For the myopia example, most people 'fix' it by wearing glasses or contacts, which are non-permanent and do not mess with brain chemistry. Indeed, some people I know with myopia only bother with glasses when driving and cope just fine without for the rest of the time. Of course, measuring the _degree_ of myopia is very easy so drawing a line between 'has some difficulty' vs 'severely impaired' is a lot more clear cut. In one case, we can consider glasses as an _augmentation_ to something that is normal, whereas in the other we've fixing something that's broken.

I'm not suggesting that ADHD isn't a problem. Merely that we should exercise some caution before we label some things (people?) as broken, when perhaps they are not.

<comment><USER16> _It does if everyone else is telling you that you 're abnormal (and need to be 'fixed'). That was the point of using those examples._

That's why I used the word 'inherently'. People telling you you're abnormal is not inherent to those conditions.

 _Only if society has defined as valuable the ability to do only one thing, without distraction, for whatever period of time. Therefore, anyone who cannot do this must be 'broken' somehow._

ADHD doesn't interfere with your life because other people are making fun of the fact you can't sit still. It interferes with your life because it's very difficult to be productive in any way if you can't concentrate for whatever period of time and being productive is what's valuable to society.

I have mild myopia and I don't feel any resentment to my optometrist for labeling me broken. I'm just happy he augmented/fixed me so I can read signs at a distance. And unless/until we have proof that prescribing Adderall is so dangerous that it's not worth the gains, then I don't see a problem treating it the same as contact lenses.

 _I 'm not suggesting that ADHD isn't a problem. Merely that we should exercise some caution before we label some things (people?) as broken, when perhaps they are not._

Well, clearly they thought they were broken somehow when they went to the doctor with concerns about their attention spans, no?

<comment><USER13> > It interferes with your life because it's very difficult to be productive in > any way if you can't concentrate for whatever period of time and being > productive is what's valuable to society.

By this reasoning, anything that reduces productivity _as currently valued by schools acting a proxy for employers_ is a candidate for treatment.

Examples include: questioning authority, emotion, and passion for things whose value has not yet become apparent.

Other problems include the notion that schools today have the ability to judge what kind of people we will need to be in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Instead of just talking about the dangers of a false positive, let's talk about the dangers of false negatives - of ignoring ADHD in children who do actually have it. ADHD is very treatable, but untreated, it can easily lead to other comorbidities that are much more difficult to treat (such as depression)

The most dangerous part of this is that it seems to imply ADHD is over- diagnosed in men (boys), when it's just as possible that ADHD is under- diagnosed in women (girls).

Girls diagnosed with 314.10 (Attention Deficit Disorder, predominantly hyperactive-impulsive) tend to exhibit fewer "traditional" symptoms of hyperactivity than boys with the same diagnosis. This isn't to say that the diagnosis is wrong - it's just that hyperactivity manifests in many ways - physical restlessness, "bouncing off the walls", etc. is only one.

> The interesting thing is I never asked any of these people whether ADHD is > real. But their defensiveness is understandable. ADHD isn't strep > throat—there's no culture, no test. To find out if you have it, or if your > son has it, or if your daughter has it, you just need a human being to say > so—a physician or a psychiatrist—and that makes some people skeptical

This describes the _entire_ field of psychiatry. While there are certainly some people who are who would distrust the field, I would be very wary of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And of all disorders, ADHD is actually significantly easier to test for systematically than most psychological/psychiatric disorders (such as depression). The main problem is that the tests to do so are very expensive (well into the thousands of dollars), and most insurance plans won't cover it.

> Ned Hallowell once famously said that stimulants were "safer than aspirin," > a statement he has since backed off of. ("That's almost a preposterous > statement for anyone to say," says Saltarelli.)

So, we have a complete lowbrow dismissal of what is actually a very reasonable statement. In the end, it's impossible to compare _any_ two drugs for safety because there are so many factors that come into play, but to the extent that one can make a pairwise comparison, this is actually a very well-supported statement.

<comment><USER18> > ADHD is very treatable, but untreated, it can easily lead to other > comorbidities that are much more difficult to treat (such as depression)

This claim needs citation.

The overall point is that the cost of the false positive overweighs the cost of the false negative

<comment><USER19> Which article did you read? Not only was there no discussion of the cost of false negatives, there was very little treatment of the actual cost of false positives, just a nebulous assertion that its bad for kids to be on pills.

I would say the point of the article is here is a list of reasons why it might be over-diagnosed, some people on both sides of that, 50% puffed up with human interest pap about the Boy Whisperer

<comment><USER20> "... of the actual cost of false positives, just a nebulous assertion that its bad for kids to be on pills."

It's bad for kids to be on pills.

<comment><USER21> Speaking of needing citations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> For those who don't know Esquire, it's basically a supermarket tabloid-for-men style magazine. It's not a science mag, so for anyone to get too upset about it is, well, just not really smart. [0]

That said, the horrific FUD writing style is insulting. The comments by HN users - I can't even identify with the people here.

 _Now imagine that he is suffering like this because of a mistake... If you have a son in America, there is an alarming probability that this has happened or will happen to you._

Absolute bullshit. Total and utter crap. That does not happen. I have two ADHD kids and it was (a) my choice to take them to a doctor, (b) my choice of which doctor they went to, and (c) my choice as to whether there was a diagnosis of ADHD. It's farcical for me to read the opening paragraphs of this "article" and its presumption that doctors are evil and really just want to incorrectly diagnose kids. Atrocious.

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire_%28magazine%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire_%28magazine%29)

<comment><USER23> > (c) my choice as to whether there was a diagnosis of ADHD

Wait, what?

<comment><USER22> Did you not understand or did you have a legitimate follow-on question?

<comment><USER23> It sounds like you specifically arranged things so that you got the diagnosis you wanted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't believe in ADHD but I suspect the drugs do something with utility. How does society confront pills that make people more efficient?

</comment><comment><USER25> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_R_(Leading_Us_Along)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_R_\(Leading_Us_Along\))

"The song was written about a friend of the Loeffler brothers, who was misdiagnosed with ADHD, and developed an addiction to Ritalin. As a result, he would often do crazy and odd things, such as drive around aimlessly for hours, determined to hear a specific song on the radio."

:-(

</comment><comment><USER26> ADHD isn't real. It didn't exist in many previous generations. Surely, the behavior of children hasn't changed much over the last few generations so how come this "disease" didn't exist previous to the current couple of generations and how come it still doesn't exist in many places on the planet? Could foreign kids somehow be better? Of course not. As the article points out, this is a ploy by pharmaceutical companies to get children hooked not only on ADHD drugs but on drugs in the future.

What do these kids do when they turn 18? I asked on pediatrician I respected what she does for the children. Does she taper them off? Does she transition them to other doctors? Does she transition them to other medicines? Nope. "That's not my problem," she said. Of course not. In a culture where doctors are not responsible, where making hundreds of dollars an hour is "not enough" to have them actually perform their duties in full, duties such as making a full investigation into their patients' cases, and spending more than 10 or 15 minutes before "diagnosing" them with a condition they do not have and putting them on drugs for essentially the rest of their lives, only in such a culture is ADHD real.

When it comes down to it, it's the responsibility of the parents to keep their kids off drugs. The body doesn't care wether you're snorting amphetamine or Adderall because Adderall _is amphetamine._ Parents who allow their kids to be "diagnosed" with ADHD and allow them to take drugs are encouraging their children to take drugs. They are unconscionable parents. Any child can make a mistake and start doing drugs, but now we have whole classes of drugs that are encouraged. Some drug abuse and addictions have become ingrained in life. Do you think the children will stop because they've now turned 18? Do you think they'll stop at Ritalin or Adderall when those things stop working? Addiction knows no bounds.

How many more lives will have to be ruined before people realize the psychiatric industry and the doctors pushing these drugs are only doing it for the money, money they do not need? Talk about about scummy drug dealers. Yeah, we're looking at the multi-billion dollar corporations, the "psychiatrists," the DSM writers, and the rest of the doctors who can't even be bothered to spend ten minutes with a patient before deciding on a horrific fate for them. When will people learn that the medical industry cannot be trusted, that the hippocratic oath is bullshit, and they need to be responsible for their own selves and their own children? Those parents allowing their kids to be put on this should be put in jail next to the child murderers they irresponsibly strive to be.

<comment><USER8> My parents didn't want me on ADHD meds - which is hysterical because my father very obviously has undiagnosed symptoms of ADHD too - so I didn't get any and had to rely solely on behavioral techniques and societal pressure until I picked my own damn therapist. Me at 16 in college with dinky checklists compared to me at 25 right now with the same checklists and Adderall is like night and day.

As much as I love my parents, I occasionally get angry when I think about what could have been compared to what happened because they didn't like the idea of me being on drugs (like I wasn't on other drugs). Not missed opportunities that were impossible to begin with, but a lot of reachable goals and dreams I had that I tried working my ass off towards and it just wasn't happening because I spent just as much time struggling with myself as I did working towards said goals. I'm trying to play catchup still, years later. I suspect there are some goals that I will never be able to do anything about now because there was some age/time component to it.

Speaking of other drugs, there are plenty of them - yes, maybe even "dealt" by "drug dealer" doctors that are actually terrible - that significantly improve quality of life. Drugs are not inherently bad. It's a constant balance of whether or not the tradeoffs are worth it, that's all. Like right now I'm juggling 6-7 different meds and their side effects to fix my bronchitis+asthma right now because I do not want to end up in the ER or worse, dead. Is that so terrible? Am I a drug addict for not wanting to suffer when I have a choice to not suffer? Even if you want to label me as such, what, are you a firm believer in survival of the fittest? Because if we can keep people from suffering and dying, I would do it. Screw that fittest bullshit.

<comment><USER27> I'd encourage you not to be too hard on your parents when looking back. Very difficult decision to make and it took a lot of guts to buck the system and pressure to medicate; opting instead for behavioral approaches.

Giving a growing brain a psychoactive drug is serious business.

Also, of course, you are looking back with perfect hindsight. What if you'd had a serious adverse event, psychosis, or otherwise negative outcome? No one could have known, and that was a risk your parents had to weigh. In fact, your brain now is different than then. Perhaps your parents helped you to dodge a devastating bullet by withholding psychoactive drugs at a younger age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A few years ago teachers complained that both my boys were too intense on the playground, 'diagnosed' with ADHD. Docs were eager to prescribe meds to make them conform.

There is something in our society wants to redefine normal behavior as pathology. Maybe to get you hooked and build revenue streams, maybe just to make you more pliable.

Fuck that.

Yes there are legitimate cases. But I've only experienced people who want to mis-apply the meds.

<comment><USER29> My girlfriend is a psychiatrist and we've had discussions about over medication. One thing she said to me stuck with me and may be of help to you in your current situation. She says stimulants work right away (unlike medication for depression) and she said that if the drugs do work you'll see this within a few days. If they do work then talk with a psychiatrist about long term plans and long term health affects of the medication.

The teachers are not professionals and their opinions do not constitute a diagnosis.

<comment><USER30> but what is "work"? Seems to hit the point of 'make conform'</comment></comment></comment>


The Black Community Needs Encryption - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/the-black-community-needs-encryption <comment><AUTHOR> also here is a short story done by Motherboard on the founder :

[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/matt-mitchell- is-...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/matt-mitchell-is-arming- underserved-communities-with-anti-surveillance-tools)</comment>


Of Particular Significance; Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/ <comment><USER2> I always thought the story was that Matter WAS Energy..

<comment><AUTHOR> My understanding is that when you smash particles together with high enough energy, you end up with a total particle mass greater than before, and so, yeah, in a way, it must be.</comment></comment>


Ask HN:How to introduce a 5 year old to computer science? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Way I got into it was video games, and having to pick up computers and hardware to actually play anything (along with having my parents generally against it, so if I wanted to upgrade my pc for new games, I had to be careful aka research)

So following that idea; don't teach them CS, give them something that'll force them to pick up CS along the way; and don't let them access the easy route to victory

IE if he wants to play games, don't let him use anything but windows 7 and ban any modern video game. Give him a few copies of good older titles, and no additional instruction; like civ 3, sim city 1, star control 2, etc; by not giving him modern games, he'll be stuck playing alone with no one his age to talk to about it; no one, that is, but the internet. And if he can only play older works, then he'll inevitably read into the history, and select from the older games, and eventually you can let him upgrade his hardware at his own risk, and so it goes on.

Essentially, don't let him get trapped in minecraft; a healthy start, and a tough environment, and he'll come out tough is my belief

</comment><comment><USER3> Why do you want to introduce a 5-year-old to computer science? Has your kid expressed interest?

<comment><AUTHOR> The child is my nephew. The reason I want to show him computer science is from my own experience. When I was a kid, I got my first computer before all my friends. Today, I realize that made a big difference. Also, I see that his parents do not do not care about that, they gave him a tablet just to play and watch videos on youtube. I just want to show him that there's so much more than that!

<comment><USER4> He may not be as interested in computer science as you are, just realize that.

<comment><AUTHOR> I know, my intention is not to impose but to show him what exists and what can be done. I believe that if I do not do that, no one will.

[Edit] I say that because I live in the coutryside in Brazil. People here, specificaly in my city, are focused in agricultural activities and are still not used to deal with computers.

<comment><USER5> Realize that by pushing someone into a hobby you're going to disrupt their ability to discover or experience it for themselves. Give them a computer, not CS problems.

I would probably hate CS if my parents told me to get into it or started leaving breadcrumbs for me to pick up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You might want to let the 5-year-old watch old episodes of the PBS kids cartoon series, "Cyber Chase". It covers an astonishing range of subjects, from game theory to euclidean geometry to statistics to some programming.

Unfortunately, it was canceled before it got to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.

</comment><comment><USER7> Bet they use the TV and are used to it. Get a Raspberry Pi (and keyboard and mouse and controllers), show it to them, plug it in. In whatever order: Play some games. MODIFY a game. Install/run a good LOGO variant (once they read enough to use it). Show them some neat LOGO programming. Help them make their own LOGO programs. Leave them alone to make their own stuff.

Consider Scratch or another "kids" environment, if/when LOGO doesn't seem to be enough.

When they are up to it, help and/or encourage them to make their own games. Or whatever -- if games turn out not to be their thing.

So, you take a TV that is passive. And you make it active. With this cool and tech and not "packaged" looking PCB. And you show them how it can do what _they_ want -- if they can figure it out.

And, don't forget to go out and ride bikes, too.

P.S. The computer is not magic, and it's not a fancy TV. It's a tool. It'll do whatever you want, if you can figure it out.

P.P.S. For bonus points, when they become a teenager, turn them on to the paranoia of the war on general computing. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER8> I have three five year olds. I been looking into this and I'm considering some of the "programming" games available for android since they have android tablets. They have to work without being able to read, though, so that's an added challenge.

Lightbot, Robotizen and Bit by Bit look promising. Tynker appears to require reading.

There are several Scratch-based applications out there, like Scratch, Jr. There's even a "PBS Kids" version of Scratch, Jr., which may be the best place to start.

We definitely want to encourage all sorts of STEM, though. I'm a software developer and my wife is a mechanical engineer.

We received a 3d printer just over a year ago, but mostly they are interested in small toys rather than actually creating anything. I've tried signing up for "teacher" resources for 3d printers, but they always want you to be affiliated with a school. Not much help for parents. That's a big hint to anybody developing STEM curriculum - it starts at home. Get the parents involved, please.

</comment><comment><USER9> Build a desktop computer together. 5 is a little young to start actual programming, especially if they're just learning to read. But putting together a computer from scratch is more like legos and in the process you can teach them about what each part does (power comes from the P/S at different levels, the CPU does all the calculations like addition/subtraction, HD holds data and memories forever, RAM holds it temporarily, etc)

I built one with my son when he was around the same age. Not sure how much computer knowledge he gained from that experience but it was still a fun project

</comment><comment><USER10> When I was 5, I received a Game Boy for Christmas. It started me down the long road of computers, programming, and my career today.

I also had different building toys growing up. K-Nex, LEGOs, and Erector Sets were common. It gave me a place to explore creativity and building. As I grew older, I started learning how to use my father's tools for woodworking and basic carpentry.

In that spirit I would recommend fostering the impulse to create, build, and explore.

</comment><comment><USER11> I have a 5 year old who is a pretty good reader and seems to be naturally interested in math and computers/tablets. He'll get really interested in one thing for a while then float to something else.

I set him up on a super old laptop to run the desktop version of Scratch. I picked up a set of books by this publisher at Costco. He made it through 3 of the game tutorials and thought it was fun. The hardest thing for him was clicking/using the mouse and touchpad. [https://www.amazon.com/DK-Workbooks- Coding-Scratch-Workbook/...](https://www.amazon.com/DK-Workbooks-Coding- Scratch-Workbook/dp/1465444823) We passed the books to some friends after he found something else to explore.

Currently, he's avidly playing a game called "Box Island" on iPad. It's a coding game with several free levels. I was pleasantly surprised when he finished the free levels after a few weeks (we limit iPad time) and requested I buy the remaining levels. Before this game, he was playing Kodable, which was free but had terrible graphics, imho.

We were gifted Robot Turtles but that didn't take.

</comment><comment><USER12> You don't tell us about the background. But I would say not to introduce the child at all. Prodigies will seek and find for themselfes, I'd assume. If it shows interest, asking questions, then you may try to answer. If it is a prodigy, it will understand. If not, well, then there is no need to introduce a five years old to CS.

</comment><comment><USER13> I would recommend the game SpaceChem. It is outstandingly parallel to programming in the sense there is branching, testing, looping logic and similar. You'll probably even love the game yourself. It has great commanding/minion play and a good story if they are a capable reader (the first being the first approach to teach boys, the second girls if you follow teaching advice for typical kids)

Minecraft does have a bunch of programming mods. Often times letting you make minions to do stuff for you (some cases in python or a custom language).

You could also consider starting with electricity. I've been through college classes for both programming and electricity. And the success of actually learning to read/make/trouble shoot electrical diagrams is much higher than it is for programming.

</comment><comment><USER14> Lego Mindstorms might be good. It's pretty powerful, but its a lego set, so you don't need to put too much work into it to make something.

</comment><comment><USER15> The book _Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software_ by Charles Petzold is pretty fun for kids. You can play along with almost everything in it if you buy some (cheap) hardware. Very "hands on" explanations.

</comment><comment><USER16> There's a board game called "Robot Turtles" that's designed to teach programming concepts to kids. I was initially pretty skeptical, but our preschooler loves it.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'd introduce the kid to age appropriate logic puzzles maybe drop a couple "for everyone of these we'll do that" when dudes a bit older add some video game stuff

</comment><comment><USER18> Roblox! Its a really fun platform and simple to use. Its playing games people make and making your own. You can script with lua too.

</comment><comment><USER19> The same way you introduce a 5 year old to particle physics. (hint: you don't)

</comment><comment><USER20> ASM or C

</comment><comment><USER21> Basic boolean logic.

There is also a nice board game called Robot Turtles that helps.

<comment><USER22> Understanding base-2 numbers (and other bases) is another good idea, though it's more suitable for a ten year old.

Game: represent numbers using progressively more exotic representations:

Base 10 Base 5 Base 2 Unary

Then

Fibonacci base ([http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted- sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci...](http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted- sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibrep.html) )

Then

Invent a place-value system using product of primes (inspired by fundamental theorem of arithmetic)

Etc. This is a very "digital" set of exercises and it's very focused on counting. Logic will take care of itself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Did you have a look at Playgrounds on the Apple iPad?</comment>


New Details Show Broader NSA Surveillance Reach - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324108204579022874091732470-lMyQjAxMTAzMDIwMDEyNDAyWj.html <comment><USER2> "For the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, officials say, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and NSA arranged with Qwest Communications International Inc. to use intercept equipment for a period of less than six months around the time of the event. It monitored the content of all email and text communications in the Salt Lake City area."

So that would be clearly illegal mass wiretapping, and we're being told it has only gotten worse since then. Oh, fantastic! No wonder Qwest's CEO had a falling out with the NSA that ended with him behind bars!

<comment><USER3> But everyone loves to rationalize how he's behind bars by his own wrong doing. And then people wonder why other CEOs don't stand up to the NSA. What's the point? If the general population doesn't care, why go to jail for them?

<comment><USER4> Guys, nacchio was a more run-of-the-mill-crook, tho.

Not a spy , etc. so was the guy that ran worldcom. they were (in bed) with the NSA because of their role as backbone providers (ie, only incidentally). they both went to jail because they took on too much debt in the telecom boom laying fiber, not because the NSA framed them. the stupid stuff they did predates (in nacchio's case) the involvement with the uswest. the poor economics of qwest--which was trying to hide--was the reason he bought uswest. us west was a cash cow and able to service his debts.

The NSA dispute post-dates the stock market/telco imposion, and also both his acquisition of uswest and the start his insider selling, and cirucmstantially seems like a desperate bid to gain leverage in his criminal case (ie, his credibility is lacking, as the allegations are self-serving).

 _In 1996, reports appearing in The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News revealed that CLECs had lodged complaints with the FCC against US West, including multiple complaints from Qwest Communications International, Inc. The complaints alleged US West neglected or seriously delayed release of "bundled loops" as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, making it difficult for competitors to provide local telephone service to their customers. Other competitors began following suit, and charged US West with monopoly-like or anti-trust type behavior.[citation needed]

During the winter of 1999–2000, US West announced that it had received an unsolicited purchase offer from Qwest Communications International, Inc. At the time, US West had been attempting to merge with Global Crossing, but for months this deal had been stalled through the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). US West management publicly refused Qwest's offer. Qwest eventually purchased enough US West stock to enable Qwest to take control of the Board of Directors in March 2000.

On June 30, 2000, US West, Inc. and Qwest Communications International, Inc. combined via merger. US West, Inc. was merged into Qwest Communications International, Inc. with all of US West's direct subsidiaries becoming direct subsidiaries of Qwest._

[edits for clarity]

<comment><USER5> Where are you getting that? Nacchio was convicted for insider trading in 2007. Unless I am mistaken, your italicised text has nothing to do with that.

<comment><USER6> He was convicted in 2007, but insider trading was alleged to have taken place much earlier (1999-2002), long before his relationship with the NSA supposedly went south.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Nacchio)

<comment><USER5> "Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio, convicted of insider trading in April 2007, alleged in appeal documents that the NSA requested that Qwest participate in its wiretapping program more than six months before September 11, 2001. Nacchio recalls the meeting as occurring on February 27, 2001. Nacchio further claims that the NSA cancelled a lucrative contract with Qwest as a result of Qwest's refusal to participate in the wiretapping program." [1]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveilla...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qwest#Refusal_of_NSA_surveillance_requests)

<comment><USER4> Nacchio started selling stock earlier (see op cit) than that meeting. But its sort of beside the point. The information <he was hiding from the public> was information that long predated all of this. He was convicted of basically lying in the earlier SEC reports which is why he had <insider> information. It was harder to convict him on witholding material information, so they went after him (and won) for insider trading.

Unfortunately, his allegations about NSA are sort of irrelevant to wether or not he was guilty or not. His credibilty as a witness is shot not only by his conflict of interest (ie, he's trying to get out of jail) but also because he was convicted of a crime of fundamental dishonesty.

I don;t think there is much doubt that his general business tenure as CEO was sketchy at best in terms of integrity. That doesn;t make the NSA innocent, but it makes the Nacchio link much less interesting as a discussion piece. Nacchio is not any kind of hero figure or champion of integrity.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for your comment, it explains how your initial comment relates to his conviction. This article helped too. [1]

The basis of his conviction is that he made a prediction that the court found to be false, and the court found that he should have known it would be false.

If it's for say, predicting 2001/2002 revenue, he was convicted as lying to the SEC, it's possible that losing NSA/government contracts contributed.

I don't know the dates and so don't know for which year(s) he was convicted for making a false prediction. If it was earlier than 2002 it is probably as you say, run of the mill lying to the SEC.

His allegations are of retaliation, that he was given cruel and unusual attention because he refused to comply. As regards whether it was retaliation, his credibility is shot.

I don't doubt that the meetings occurred, that qwest refused and that contracts were cancelled. In that regard even though he may be a liar, he did better than the CEO's of the other companies. I am sure if you subject any CEO to enough scrutiny you can convict them of something. Put it this way, I'd take a CEO who makes unrealistic predictions about revenue over one that silently allows warrantless wiretapping.

[1] [http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635163326/Ex-Qwest-CEO- pl...](http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635163326/Ex-Qwest-CEO-plans-novel- defense-in-trading-probe.html?pg=all)

<comment><USER4> There's no way losing a couple NSA contacts sends a RBOC generating $4B of cash a year into a $2 stock and near bankruptcy. The way you do that, is you merge a massively unprofitable business into a blue chip one and pay the latter with massively inflated stock (viz: '99 internet bubble). After the bubble bursts, market wakes up, and the assets are found to be dogs. The $4B cash is now going to pay down the massive debts the combined entity took to finance the operating losses of the crappy side of the merger, but there is no growth in the supposedly high-growth part. The high-growth part was not a NSA/gov't driven biz plan, though. That would not have made sense or been credible plan on which to merge or raise capital (before 9/11 in particular).

Much easier explanation. According to the SEC/Jury/SupremeCourt etc.

Hope that helps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _The system has the capacity to reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet traffic in the hunt for foreign intelligence, including a wide array of communications by foreigners and Americans. In some cases, it retains the written content of emails sent between citizens within the U.S. and also filters domestic phone calls made with Internet technology, these people say._

<comment><USER7> > The system has the capacity to reach roughly 75% of all U.S. Internet > traffic

And of course, this is a work-in-progress number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think the news is out and all know the facts and fabricated facts too.

I think its time for the govt., and the president to come out and say "Yes", We Spy on you for your safety and we assure and ensure you don't get penalised for wrong reasons and systemic errors.

More than privacy people are scared of the ramifications of the surveillance by organisations that lost the trust.

<comment><USER9> He's not going to do that. He knows it's unconstitutional.

What you're saying is kind of like saying: "Look, torture _works_ , and we're doing it anyway - therefore let's just do it with medical oversight to ensure the torture doesn't go as far as organ failure. They will do it for our safety against the _enemy_ , and with good oversight - so it's all good. It's for our _safety_!".

They shouldn't be doing it at all. The "oversight" gets corrupted over time, too, and then what?

<comment><USER10> Infuriatingly, John Yoo makes this exact argument.

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130817/22391824220/guy- wh...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130817/22391824220/guy-who-wrote- legal-memos-defending-us-torture-defends-nsa-because-it-takes-too-long-to- obey-constitution.shtml)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> More magical word redefinitions, this time ' _minimize_ ':

Another Snowden document describes the procedures NSA uses to protect American information that is retained. Any such information is " _minimized_ ," meaning that it is destroyed. The document highlights several exceptions, including encrypted communications and information of foreign intelligence significance.

...

Officials acknowledged some purely domestic communications are incidentally swept into the system. "We don't keep track of numbers of U.S. persons," a U.S. official says. "What we try to do is _minimize_ any exposure."

You have to question their definition of each word, each time they use it, because they are probably playing fancy word games.

<comment><USER11> One of the greatest abuses being carried out here is of the English language

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think by now it's very naive to still assume they do it just to stop terrorism. But the good thing about this whole mess is that a new generation of people realises that politicians are liars and are not to be trusted, ever.

</comment><comment><USER7> > The NSA's filtering, carried out with telecom companies, is designed to look > for communications that either originate or end abroad, or are entirely > foreign but happen to be passing through the U.S.

This will have a "Great Firewall of China"-Effect:

\- Americans will cut data exchange (and communication) with the outside

\- The rest of the World will cut data exchange (and communication) with Americans (obviously, this will include the use of IT-related US products/services)

<comment><USER6> I don't think so. It's not like this is the first spy scandal of this type and previous ones (Echelon etc.) don't seem to have any long-term effect on commercial or communications traffic.

<comment><USER13> How would you tell? In an environment with such a high rate of growth, would we detect a lower-than-"control", but still high, growth rate as a change?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What's the best resource for what we do / don't know about NSA surveillance / Snowden affair?

</comment><comment><USER15> > We want high-grade ore

Always enjoy listening to criminals giving their pathetic excuses. Communism was a joke and so, unfortunately, is the Obama administration.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm very interested in this 25% they can't reach. Can we route our services and communications through it?

</comment><comment><USER17> The person who framed this propaganda piece was skillful enough that I think s/he could get paid more working for the Louvre.

<comment> grey-area I'm curious, what about this article makes it a propaganda piece? Who is it propaganda for?

<comment><USER17> I got my definition of what Propaganda is from Ed Bernays. You might do the same.

<comment> grey-area You would do better to lay out the specific points you feel were distorting the truth. That would be more persuasive than name-calling.

If it's propaganda, I don't feel it's very effective as it reports serious wrong-doing within the government, and directly contradicts the president saying the NSA isn't "actually abusing" their powers. That's quite a serious allegation and not at all supporting the government position, which is that there's nothing to see here and no abuses have occurred.

I find it more likely it was written by a journalist with some sympathy to the government position and comfortable in their post at the wsj, who thus doesn't want to rock the boat too much, rather than one paid to distort the truth in the service of the government. I can't agree with lots of the conclusions and feel it is far too soft on the NSA, but it's hardly one-side propaganda beating the drum for the government.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Learning Ruby on Rails Book/Tutorial Literature - <AUTHOR>

I have spent some effort in learning ruby on rails. So far I only used tutorials that guide you step by step through how to build some page. I am wondering is there a book or any kind of literature out there that explains ruby on rails to programmers/engineers/coders NOT beginners?<p>Thanks guys for helping <comment><USER2> I've heard good things about "The Rails 3 Way". I've not used it yet. I'm still in the "beginner" levels and I've found railstutorial.org to be invaluable.

For Beginners: <http://ruby.railstutorial.org/ruby-on-rails-tutorial-book>

(potentially) For Those More Experienced: [http://www.amazon.com/Rails- Edition-Addison-Wesley-Professio...](http://www.amazon.com/Rails-Edition- Addison-Wesley-Professional-Series/dp/0321601661)

</comment><comment><USER3> about Rails:

\- Rails Antipatterns

\- Rails 3 in Action

\- The Rails 3 Way

\- Ruby for Rails

about Ruby:

\- Eloquent Ruby

\- Design Patterns in Ruby

\- Well Grounded Rubyist

\- Metaprogramming Ruby

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks guys for the comments. Will try them out and post my experiences ...</comment></comment>


The Vegetable Detective - <AUTHOR> http://craftsmanship.net/the-vegetable-detective/ <comment><USER2> I'm kind of alarmed at how not-alarming people are finding this. The idea that eating the foods we most need to eat for health will result in heavy metal poisoning via a vector about which there is no regulatory control or even awareness is a pretty big deal.

<comment><USER3> I hope someone more serious is looking into it (or has already done so) but my alarm is checked by the crack-pot flags this guy's raised for me. Most obviously that he tries to demonstrate P(A|B) by testing P(B|A) - if you don't understand basic statistics, your conclusions are suspect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> _" To test this link, Hubbard started playing a little game. Whenever the clinic would send him someone with the kind of chronic problems associated with thallium, or any other complaints that were hard to pin down, Hubbard would scribble kale on a little note-card and turn it face-down on his desk. After a short work-up, he'd ask the patient to list his or her favorite vegetables. Over and over, people would mention the crucifers, especially kale. Hubbard would nod, say he expected as much, then show them the note-card on his desk to prove it."_

Compelling.

What are the odds things would turn out any different with the rest of the population of Marin?

</comment><comment><USER4> I stopped reading after this sentence:

 _" One kale sample reported thallium at 1.14 ppm, nickel at 20 ppm, and aluminum at 120 ppm. (As has been widely reported, aluminum is often suspected as a cause of both autism and Alzheimer's disease.)"_

It's pretty controversial claim that aluminum is related to Alzheimer's disease [http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/guide/controversial- claims-r...](http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/guide/controversial-claims-risk- factors)

<comment><USER5> Not sure why you're being downvoted for this comment. That was one of the red flags for me as well.

"Often suspected" is a deliberately misleading and alarmist way to present the current scientific data on the relationship between aluminium and Alzheimer's disease.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Is there good information available regarding soil nutrient density for the plants that we eat? I've seen surprisingly little discussion of this topic in the healthy eating community, which I assume is due to lack of data.

My layman's understanding is that the nutrient density of the soil is equally (if not more) important to the "healthiness" of vegetables than the particular species of plant itself. It's almost common sense, on some level.

</comment><comment><USER7> Snopes argues this article should be disregarded for lacking rigorous data. [http://m.snopes.com/kale-not-safe/](http://m.snopes.com/kale-not-safe/)

</comment><comment><USER8> I realize that most readers are innumerate, but this sort of bombshell reporting really calls for numbers and a proper statistical analysis.

<comment><USER3> It's not just the readers that are innumerate, unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Every food pretty much follows a Gaussian curve in terms of benefit. There's an ideal amount, with too little being bad, and too much being bad. All plants have some form of natural toxin as a defense against being eaten. Even broccoli has oxalic acid which can lead to kidney stones in high amounts. Cooking helps mitigate these, as well as sourcing from an organic farm or your back yard. But it's always safer to eat a variety of vegetables, so you distribute whatever toxins each one has, natural or man-made, and get varied nutrients. There's no silver bullet.

<comment><USER3> _" sourcing from an organic farm or your back yard"_

Sourcing from your back yard (and to a lesser degree, a single farm; and to a still lesser degree a single geographic region) means you're not eating veggies grown in a variety of soil compositions, even if you are eating a variety of plant species.

The most extreme way this can fail (that's common enough to note) is if the soil in your back yard is high in lead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> 'A molecular biologist is finding what could be dangerous levels of heavy metals in plants like kale, often called the "queen" of the vegetable kingdom. And they've shown up the most in organic varieties.'

Seems as if there is no food ingredient that is really safe, always ? Something that can be trusted to be healthy whatever.

<comment><USER11> Why would there be? Plants weren't put here for our benefit any more than animals were. It would be an astonishing coincidence if the optimal diet consisted of any one thing. Unless it was maybe breast milk.

<comment><USER12> Although the problem here isn't the plants themselves, it's heavy metal pollution.

<comment><USER13> In addition to the misguided notion that somehow, someway, vegetables sold as organic are vastly superior to vegetables grown and sold in any other condition.

<comment><USER14> I don't think you read the article - the metals were the direct result of fertilizer which would not be allowed in organic farming. The catch is that the fertilizer (coal ash) was used to grow corn and soybean animal feed (which cows can't even digest properly, but that's another story...) and then the manure of those cows went to organic farms - so the purported vector of attack was indirect.

I'm no cheerleader of organics and think it's foolish that GMOs are by definition non-organic. However, I buy them when I can primarily because of my concerns with pesticide and fertilizer overuse.

<comment><USER13> _The catch is that the fertilizer (coal ash) was used to grow corn and soybean animal feed (which cows can 't even digest properly, but that's another story...) and then the manure of those cows went to organic farms - so the purported vector of attack was indirect._

That's exactly my point though, organic farming is not a closed system no matter how much the public might desire to believe it is. There are some tenants of growing organics but it's not standardized nor systematic. I believe it is potentially deceiving in the worse cases. Of course the issue at hand is not organic farming but instead cruciferous veggies such as kale and broccoli but I only mention the idea because it's an integral part of Hubbard's "perfect storm":

 _" Now, Hubbard had what he often calls "a perfect storm": contaminated vegetables, misleadingly pushed on the public as nutritious—and clean—leading to misdiagnosed ailments. "Where does this list end?" he wrote in one of his numerous messages emphasizing these points. "There is undoubtedly a series of similar perfect storms at work in other heavy metals and our food supply, including infant/baby foods, pet foods, and beyond.""_

<comment><USER15> But if everyone grew "organic" food, then it would be moot point. A full organic system is a better than a full non-organic system. So while current organic food might be contaminated through side channels, making more of our food production 'organic' would be be beneficial - not because organic food is great nutritionally in and of itself, but because having more of it benefits the food system.

That said, I don't eat much organic food. However, this article has made me want to eat more organic food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I often wonder what water high water-content fruits like strawberries have been subjected to. An interesting article but I don't think I'll knock broccoli on the head just yet.</comment>