CentOS 6.5 released - <AUTHOR> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2013-December/020032.html

<comment><USER2> More info from upstream:

Press release - [https://www.redhat.com/about/news/press- archive/2013/11/red-...](https://www.redhat.com/about/news/press- archive/2013/11/red-hat-launches-latest-version-of-red-hat-enterprise-linux-6)

Release notes - [https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en- US/Red_Hat_E...](https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en- US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html-single/6.5_Release_Notes/index.html)

Technical notes - [https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en- US/Red_Hat_E...](https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en- US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html-single/6.5_Technical_Notes/index.html)

> ECDSA Support in OpenSSL: Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) > is a variant of the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) which uses Elliptic > Curve Cryptography (ECC). Note that only the nistp256 and nistp384 curves > are supported.

> ECDHE Support in OpenSSL: Ephemeral Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDHE) is > supported, which allows for Perfect Forward Secrecy with much lower > computational requirements.

</comment><comment><USER3> (Pleasantly) surprised to see docker in there.

Looking forward to 7 (although XFS by default got me wearing my best surprise! face).

<comment><USER4> Noob question here: what are the advantages of XFS over the more "default" Ext4 or the more "everything you might ever need" ZFS?

<comment><USER5> Let Dave Chinner tell you: [https://archive.org/download/Linux.conf.au2012ConferenceVide...](https://archive.org/download/Linux.conf.au2012ConferenceVideos/LCA2012-XFS_Recent_and_Future- Dave-Chinner.mp4)

<comment><USER6> Was hoping for something I could read rather than watch.

<comment><USER5> Try [https://lwn.net/Articles/476263/](https://lwn.net/Articles/476263/) then, which is a summary of Dave's talk on the state of XFS.

The TL;DR version would be that XFS aims to be get out of your road and provide a big, fast pipe to make optimal use of your available hardware. It does not try to implement end-to-end checksumming, thin provisioning, RAID, data de-duplication, or other overhead.

Dave makes the point that traditionally people characterised XFS as for very high-end workloads, but suggests that commodity hardware is now at the point (in terms of IOPS and transfer rates) that "high end" is now quite affordable, so you should consider it for workstations, laptops, etc.

The XFS authors think it will remain a better choice for certain workloads, such as the modify-in-place work of databases, video editing, and so on, that copy-on-write filesystems like ZFS and btrfs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Awesome - an OpenSSL package with TLS 1.2 support was something that I've really been wanting for a long time! I was starting to think I'd have to wait until CentOS 7!

</comment><comment><USER8> Can someone help me out with centos? When it comes to linux I'm usually running ubuntu. Why would I look to centos over fedora?

<comment><USER9> Fedora stops supplying you with any updates after ~1.5 years, RHEL (and theoretically CentOS) will support you for 10 years. Not only this but the software gets through extremely vigorous QA, certifications etc, unlike Fedora (and many other distros).

Fedora is the development workhorse from which RHEL versions are spawned and hardened.

In short, want to run a mission critical application for many years? Go RHEL (or CentOS if you do not care about support and extra bits or cannot afford it). Want more bleeding edge stuff and faster paced development and updates? Go Fedora.

<comment><USER10> It's worth pointing out the EPEL repository that makes many of the bleeding edge packages from fedora available to RHEL in a fully compatible way.

<comment><USER11> "mostly" compatible way. You occasionally get shot so test them on another box first.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> when will python get updated (at least to 2.7.5)? I read the RLN but all I see are fixes being backported from newer versions of python.

<comment><USER9> The basic python package will never change versions, but it will receive backports, this is the RedHat way.

If you must use newer stuff, check the Software Collections (still in devel, but prolly very usable):

[http://dev.centos.org/centos/6/SCL/](http://dev.centos.org/centos/6/SCL/)

Alternatively check out IUS repo, it has python 2.7.5 and 3.3: [http://dl.iuscommunity.org/pub/ius/stable/Redhat/6/SRPMS/rep...](http://dl.iuscommunity.org/pub/ius/stable/Redhat/6/SRPMS/repoview/letter_p.group.html)

[http://iuscommunity.org/pages/About.html](http://iuscommunity.org/pages/About.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Updated my DO droplets now. No problems reported other than I was an idiot and forgot to "chkconfig dovecot on" on my IMAP server. Doh!

Doing laptop this evening.

</comment><comment><USER13> mingw-gcc deprecated? What's the replacement, mingw-w64 -m32?</comment>


Lenovo's design chief wants to build this retro-classic ThinkPad - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/25/8848813/retro-thinkpad-design-concept

<comment><USER2> I know about 20 or more people who would buy this. I love ThinkPads and really hope they bring this back.</comment>


Analytical Dashboard in a Weekend Using Python Flask, MongoDB and Pandas - <AUTHOR> http://kanoki.org/2017/08/25/analytical-dashboard-with-python-flask-pandas-and-mongodb/ <comment><USER2> Great Work Gregory Michael</comment>


The Boy Who Stole Half-Life 2 (Source Code) - <AUTHOR> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-21-the-boy-who-stole-half-life-2-article

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know about you guys, but I was one of those who downloaded this source code on dial up, compiled & was very excited to play. I had watched the Value source engine show case videos and when I experienced that in the game it was mesmerizing.

I never knew how it all began, I feel nostalgic after reading this story.</comment>


Developer motivation and satisfaction - <AUTHOR> http://codemonkeyism.com/developer-motivation-satisfaction/

<comment><USER2> Good to know this _process_ isn't just something I experience. I think every position I've ever taken started this way, plateaued, and ended exactly as described. Unfortunately, challenges come in the form of work load these days, and not the difficulty of the problems I'm being asked to solve. Hopefully I can get to where I need to be, get motivated, and enjoy work again shortly...</comment>


COP21: Arnold Schwarzenegger: 'Go part-time vegetarian to protect the planet' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35039465 <comment><USER3> It is not popular to say this, but if you really want to protect the environment, you should consider not having kids.

Especially if you're doing well because the chances are your kid will grow up and drive for most of his life, fly in planes, obtain lots of stuff that requires CO2 emission in its production, and perhaps even consume meat. If you have multiple kids and they go on to have more kids etc, the environmental effect of having a kid becomes exponentially worse.

This doesn't mean that you don't deserve to be a parent, it is only natural to desire to be one. The closest orphanage will have many kids who are wishing for a warm home every day of the year. There are many impoverished and brilliant kids around the world who will live and die working under horrific conditions.

Now there is an argument to be made about you and your partner's genes being so exceptional that it would be more harmful to the society not to pass them to future generations. I guess it is up to the individual to make that judgement.

<comment><USER4> There's also the argument that wanting to reproduce is a natural human urge, and you're asking people to go against a very key biological instinct.

We haven't done all we can to protect the environment. We haven't even tried that hard. It might be easier to reduce our personal impact to 10% than try to reduce the world's population by the same level.

<comment><USER5> We already do a lot of things that go against our biological instincts. Which is probably one of the main reasons humans are so successful as a species. We can change ourselves some more, if it will increase the chances of our species' survival.

We sit in font of computers the whole day. The disciplined ones runs when there is no immediate danger or prey. We don't attack or kill people when they make us angry. We don't have sex with everything that has a chance to bear offspring.

<comment><USER6> But we are doing more and more things going against our biological instincts, especially in the last century; So I don't know if I would qualify the current human a successful species. We are destroying our habitat

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Or full time vegan and do more good for the planet. It's good to see people are finally acknowledging the great toll that animal ag takes on the planet.

Yes, this guy used to be a big time meat eater, but he's changing his tune which should be taken as a good thing. Our propensity for vilifying people who turn the corner is baffling to me.

<comment><USER8> I have several friends who keep chickens. These chickens are never killed, but their eggs are consumed occasionally. These chickens roam freely during daylight, then are corralled into "cages" overnight to prevent wild animals from eating them. What benefit would come of eliminating these chickens? I am neither vegetarian or vegan, but admire both, despite perceiving veganism as the more ideological of the two. I struggle to imagine how the world would be spared demise by invading Tibet and prohibiting the use of yak butter; or banning the cultivation of fish and their superior waste as fertilizer; or exterminating the last remaining nomadic tribe of Africa through prohibiting their practice of non-fatally bleeding their animals for sustenance. If it's a matter of numbers, it is obvious that great benefit would result from the popularity of veganism; but there are also variations in quality and circumstance to consider, i.e. a diet of cellulose might benefit the world and all those not on a cellulose diet, but not necessarily those on the cellulose diet; i.e not all dietary classes are equal and a vast disparity of options may exist between individuals, groups, etc, therefore dietary practices may be circumstantial. The world is large, one person's needs vary from another's, and one group from another's. Might there there be positional benefits to all three diets?

I ask this respectfully, as my unsure self, with no desire for debate, but rather a will for suitable answers.

Some things I've admired recently:

1\. [https://impossiblefoods.com/faq/](https://impossiblefoods.com/faq/)

2\. [http://www.monksmeats.com/](http://www.monksmeats.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a straw man. The issue is with scaling the luxury of meat. If we really want to we can produce meat cheaply (as we are doing now). However this is the reason we are in this situation.

> I struggle to imagine how the world would be spared demise by invading Tibet > and prohibiting the use of yak butter; or banning the cultivation of fish > and their superior waste as fertilizer; or exterminating the last remaining > nomadic tribe of Africa through prohibiting their practice of non-fatally > bleeding their animals for sustenance.

We can talk about invasions in a couple of years. For now, we can be content with reducing meat consumption in our respective home countries. Let's start with getting rid of meat subsidies. Then we can move on to dealing with industrial meat production. Etc etc.

> i.e not all dietary classes are equal and a vast disparity of options may > exist between individuals, groups, etc, therefore dietary practices may be > circumstantial

Like a third of India is at least vegetarian. Somehow they manage to get by.

<comment><USER8> "...a third of India is at least vegetarian. Somehow they manage to get by."

Yes; as vegetarians - not vegans. Note the parent post I was replying to, which suggested veganism. Strawman, red herrings in olive oil, say what you will, but there are many people who aren't "natives" (reference to other comment by marricks) that might struggle to maintain a healthy vegan diet, especially if they aren't nextdoor to a Wholefoods. That is more my point - not to suggest that we should feast on steak 24/7 "because Natives!". You'll get no argument from me regarding the present state of the meat industry. Big Ag can be and too often is appalling.

@marricks: Not one of the dozens of chickens on either friend's property (including the freely roaming ones no longer producing) have ever died of ovarian cancer. When I posed my questions, I was looking for answers - <USER2> irrelevant examples of extremes. The egg industry can be putrid. My friends' arrangement with chickens is certainly not. And I still struggle to see how they are scourging the Earth with their non vegan behavior, breeders or no breeders. Have we truly come to such extremes that owning a chicken and eating an egg is worse for the environment than the daily baubles of our throwaway, planned obsolescence society? Is our aim extreme, or practical? Is a vegan's Volvo better than my chicken, etc? When I do see, I'll accept it, but the question remains open. And again, I have much respect for veganism and vegetarianism. Sprats, scarecrows and fallacies aren't things I wish to use against either.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Yes; as vegetarians - not vegans.

They are lactovegetarians who have utmost respect for cows. I'm actually 100% ok with this setup, if this is achieved, I'm ok with not going full vegan.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There has been quite a few articles about the climate effect of meat eating, but every time it lacks a good comparison towards the older common problems like car emissions. They general do not mention that driving 10 minutes each day, or choosing a vegetarian diet vs meat rich diet for a whole day has the same effect on the environment (from a CO2 perspective).

10 min drive, or a 5 min commute from one place to an other, is something I think most people don't consider as far away. Driving to a vegetarian place for lunch might set back the environment more than a walk to a beef restaurant. We should have a cost table if we want to minimize the environmental impact on this individual level.

> He said it was pointless trying to persuade people to give up things they > wanted, like big cars

And this is why I suspect we have seen so many articles trying to address diet instead. Having everyone reducing CO2 a bit is easier than addressing those that do order of magnitude more damage, since there is so much more people who eat than people who own a car.

*edited 10m -> 10 minutes

<comment><USER10> 10 meter or 10 miles? And if miles, what kind of mile?

<comment><USER11> I read it as minutes. I'm from a metric using country, but IIRC "mile" is commonly abbreviated to "mi".

<comment><USER9> Yes, sorry for the confusion. I meant a 10 minutes drive or 5 minutes to a lunch restaurant and 5 minutes back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For those who are interested in reducing their animal consumption and need an extra push, I recommend this great talk by Dr. Melanie Joy about carnism, which is the invisible belief system that conditions us to eat certain animals: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0VrZPBskpg)

</comment><comment><USER13> He's certainly right about the fact that people are not going to quit all at once -- it's an example of the tragedy of the commons. If someone can figure out how to grow a meat analog in a lab cheaply and efficiently it will probably be one of the most positively impactful technologies ever created.

<comment><USER14> As a member of the _commons_ I'm not sure if I should feel insulted or amused by your condescending tone.

I eat meat because I like it and I don't try to impose my view of the world to other people.

<comment><USER15> The whole point of Schwarzenegger's advice this is that, while you like meat and find it insulting to have someone else's views imposed on you, for many purposes you are the one imposing his own view onto others by eating meat, since that means keeping alive the industry that contributes to 20% or 25% of all carbon emissions in the world. Others may not like that, and will try to convince you and other meat-eaters like myself to stop or reduce meat consumption.

<comment> nappy-doo NIT: not carbon, but greenhouse gases. Specifically methane, which is 30x more potent a greenhouse gas.

(Note, I realize that methane contains a carbon, I'm just clarifying that many people thing CO2 when the word carbon is used.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Beef is the worst. Avoid ruminants because of their methane release (cow burps are 25x more potent a ghg than co2). Also look at the feed to weight ratio for animals, cows are like 6:1 whereas chicken is 1.5:1, and chicken don't release substantial methane. Pork is about 4:1. Rabbit is about 3:1 and has a very fast time to cull.

</comment><comment><USER17> The framing in these things is always wrong. We are not protecting the planet. The planet will be fine. The planet has been fine for a long time. What won't be fine is a certain kind of primate that likes to live in certain places.

<comment><USER18> This type of response is intentionally obtuse. By 'planet' people mean the planet's ecosystems. By the time humans are in danger, 90%+ of other species will probably be long gone.

<comment><USER19> So? The planet has also gone through several extinction events. The white knighting ain't helping anyone. Obtuse or not.

<comment><USER20> His obtuseness point is that you know exactly what he means by protecting the planet, but you chose to interpret that phrase literally.

<comment><USER21> > but you chose to interpret that phrase literally.

But when we're dealing with geological timescales I think a literal interpretation may be the right way of looking at it. Would it be sad if 90% of Earth's species died off? Certainly, if there were any humans around to do the mourning. But zooming out a bit, the current die-off isn't anything new. There have been mass extinctions and rapid alterations of climate and atmosphere in the Earth's past too.

Humans originated on this planet and we are a part of the ecosystem. In a way, anything we do to nature is simply one part of nature being wildly out of equilibrium. If we mess it up, it'll mean curtains for us but life itself will march on. In 10-50 million years after we're gone, there will arise lifeforms that are just as interesting and varied as anything we have now. Which, on a geological timescale, really isn't that long (between 0.0025% and 0.0125% of the Earth's age).

I think that promoting environmentalism in terms of it being a means to saving ourselves might be more effective than appeals to "save the rapidly dying $ENDANGERED_SPECIES".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In addition to saving the planet, you can also save yourself from cancer and heart disease!

[http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer- risk/recommendations-...](http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer- risk/recommendations-for-cancer-prevention/recommendations_05_red_meat.html)

[http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/new-study-links-l- carniti...](http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/new-study-links-l-carnitine-in- red-meat-to-heart-disease-201304176083)

We have moved to eating red meat to a max of twice a month

</comment><comment><USER23> Nine of the top ten leading causes of death[1] in the United States can be directly attributed to meat consumption, so there's already a perfectly "selfish" motive to go vegan or vegetarian.

[1]: [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of- death.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm)

<comment><USER24> How can you link suicide, cancer, Alzheimer's, or accidents to meat? And most of the rest of that list?

<comment><USER25> We know that eating processed red meat causes cancer, and the evidence for this is very good.

We also know that it doesn't cause many cases of cancer.

This was poorly reported last year with people talking about red meat, cancer, and smoking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Reminds me of this: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/german-elections- blog-2013...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/german-elections- blog-2013/2013/sep/13/german-election-wurst-policy-veggie-day-greens)

</comment><comment><USER27> I wonder when will lab-grown meat become economically feasible?

</comment><comment><USER28> I looked at the statistics and apparently I eat 3-5 times less meat than an average US citizen. I guess I'm doing my part then.

</comment><comment><USER29> Doesn't he drive a hummer?

<comment><USER30> I think he converted it to run on bio-fuel. Not sure how much of a difference that makes.

<comment><USER31> He has also has at least one that runs on hydrogen

<comment><USER32> So how many cars does this guy have, and why won't he talk about how much natural resources are used up and pollution created by the mere manufacture of a car/truck/light infantry vehicle?

Saying, "go veg. part time" could be analogues to, "Hey, you need only one car? Own only one car - I'll start!"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> If fewer people eat meat will meat be more or less expensive for me?

</comment><comment><USER34> Beside saving the planet, we actually don't need to eat a lot of meat, once or twice a week should be sufficient in terms of health benefit.

<comment><USER35> You don't need _any_ meat. There's no health benefit from meat you can't get from plants, and plenty of things in meat that are horrible for your health.

<comment><USER36> I know this isn't the point you were making, but I wanted to take the opportunity to do a PSA.

While it's true you don't need any meat, it's not true you can get everything you need from an unsupplimented vegan diet (more accurately, it's incredibly hard).

If you're looking at a vegan diet, consider researching supplements such as for B12. If you're lazy and in the UK, Holland and Barret sell a single tablet supplement designed for a vegan diet (just ignore all of the other bollocks they sell in there)

<comment><USER35> Everyone should be conscious of B12 and be supplementing. It's dirt cheap, and crucial to proper brain function. Last time I checked something like 40% of Americans are deficient or borderline deficient but less than 3% are vegan.

Humans don't get B12 from dirty water and trace amounts of dirt on vegetables like we used to thousands of years ago and a lot of people aren't getting enough from the meat they are eating. B12 from meat is usually coming by proxy through the animal because farmers typically supplement the animals with it too.

B12 is an issue for _everyone_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> At the age of 70 Arnold has probably consumed more meat than an average sized U.S family will in their lifetime. It's nice that he's changed his tune on meat consumption, but it's come rather late in his life. Arnold has had his fill and then some and now he wants to make the planet better by suggesting others limit their consumption.

</comment><comment><USER38> Isn't this rather rich coming from a guy who has probably consumed 100 times more animal protein in his ~70 years on earth than the average joe to whom he is now rationing.

<comment><USER39> Actually, he's right. You do not need to eat animals to get good protein. It's easier to supplement with whey or soy protein. I wouldn't be surprised if his bodybuilding diet involved supplementation since it's much easier to meet macronutrient goals with protein shakes than by eating meat, because you don't have to worry about the fat that comes from the meat.

<comment><USER40> > It's easier to supplement with whey or soy protein.

Soy is a rather poor source of protein (phyto-estrogens, etc). Whey is a waste product of the cheese industry.

(Edit: All things considered, milk is a pretty good source of protein.) The milk cow is the most efficient means of converting the grass on a rocky hillside into human-edible protein (ref: some old book I have somewhere. They're all in boxes). The fat in grass-fed milk is more orange than industrial milk because there is more vitamins A & E (and beta carotene) in the milk than is in cottonseed meal (a waste product of the cotton industry that is commonly fed to dairy cows in a feedlot).

<comment><USER41> >"Soy is a rather poor source of protein (phyto-estrogens, etc)"

Regarding phyto-estrogens, from what I've seen there are positives as well as negatives. What in particular puts you off them?

To anyone reading this who hasn't heard about phyto-estrogens, and thinks of estrogens as a female-only hormone, it should be noted that males have estrogen receptors too, and phyto-estrogens are part of vegetables widely accepted as being healthy, such as carrots, apples, lentils, oats, barley, etc...

<comment><USER42> There was a myth that was well circulated 10-15? years ago (as soy products were becoming more available in the US) that said soy estrogen would turn men and boys into effeminate pansies and we'd all grow girl boobs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> surrey-fringe Our population exploded when we started farming grains.

<comment><USER41> The largest population explosion has been in the past 100 years:

[https://i0.wp.com/www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/wp- content/upl...](https://i0.wp.com/www.historyfuturenow.com/wp/wp- content/uploads/2012/11/populationgrowthhistory2.jpg)

<comment> surrey-fringe Does that refute what I said? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

<comment><USER41> Depends on what you intended.

You pointed to something which represented a relatively minor cause of population growth in the context of our overall history on this planet. What did you intend to illuminate with your earlier comment?

<comment> surrey-fringe Relatively minor compared to the industrial revolution, maybe. But it's certainly not minor if you look at the change in world population when Sumeria began.

Just a thought. Obviously I think anyone who goes vegan means well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> "one person could have flown coach from New York to Japan (and back) 3,408 TIMES with the amount of fuel the Governator used to commute within California."

Who does he think he is lecturing poor people like me about what I ought to be eating for dinner?!

[http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/214841-how-m...](http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/214841-how- much-jet-fuel-did-arnold-schwarzenegger-waste)

<comment><USER44> I think most of us here agree that ditching the Gulfstream will do wonders for the environment; but this isn't a pitch for "Arnold is living the best life for the environment."

He is a man who is becoming more conscious of his meat intake and taking steps to reduce that and his footprint.

Can he do better? Of course! Does that negate the validity of the argument that reduction of meat intake is a good idea for the environment? Nope.

The overall point is that we can all take little steps to reduce our footprint and meat is just one of them.

That said, it is quite amazing just how much fuel has he used.

<comment><USER45> > Does that negate the validity of the argument

Does that matter? Most people will just say "What a hypocrite" and ignore the message. People don't respond well to logic, they respond to emotion. A valid argument that doesn't convince anyone is worthless.</comment></comment></comment>


Why our political system is causing you flight delays - <AUTHOR> http://blog.flightcaster.com/why-our-political-system-is-causing-you-fligh

<comment><USER2> I think it's bullshit and a big waste of money that the government is wasting money on overhauling ATC. Going to GPS and such definitely has its benefits but as any pilot or controller will tell you the problem isn't the routes it's the airports. Before you put an airplane in the sky you have to have a place for it to land. Gates and slots are so tight they are almost inflexible. This creates a network effect of delays in one airport cascades to others. Planes that are late can't be cleaned and boarded so it pushes other planes waiting for the gate to also be delayed.

What needs to be abandoned is the hub-spoke airport system. It had it's place in the 80s when computers weren't very powerful but algorithms and processors have improved and route optimizations would be so much better.

<comment><USER3> I think the real problem is they don't keep sufficient spare planes ready to roll at airports. Granted that's an extremely expensive proposition, but even a little extra slack can greatly reduce delay propagation. As you increase efficiency you can always increase utilization to the point where the system becomes unstable.

Edit: I am not suggesting you need a spare at every airport, just that increasing the quantity of spares or increasing scheduling slack time fight delay propagation where increasing efficiency does not.

<comment><USER4> Carriers live and die by turnaround time to keep their jets making money (or at least, not losing money as quickly...) A significant part of SWA's competitive advantage is their industry leading turnaround time.

Having every carrier have to park a standby jet (even just one), flight crew and full cabin crew at each of their airports is going to flow pretty quickly (and stoutly) to the ticket price. (There are duty limits for flight and cabin crews, and being on active-standby, such as you'd need to be in order to effectively reduce delays, counts against those limits.)

Consumers want cheap tickets. Airlines are providing that, sometimes at the hidden expense to those consumers of delays and cancellations.

<comment><USER3> I agree with everything you said about the cost. However, large airlines do keep hot spares at a few locations. Low turnaround time is great, but sometimes something major breaks and you need to be able to pick up the slack. There are even companies who provide "generic" airplanes for this purpose.

PS: The incentives are somewhat skewed. Customers who have already paid for a flight still need to get where they are going so they accept delays.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Hopefully Congress gives the FAA the authority to do auctions - would be especially cool if they used combinatorial auctions: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combinatorial_auction>

</comment><comment><USER6> Seems there's more than one way. The other is the inefficiency of the air traffic control system: <http://reason.tv/video/show/951.html></comment>


Tell HN: RTP Hackers & Founders Meetup this week - <AUTHOR>

Just a friendly reminder: there will be an RTP Hackers & Founders Meetup this coming Friday, the 17th of Dec., 2010, at O'Malley's Tavern in Raleigh (of Glenwood Avenue, a couple of miles north of Crabtree Valley Mall).<p>Start time is at ~6:30PM, and we'll be there until people get tired, or the bar closes, or whatever.  Please come join us and talk hacking, startups, etc. <comment><AUTHOR> RSVP here: [http://www.meetup.com/RTP-Hackers- Founders/calendar/15690999...](http://www.meetup.com/RTP-Hackers- Founders/calendar/15690999/)</comment>


Mockups for a free, ad-supported Uber service - <AUTHOR> http://andrewchen.co/this-is-what-free-ad-supported-uber-rides-might-look-like-mockups-economics-and-analysis/ <comment><USER2> This reminded me of the future that Black Mirror's Fifteen Million Merits envisions for us: "Everyday activities are constantly interrupted by advertisements that cannot be skipped or ignored without financial penalty." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_Million_Merits)

<comment><USER3> I've only seen the first season of Black Mirror but I already love the show. I work in tech so some of the "possible futures" are a little scary/humbling. I worry about "Pay $X to skip this ad" becoming common place and similar sensors as were in that episode that detected when the human wasn't paying attention and waited until they opened their eyes or looked back at screen to continue.

I highly recommend that everyone check out Black Mirror, it's less of a TV show and more of a small collection (3 episodes per season) of mini-movies that don't really connect to each other but show possible outcomes of certain ideas taken to the extreme.

<comment><USER4> Definitely seconding that recommendation. It is fantastic how uncomfortable it makes me feel; I usually don't get too many emotions from media.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I pay for Netflix and Spotify so that I don't have to deal with ads. I'll happily continue to pay for Uber and similar services for the very same reason.

<comment><USER6> there's no reason we can't have both. Uber can always have an option to disable ads if the user isn't interested in saving money.

<comment><USER7> I thought you were going the other way around. There's no reason that we can't have both: Uber could charge us and still show us ads. It works for Comcast.

<comment><USER8> There is also heavy advertising on existing transit. Subways, buses, and taxis in New York are plastered with ads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Inevitable? I thought engagement with advertising was going _down_ all over the world.

How would you ad-support a full ride, anyways? A ~$20 CPI is pretty insane.

<comment><USER10> I don't know if I've gone under $30 for an Uber ride more than once. So yeah, I agree, I don't see how this becomes viable.

<comment><USER11> FWIW, if you live in San Francisco it is common for your ride to be $10-12. With the recent Uber Pool promos it was $5 (or now $7). So at least in one market, there are many cheap rides being taken.

That said, in-app advertising is not the kind of premium/magical experience that has so far defined the Uber brand. That clash of clans banner looks downright painful. I don't expect ads any time soon; it's more the kind of move I'd expect once they're done being a growth business and shift gears into cash extraction. Years off at the soonest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Advertising works best where the marginal cost of delivering the impression is near-zero (i.e., TV, radio, newspaper, magazine, internet search, Facebook newsfeed, etc).

</comment><comment><USER13> Half-bakery: Uber rides funded by menial tasks. You're in a van heading from A to B, while ironing shirts or folding clothes or packing boxes.

</comment><comment><USER8> One of the reasons that ad supported models work is that the marginal cost of providing software is near zero. The marginal cost of providing rides is decidedly non-zero. I would argue that the marginal cost of a ride is going to increase from its present cost.

* There is a price war going on and some of the providers are losing money. In the short term this will continue, but long term it will correct itself.

* I believe the regulations on company -> contractors a la Uber will increase and that will cost Uber more per ride.

* Even if you think the drivers will be replaced with self driving cars, those cars will be more expensive than present day cars.

I don't think any of that is a problem for Uber as a business charging money. I do think it precludes ad-supported rides.

</comment><comment><USER14> > Free, ad-supported Uber rides are inevitable

What? Why?

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

While we're at it, why not post ads along the sides of houses and apartment buildings in the Bay Area to reduce housing costs?

Maybe if we make the ads small enough, we could fit enough ads on a single surface to make rent free!!!

/sarc

<comment><USER15> milliondollarapartment.com

I'm selling some ad space on my terrace at $1 per pixel, in 10x10 increments. DPI negotiable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm fine with ads. But I see much more promise for ads before getting in car, then after. While waiting for Uber/Lyft I check my phone non-stop. The second I'm in the car the last app I'm opening is Uber/Lyft.

</comment><comment><USER17> Some of the ideas of "why it would work" make sense, but the economics are way off.

> _For example, targeting travelers who are arriving from the airport, to > target them with highly personalized hotel /tour offers. Or targeting > hardcore movie or concert-goers for their next night out._

This is the basic premise of the OP's advertising argument. Does anyone book hotel or conferences ad hoc? Anything that is "event" based selling opportunity is a no go, because most event organizers want high up front guarantees of attendees (due to high fixed costs) and usually sell last minute excess at very low margins, so paying a converted CPM at $20 (or heck even $10) is most likely going to bring a negative return.

</comment><comment><USER18> I think there is a bit of a fallacy around certain business models. We're constantly amazed at how much is free or low priced due to being ad supported (Google), Moores Law et al (Dropbox), or strategically subsidized (Amazon).

The fallacy is that these apply to everything or that it seems easier to apply than it actually is.

In the case of free Uber, the most I can stretch is to imagine it's possible when the targeting gets so good that a lead is very valuable (weren't cancer class action click throughs going for $200 at one point?). Or as part of some partnership with another company such that other economics are at work besides watch ad = ride free.

So not only is it not inevitable, it would require some pretty special conditions.

</comment><comment><USER19> Remember the New Economy? No, a lot of us don't. See, that's the problem.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've welcome Uber's business plan. Ads are not the answer for everything. Quite the contrary, I'd argue that ads are the answer for very few problems.

Money or any monetary transactions plays two roles in these kind of business. The unrecognized one is that it plays the role of guarantee (ideally, but in reality is something like 'more or less'). What guarantee do I have as a driver or as a client if I use an ad-supported billing system, which we all know is next to crap? This is a really poorly-thought idea. Uber's strength is in the elegance of its business model.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'd be fine with this as long as there's a way to turn this off (or better yet, to make it something entirely opt-in and have to turn it _on_ ). I wouldn't want to be bombarded with ads if I'm not interested in them subsidizing my ride.

Also, is there a way to make these companies just pay _me_ to look at their ads? It'd cut out the middlemen, and seeing how many ads I'd probably be confronted with on a daily basis without things like AdBlock Plus, I could probably turn it into a career if the figures in this article are accurate.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why do you think Google has invested so much in self-driving cars?

</comment><comment><USER23> That's not free. You're spending time in exchange for goods. Time you otherwise could save by just spending a few dollars.

The real annoyance is surge pricing.

<comment><USER24> "Due to extremely high demand, surge pricing is in effect. Your ride will now cost a 30-minute timeshare presentation, by a sales agent who'll be riding along with you."

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Honestly I hate the idea of MORE ads.

Also the install driven ad market has its limits. These are all funded by startups buying customers with their VC money.

</comment><comment><USER26> Weird to see all this hate in the comments. Ads aren't the devil. More options to paying for something of value is always beneficial.

</comment><comment><USER27> An accessible business model that anyone can openly innovate on. Certainly, this must contribute to the $24B valuation...

</comment><comment><USER28> I can imagine these being offered free by companies who want an ear to talk to. If I'm selling time shares, for example, I might want to give free rides and tell people about it on the way. If you got a multi-thousand dollar sell every 100 rides, maybe it's worth it.

</comment><comment><USER29> Wow, now having looked at the mockup images under the Redirection heading, this does really seem inevitable. Free might be a stretch, but I'd bet that we'll see these types of ads when using rideshare services in the very near future.

</comment><comment><USER30> There are some countries where the taxi drivers will "advertise" businesses by taxing you to them whether you asked them or not. That's pretty much the only way you could make ad-supported taxis work.

</comment><comment><USER31> We're getting to a point where it's just services supported by ads for other services which are supported by ads for other services and so on.

<comment><USER32> s/getting/returning/

This was a driving force in the dotcom crash. dotcom revenue was based on advertising other dotcoms.

The problem with castles in the air is they always come crashing down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't get the hate, I think it's a great idea. It's completely opt-in and both sides win.

<comment><USER34> "Both sides win" when a consumer chooses to spend their money on gambling. They're getting what they pay for, of their own volition.

I consider advertising to be offensive, and think it's appropriate for a society (big or small) to control what forms of ads are allowed via law. I'd like to see limits on what sorts of trade-offs we can make with respect to ads, so that the life experience of a citizen need not be drowning in advertisement.

Riding a taxi in NYC (where ads are built-in to the cabs and cannot be stopped) is a distinctly unpleasant experience compared to elsewhere. We can only have so many forms of transit available to the people of NYC. I would rather we choose to remove the ads and pay for the transportation system via direct-monetary transfer, or taxation, or some combination. _shrug_

<comment><USER35> Hit the button on the bottom right corner of the screen. First thing I do when I get in a taxi.

<comment><USER34> It doesn't turn off the screen, and it doesn't turn off the ads. It stops the moving video and audio, and replaces it with a mostly-static blue screen with a few ads that jump position on the screen now and then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This makes me sad. The mock-ups, I don't like them much.

</comment><comment><USER37> ugh</comment>


ITunes 10 hands-on: snappier performance, questionable UI choices - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/09/itunes-10-hands-on-snappier-performance-questionable-ui-choices.ars

<comment><USER2> My favorite iTunes feature insanity: When you listen to a song in the "Music" section of iTunes, you have a "pause" button; when you are listening and browsing iTunes store, the "pause" button inexplicably and detrimentally becomes "stop", so you have to re-navigate to "music" just to pause a song. Never mind that "stop" functionality is essentially pointless in digital music players anyway, if you are unfortunate enough to accidentally stop the song/podcast, you have to re-navigate to the Music section and manually restart the file _and_ navigate to the right portion, only if you happen to know where that is.

* Yes I know you can right click on the song area and pause there. This is about UI design, not whether or not I can figure out how to pause a song.

<comment><USER3> It changes to a Stop button because when you press Play again it will start playing the currently visible playlist/screen rather than the previous playlist.

So let's say the Play button works the way you want it to:

\- You start playing a playlist. The Play button turns into a pause button

\- You navigate to a different playlist. The pause button does _not_ change to a Stop button.

\- Push this pause button. The music "pauses" and the button changes to a Play button.

\- Now push the Play button. What happens? Does it resume the previous playlist? Or does it start playing the currently visible playlist?

Anyway, I use the Play/Pause button on my keyboard.

<comment><USER2> 1\. You can't press play again, it's just faded out.

2\. What other playlist? I'm in the iTunes store. I haven't given any indication that I want to or even could specify another playlist to play.

2\. That's exactly how it should work anyway. If I want to change the playlist, that's a different kind of event altogether from just pausing. Having one UI element try and control both is confusing. In this case, a dedicated stop button would actually be useful, as that could distinguish between pausing the current playlist and stopping it altogether. But removing relevant pause functionality just because you're in a different program section? Pointless.

<comment><USER2> > Right, because there's nothing to play.

There's nothing there to play because "pause" irrationally became "stop" for no apparent reason (remember there's no playlist in sight), and the user accidentally pressed it. There's no reason for it to be this way.

Why shouldn't the play button apply to songs, especially when it was played individually and not as a playlist? Seems like the type of thing a music player should do.

<comment><USER3> The Previous, Play, and Next buttons apply to the screen you are currently viewing. They work just the same in the store as they do on any other iTunes screen.

<comment><USER2> The way they work is exactly the problem. Considering there's a lot you can do in iTunes, it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing, as for example, Windows Media Player. The current behavior is confusing and pointless.

<comment><USER2> >You are forgetting these iTunes use cases:

None of those are contradictory to the idea of control consistency throughout iTunes, why would they be? In fact, deliberately selecting something and choosing specifically what to do with it fits perfectly with the "Have the control buttons control items you select or can only be one other possible item" method.

If the behavior isn't confusing, then why does it stop the track, but not let you restart it, even though there's nothing else to control? That is perfectly described as pointless and confusing.

<comment><USER3> > None of those are contradictory to the idea of control consistency > throughout iTunes

Of course not. That's how iTunes already works, and iTunes is already consistent.

However, those things are contrary to your suggestion: "it makes more sense to have the control buttons apply to items independent of where you're browsing".

Look, it's clear you haven't really thought things through. You just need to learn how iTunes works. (You also need to learn how to reply to the correct comment)

It's very easy: The playback controls "always" apply to the playlist you are viewing. If you want to get back to the currently-playing playlist, click the little back-arrow in the right-hand side of the main display. You can't get more consistent than that.

You can also click the "Now Playing" window and that will also give you controls for the current playlist.

It's very easy.

<comment><USER2> >Of course not. That's how iTunes already works, and iTunes is already consistent.

What's consistent about arbitrarily removing 'pause' functionality when not necessary? That is not consistent, and it's poor usability.

> However, those things are contrary to your suggestion:

No. Browsing around non-playlist-determining sections of iTunes does not imply I want to change or stop a playlist/track. So why remove the pause function, if the only reason to do that is so you can start a new playlist?

>It's very easy: The playback controls "always" apply to the playlist you are viewing.

Which is of no use to anyone if they aren't viewing a play list at all. Really, this was established in my very first comment. It's the _iTunes store_. There is no playlist to play other than the one I selected to play in the first place. Why exactly prevent me from pausing, when there's just no reason that would be helpful. You still haven't answered this.

> It's very easy.

Multiple clicks/mouse positionings are never easier than just one. Never.

> Look, it's clear you haven't really thought things through. You just need to > learn how iTunes works.

That's sort of pointless to claim. You haven't proven anything, so such grand pronouncements as to someones general comprehension of the issue are useless to everyone. I suggest you prove your point with a specific argument, instead of making unsupported assertions, basically that amounts to "You're just wrong." That's never really a help to a discussion.

>(You also need to learn how to reply to the correct comment)

And no, I already know which comment to reply to, but the link simply wasn't there. I suppose you think, as with the iTunes issue, that software always works perfectly.

<comment><USER2> >The main playback controls apply to the content in the main window.

First of all, that's wrong. You are able to _stop_ a track in the iTunes store, so you _can_ control media items from other areas of the program while browsing. You just can't pause, even though there are no new playlists to start in the iTunes store. So since you can't do anything with the stop/play button _other_ than control the current track in the iTunes store, there remains a lack of explanation as to why I can't just pause a simple track while browsing iTunes.

Again, to simplify, the issue really is just this: "why can't there be pause functionality in iTunes store? What would it prevent? Why would it be better to keep just the 'stop' function?" If you can't answer that then you have no argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Has Apple _ever_ followed the HIG when they didn't feel like it? It's a brilliant idea, coordinating UI across disparate apps from multiple companies, but I seem to recall that going all the way back to the 80s Apple has pretty freely disregarded the guidelines when they thought they had a better idea. (And at least some of the time, the "better idea" got worked into the next round of HIG, so maybe that's ok?)

<comment><USER5> It's OK by me as long as Apple continues to let third-party developers do the same.

<comment><USER6> This is fine for Mac apps, but Apple can kill iOS apps dead for this reason, while letting their own deviations slip through unimpeded.

In general, though, I think interface guidelines are like the rules of grammar: when you understand them well enough, you understand when it's okay to break them. Whether the change to the three upper-left buttons falls into this category is somewhat subjective.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Personally, I would feel very uncomfortable having one application with vertical close/minimize buttons while others are horizontal. I wouldn't expect the introduction of this level of inconsistency from an Apple product.

<comment><USER8> You can set it back to horizontal if you want: defaults write com.apple.iTunes full-window -1

<comment><USER9> I'm surprised you have to use the command line to change such an option in an Apple product.

<comment><USER10> Yes, it should definitely be in the Preferences dialog!

I'm not that impressed with iTunes 10.. the grey icons are a disaster for quickly finding things; it refuses to play a TV Show I downloaded yesterday from ITMS (not authorized); and Ping is lame.

<comment><USER11>
      Yes, it should definitely be in the Preferences dialog!

I'm not quite sure if it's sarcasm or not. Honestly my first thought when I saw the buttons like this was "WTF is this?!". However, this should not be an application preference! One thing that Apple does (that every company should do) is making choices for the users. Sometimes they're wrong (this one looks dubious to me) but adding settings is the wrong approach to it.

I recently started to use a Windows PC (granted it's XP) again and the number of preferences (e.g. system, Outlook) available is completely insane.

<comment><USER10> Sorry, that was indeed sarcasm. What's the sarcasm punctuation mark again?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Since upgrading to 10, all my music sounds flat and tinny. I have an audio cable running from my Mac Pro into my stereo. If I play a song via iTunes, it sounds like crap. If I plug the cable into my iPhone and play the same song, it sounds fine. Anyone else experiencing this?

<comment><USER13> Check the equalizer setting?

<comment> matthew-wegner Check Preferences -> Playback -> Sound Enhancer, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> They've used that same headline to describe that last 5 iTunes releases.

There is a big difference between usability and artistic sensibility. Ultimately, some people just have a difficult time reacting to change. iTunes 10 was released only two days ago. Why not let it sink in for a while?

<comment><USER14> Because iTunes is a bloated moneymaking machine that has had very little thought put into UX since the store took off?

<comment><USER3> We get it. You don't understand iTunes.

I have a saying: Never ask a computer geek for music advice. They'll always give you a stupid answer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't like that ars usually don't test in Windows. At least for the photoshop and itunes articules I have read.

</comment><comment><USER16> The upscaled UI elements suggest a touch-based OS X in the near future. Anyone else think so?

<comment><USER17> There's evidence that Apple is considering it: [http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/08/23/apple_filing_s...](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/08/23/apple_filing_shows_touch_screen_imac_with_adjustable_stand.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> In the last picture what is the "checkbox" column for?

<comment><USER19> Syncing. Checkbox marks items you want to sync.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> In regards to the close/min/max buttons... No, 'abomination' is not too strong a word.</comment>


Show HN: OhMyPocket – Open-source version of getpocket.com - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/zhy0216/random-read

<comment><USER2> Two thoughts: 1. Change your name to random-walk. You simply can't use Pocket, as mentioned here by others. 2. Your project is basically unusable in it's current state. Update the repo with build instructions so others can get it running. I spent my limit (15-20 minutes) trying to get it running in a container and failed. Happy to do a PR with the container file if you get that cleaned up. Making your project usable for others is a requirement to get traction!

Also, not cool using a pocket logo on the Google Play store. You need to fix that ASAP.

</comment><comment><USER3> IANAL, but getpocket doesn't appear to have a trademark registration[0] (and I don't think they could since it's such a weak mark [1]). So they may be able to get a design mark so that a similar logo can't be used, but it's entirely possible to use "pocket" for a similar service.

So while it may be "nice" to not use a similar name, it's doesn't appear to be required in this particular case.

[0] - [http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4807%3A5...](http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4807%3A5yyuil.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=live&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=pocket&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query)

[1] - [http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/naming-your-business- choosin...](http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/naming-your-business-choosing- name-capable-trademark-protection)

<comment><USER4> "Pocket" is trademarked by Pocket as it relates to similar services:

The uspto's site make it hard to link to the actual registration but it's registration 4354899. It looks like they have trademarks for the word Pocket and it's logos.

The word registration for example: [http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85540689&caseType=SERIAL_N...](http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=85540689&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch)

<comment><USER3> You're 100% correct. So my search wasn't exhaustive enough, and thus my assumptions and conclusion above are not correct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great to see this one out there!

You should consider changing your name, as did the former poche (same kind of project), switching to Wallabag. [https://www.wallabag.org/](https://www.wallabag.org/)

<comment><AUTHOR> wow! it is a similar project!!! your project is pretty cool!!

<comment><USER5> It is cool indeed, but is not mine. Author is [https://twitter.com/nicosomb](https://twitter.com/nicosomb)

<comment><USER5> And here is a part of the problems he had with Pocket (wich, at the end, was fairly reasonable)

[https://www.wallabag.org/blog/2014/01/24/open-letter- address...](https://www.wallabag.org/blog/2014/01/24/open-letter-addressed- read-later-inc-creator-pocket)

<comment><USER6> So the author should just call it OhMyPoche :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Change your name. It's not reasonable to think that you can use another company's name for a copy of their service.

</comment><comment><USER6> Great, I will try it out later this evening! I used Wallabag before, which was already mentioned, but it has a session problem so you had to enter your password everytime you tried to use it. I hope I can replace it with this, keep it up!

<comment><USER5> Did you report the problem, or is it a feature?

<comment><USER6> The issue on github is almost a year old [https://github.com/wallabag/wallabag/issues/769](https://github.com/wallabag/wallabag/issues/769)

<comment><USER7> The issue is really annoying. I've been using my installation of Wallabag for a little while but stopped because of it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Unpaid internships in San Francisco - <AUTHOR> http://fucknointernships.tumblr.com/

<comment><USER2> We decided to test an internship programme at Mandalorian and we found someone that we really wanted to take on as an intern, but I felt that there were two things we needed to do:

1\. Pay them a graduate starting salary for the duration of their internship.

2\. Make sure we had the time to invest in helping them grow before going back to university rather than just giving them shit jobs or using them as cheap labour.

Unfortunately number 2 was derailed by the fact that we took a full time graduate on and felt that this combined with illness meant we couldn't guarantee the mentoring that we wanted to provide. We felt that we couldn't do right by the intern we wanted, so we postponed the programme.

We set up a hack week for next month in order for our geographically disparate team to get some time together and some proper training. In addition to bringing the team we invited both the intern we had to cancel and the student we wanted to intern with us for next year (as we found him this year but he was a year early). Our plan is to spend a week breaking stuff and training each other up on core pentesting areas. The students get to come along and join in on that as well as take part in ad-hoc hacking sessions. Both students took us up on it and we're covering their costs. Our not quite intern will probably be offered a job around graduation time, the other lad will almost certainly be our paid intern next year.

There's a right way and a wrong way to do internships. If you can't do it the right way I believe you shouldn't do it at all.

By all means offer them opportunities if they're genuine, but don't dress them up as internships. Just be straight with them. The students attending hack week will go back to Abertay Uni to do their ethical hacking degree projects having spent the week living with a pentest team and hacking all the things, something none of the other students will have done. While they haven't been paid they won't pay a penny for the week. I will reluctantly let them chip in for beer if they insist, but everything else is on us. It just wouldn't be right any other way.

</comment><comment><USER3> I write software. The work I do is difficult for "most people" (outside of this community, perhaps). If you're any good at it you have any number of well paid opportunities. If you're a recent graduate who's very green and looking for experience, you'll _still_ find any number of paid opportunities.

At the previous company I worked for, I had managed quite a few _paid_ interns. I love managing, but I've always turned down serious management positions out of fear that I'd fall behind from a technical standpoint. I have never turned down an opportunity to manage an intern and my company took the relationship seriously. Interns negotiated salary just like any other employee, however, they were treated as a short-term contract so as a manager I was not able to see salary specifics. Despite that, I've been confided in and they were doing quite. Minimum wage was nowhere to be found.

Purely for CS grads looking to land a career in software development (and I'm not in The Valley where things are arguably quite different): Don't take an unpaid internship. If the place is incredible and you _really, really_ want to work there, ask yourself why they're not willing to pay you. My former company hired some of the greenest interns* from colleges you've likely never heard of. They were paid and they were all very good after a couple of months of apprenticeship. They also never worked a minute over 40 hours (by design, they were paid hourly as my former company had a fear of overtime).

I haven't had this opportunity at my current employer, but if offered a "free intern" to manage, I'd turn that option down. Anyone willing to take a job where I work (an aside: good job, good company, but not the sort of thing that a recent grad would consider exciting enough to skip the paycheck) is probably going to cost _me_ more than just doing the "intern work" myself.

* I don't mean this condescendingly. We all start somewhere. I've have the privilege of managing incredibly intelligent people being an "intern manager" and _every_ experience, thus far, has been rewarding for both of us. I keep in touch with them (some are likely reading this) and they all, currently, have well paying jobs as professional developers.

</comment><comment><USER4> They're illegal in the UK now unless performed as part of an official college/university placement.

As a small business owner I'm not yet in the position to employ others yet I have work that could provide decent training/work experience for somebody. I feel like an internship programme at my company would be mutually beneficial for us and the intern. Alas, for now, I'll be working alone.

Edit: This country has almost NO skilled workforce. I could help out if they would only let me.

</comment><comment><USER5> While unpaid internships are sad, I would be really interested in seeing how many of these positions would not exist otherwise. I'm sure some of them exploit interns to save a few bucks, but I can guarantee there are other situations where the company would just go without for the summer if they couldn't do unpaid internships.

An unpaid internship is better than doing nothing. It might even be better than working at McDonalds.

<comment><USER6> People keep throwing McDonald's around as if it's some kind of horrible, dead- end place to work. The truth is that McDonald's will not only pay you, but will teach you a ton about customer service, food safety, work ethic, and team building. Does it really make sense to work for free getting coffee for devs and scheduling conferences when you could be making money and gaining experience by working on your own side project? Hell, work part time at Mickey D's and you're _still_ better off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> ProPublica is doing a Kickstarter now specifically to do a report on the intern economy: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/propublica/investigating...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/propublica/investigating- the-intern-economy).

</comment><comment><USER8> To be fair, a lot of these companies may not have the funding to hire paid employees. It is also often more of a burden on the technical manager to manage the interns in the first place. It really is good experience for the intern, and if they actually had experience in the first place then they likely won't be applying to unpaid internships.

<comment><USER9> Unpaid internships are a gross circumvention of minimum wage laws.

Either the interns are there to learn (In which case, they should not be working on anything that provides the employer with value) - or they are employees. If your business can't afford to pay its employees, you should probably not be in business.

<comment><USER10> Why is circumventing minimum wage laws a bad thing? If you don't have the skills to be paid $9/hr (or whatever it is nowadays), then unpaid internships are awesome, because they help you get there.

How about this idea: let people offer unpaid internships, and let potential employees _willingly decide for themselves,_ based on their _own circumstances and free will,_ whether or not to take them. I don't see any harm in two human's voluntary reaching an internship agreement if they both benefit from it.

<comment><USER11> Because those who might benefit most from unpaid internships are often those from disadvantaged groups and the lower classes seeking social mobility.

But doing an unpaid internship necessarily demands an external source of money to cover living expenses. So there are many people who would in theory be happy to do an unpaid internship but are unable to do so practically.

<comment><USER10> > So there are many people who would in theory be happy to do an unpaid > internship but are unable to do so practically.

Indeed. However, there are yet others who would benefit and _can_ do so practically. The fact that they exist and positions get filled means people are getting experience and making ends meet. By forcing the minimum wage on these internships, they don't reappear with a higher wage, most of them simply disappear. The opportunity is totally lost.

<comment><USER11> Assuming that the demand for _real_ jobs in the sectors that are hiring interns remains constant without the unpaid internships then this might in fact be a good thing.

An opportunity that is only realistically available to those from more affluent backgrounds (who already have a bunch more advantages) actually translates into a disadvantage for those who are unable to take them, so it is somewhat a zero sum game.

Especially if they become a defacto requirement for the best jobs in some sectors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Coming from a country with minimum wage laws I don't understand how you survive when doing an unpaid internship. Do you just have to live at home and sponge off your parents while you are interning? Or do you just have to get deeper into debt while you are interning? How long does it take before you start getting paid?

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't support these _internships_ but "There's a sucker born every minute."

Edit: I think this might have come off wrong: I was saying that's the mindset of these employers. They put these jobs/internships out there because they know someone will take the bait. I am don't condone this behavior.

</comment><comment><USER14> There's been a lot of debate over the past several years as to whether or not unpaid internships are even legal.

The clearest outline is from the FSLA, and the criteria is outlined below:

"If all of the factors [below] are met, then the worker is a "trainee", an employment relationship does not exist under the FLSA, and the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime provisions do not apply to the worker:

1\. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to what would be given in a vocational school or academic educational instruction; 2\. The training is for the benefit of the trainees; 3\. The trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation; 4\. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the trainees, and on occasion the employer's operations may actually be impeded; 5\. The trainees are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period; and 6\. The employer and the trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for the time spent in training. "

EG if an internship meets those criteria, you don't need to be paid.

(1) [http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL12-09acc.pd...](http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL/TEGL12-09acc.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER15> If you are making someone a profit in any context you deserve a paycheck, simply put.

</comment><comment><USER16> Unpaid internships are bullshit. If they want you to work a 40 hour workweek, then they need to fucking pay minimum wage at a minimum.

<comment><USER17> They're also generally quite illegal for exactly that reason.

There's a list of requirements you need to meet to not pay an intern, and it's actually pretty stringent. The problem is most interns feel they're not in a position to actually do anything about this. :(

Most could probably sue for back wages if they didn't fear reprisal.

NYTimes did an article on this a bit ago: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03intern.html?pag...](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/03intern.html?pagewanted=all)

On a similar note I've seen the same thing with servers: employers will pay below minimum wage even for hours that tips don't make up the difference, or dock pay for customers that run out. Both of those are against the law (at least in my state) but employees fear that they'll be fired if they speak up. (The flip side is that they generally don't report cash tips on their taxes.)</comment></comment>


Half-Life 2 fan movie: Freeman's Days - <AUTHOR> http://en.freemansdays.ru/ Now available first episode! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prkxiQsbu3M<p>But it contains only English subtitles. <comment><USER2> Direct link to the YouTube video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prkxiQsbu3M></comment>


Pulitzer and IT'S New Sparked Controversy in India – More Than Just a Award - <AUTHOR> https://www.thejournaltoday.com/pulitzer-award-new-sparked-controversy-in-india/ <comment><AUTHOR> The Pulitzer award has been a topic of controversy ever since it's inception. The Pulitzer Prizes were conceived in a 1902 brainstorm by their benefactor, Pulitzer, the owner of the wildly successful New York World and other newspapers.</comment>


The sun's magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2019-03-sun-magnetic-field-ten-stronger.html <comment><USER2> Thanks phys.org but that article needs much more information to be useful. Numbers about the strength? More detail than like a fridge magnet.

<comment><USER3> [https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.07514](https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.07514)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is amazing that it had not been measured accurately before.</comment>


Programming contests used to be fun. Now they're a commercial software business—and still fun - <AUTHOR> http://www.ddj.com/article/printableArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=ERHVK03B04WDEQSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=207404123&dept_url=/architect/

<comment><USER2> The TopCoder algorithm competitions were entertaining, and I learned a lot. The marathon matches were grueling, and for the first while interesting, and I learned a fair amount.

The dev/design competitions were, for me, quite painful. It was an incredible chore to force my self into using their process, and as I was banking on it for some income, the discovery that solutions were rejected because I was missing absurd amounts of documentation/unit tests meant I don't see myself going back to it any time soon.

The design & dev competitions began to overwhelm the community as well. I haven't played there for a while.

<comment><USER3> I believe that the winning entries for the design & dev are sold by topcoder to various companies. Personally, I think it is very immoral.

<comment><USER4> How is this immoral? They tell you how it works upfront, they pay you one-off for winning the competition, and they pay you royalties when companies buy the software. It would be immoral to judge the best entry as being not up to scratch, not pay out, and still sell it on, but that's not what happens. (the contest is re-run in that case)

Besides, it's what you call a (sustainable) business model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been looking for some part-time freelance income. Has anyone has ever used these contests to supplement income, or to make valuable contacts?

I've participated in TopCoder a couple times a while back, but didn't see much benefit in practicing up to become competitive. This article indicates that it may be different now. Is that true?

Specifically, the prizes awarded were not sufficient to compensate for the time investment required. Even bidding $10/hr for rent-a-coder gigs typically have a higher return on investment.</comment>


Airbnb doubles down on douchebaggery - <AUTHOR> https://www.jwz.org/blog/2015/10/airbnb-doubles-down-on-douchebaggery/ <comment><USER2> This may have been a work of marketing genius: [https://medium.com/@jhreha/why-the-tone-deaf-airbnb-ads- migh...](https://medium.com/@jhreha/why-the-tone-deaf-airbnb-ads-might-be-a- work-of-marketing-genius-84d6693dfbee#.8cgcoc2vv)

</comment><comment><USER3> Yikes. I'm a fan of the anti-tax message and - very rare - corporate use of free speech to rail against the rampant kleptocracy. But they really missed the mark on tone here. (As with most of their own-kookaid-sipping marketing efforts.) This does nothing but galvanize the opposition.

</comment><comment><USER4> I wonder how much they spent (wasted) on the advertising that achieved nothing but make them come across as tone-deaf a-holes?

<comment><AUTHOR> You have to also factor in how much lost business this'll end up costing them. Might be a little, might be a lot, but it'll be nonzero.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You have to love how posts critical of these cunts get buried almost immediately. Kudos to the astroturfers, whoever you are, hope you get paid well!</comment>


Self-driving cars should be liable for accidents, not the passengers - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.co.uk/cars/2017/02/self-driving-car-insurance-liability-uk/ <comment><USER2> tl;dr: The title is enough, no need to read the rest. Also, it's obvious.</comment>


Cloudflare-supported BinaryAST promises dramatically faster JavaScript apps - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2019/05/17/cloudflare-supported-binaryast-promises-dramatically-faster-javascript-apps/ <comment><USER3> There's another HN thread posted earlier with a couple of comments. Rather than post a link to it I'd like to fix this problem once and for all - <USER2> can't HN detect duplicate news links at post time and just automatically up- vote the first one?

</comment><comment><USER4> This is cool, but this is a Mozilla proposal. Cloudflare is just one of several backers.</comment>


A look at the ad-targeting tools AggregateIQ left exposed online - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/13/aggregateiq-ad-targeting-tools-exposed-online/ <comment><USER2> So Upguard found a vulnerability in AggregateIQ's systems and downloaded a ton of data and are posting a series of blog posts with analysis of the data to determine AggregateIQ's practices?

Are they not worried about getting hit with the CFAA for unauthorized access to a computer system?

<comment><USER3> Look, you can push your code to a public git repository or you can complain about people looking at your code, but you can't do both.

<comment><USER2> Public git repositories are not behind a sign in page. You can see the content of a public get repository with a simple GET request to the webserver.

That was not the case here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I thought targeting by demographic, area, even "friends of" were already supported natively in FB ad targeting. Same goes for the pixel. It is hard to see what special sauce they are bringing here.</comment>


David Gelernter under consideration for Trump advisor role - <AUTHOR> http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/01/18/yale-professor-under-consideration-for-trump-advisor-role/ <comment><USER2> Gelernter summarized his view on the culture wars and the shift in America's elite class in a 1997 article in Commentary Magazine. It's an interesting take and certainly relevant to the current political climate.

[http://archive.is/1rt2H](http://archive.is/1rt2H)

</comment><comment><USER3> Solid choice. Good pick.</comment>


Show HN: FollowOn – Find new Twitter follows using your favorite influencers - <AUTHOR> https://followon.social <comment><USER2> FYI, this script src isn't going to do much for you. You need to put your measurement ID in there. Also, it's gtag.js. :)

        https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?l=dataLayer</comment>


The next Napster? Copyright questions as 3D printing comes of age - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/the-next-napster-copyright-questions-as-3d-printing-comes-of-age.ars/ <comment><USER2> _That's the future lawmakers, inventors, and designers need to start thinking about, because it's coming. They need to envision a not-too-far-off future where 3D printers are as common as inkjet printers and users trade 3D designs as fluidly as they exchange URLs. And they need to think about how to use the law to vindicate IP rights without stifling innovation._

Perhaps when scarcity has been vanquished to this degree it might be time to start thinking about growing out of all of this "IP ownership" rent-seeking as a society.

<comment><USER3> Until we have robots that are creative enough to create the actual item (not copy), we still have scarcity: not everyone has the skills to make the song, movie, or anything else that can be copied.

Currency is just paper and ink that has a perceived value, why should IP be any different?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Doctorow's Printcrime: <http://craphound.com/?p=573></comment>


Facebook Vies To Become Your Homepage – And Why That's A Big Deal - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/21/facebook-homepage/

<comment><USER2> _When you can tap your entire social graph for answers to your queries, sites like Facebook have the ability to push aside search engines like Google as the first site that springs to mind when people think about surfing the WWW to find information, connect to other people, communicate with friends, and so on._

Am I somehow connecting to the wrong Facebook or something? Because whenever I log in all I get is dull status updates from people I somewhat know.

<comment><USER3> The problem is you are relying on TechCrunch for tech punditry.

Techcrunch is one of those tech blogs that has very little knowledge about technology.

<comment> brown9-2 Can you name some "tech pundits" that actually do have "knowledge" or at least make useful and accurate predictions?

Seems to me like it's the kind of field where if you were good at it, you'd be doing something else with those skills...

<comment><USER3> Yes sure.

Arstechnica, Engadget. Hell, even gizmodo does a better job.

Have you never heard of tech journalist with tech backgrounds? Or finance journalist with economics background?

I don't think a single TC bloggers have any tech background and they continue to spew out rubbish day in and day out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "But for many people, social networking sites are slowly taking over at least part of the role of search engines, which is mainly to retrieve information."

Don't agree, they are rather take part of the role of tv.

<comment><USER4> I'd tend to say more phone calls, SMS and to some extent instant messaging. You could say Twitter, being a broadcast medium has taken over TV more, but it compliments it more than anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Facebook is Microsoft's trojan horse to win two wars: search and mobile. Microsoft is a major investor in Facebook and thus far has been losing both search and mobile to Google.

With Facebook as the home page, Microsoft becomes the de facto search engine for millions of people because Bing is already integrated into Facebook.

Also, with more people communicating via Facebook mobile, Microsoft slowly but surely inches its way to winning the war on mobile through integration with Facebook on mobile devices.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't use a homepage at all, when I launch my browser it takes me to a blank page and I request what I want directly. I really don't like to be distracted by a default home page.

</comment><comment><USER7> Facebook as stated they are not making a phone, but they didnt say they were not making a phone OS like Android. Im thinking a Facebook mobile OS makes sense. THose you want to talk(voice, text, IM, pics, etc) with are on your facebook now and they just released their new social inbox. This is all speculative but just maybe they'll do this?

<comment><USER8> I can see this happening. A phone marketed as having Facebook OS will appeal to a huge market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think though we are moving away from the homepage though, I prefer how chrome displays the 8 most visited pages upon opening.

<comment><USER8> I doubt my parents or sister would know how to change their homepage manually. These are the people that Facebook are targeting this feature at. Not tech nerds.

<comment><USER4> I don't really buy this kind of thing, not these days, sure there will be some percentage of people who are new to computers but in general I don't think so.

Pretty much every program on windows/osx you ever interact with has an options display accessible from the top menus and pretty much all of them have the ability to change the homepage.

Now I would agree that a popup like this give people motivation to change, perhaps that haven't considered it before, but I doubt many that have been using computers for some time would have trouble changing there homepage if motivated to do so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can already ask my friends if I want information that they may have. More over, there are at least a dozen ways I can do so in a medium that's not littered with daily horoscopes, stupid quizzes, Farm Mafia Mob Zombie Fish Wars, and photos of pets from people I barely knew in high school. Search engines are for things my friends don't know, or for those times when I don't want to _bother_ those friends, because I know they're busy with more important things to do than sit on Facebook all day long.

</comment><comment><USER10> I haven't used a homepage since browsers implemented the save tabs feature.</comment>


Insurance recommendations for self-employed consultant? - <AUTHOR> I'm a self-employed consultant occasionally entering into contracts with state governments that involve interacting with "consumers." I've been advised to seek out insurance for my business since I am interacting more and more with consumers and it's better to play things safe.
Does anyone have any recommendations for affordable insurance for a self-employed consultant? It's not a topic I find discussed very often, but I can't be the only person wondering.
Any help from the awesome HN community is much appreciated. <comment><USER2> I get mine from here - [http://www.techinsurance.com](http://www.techinsurance.com). Very affordable and great service.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just call up a few insurance agents and go with the one you like best. I've used State Farm for Professional Liability Insurance. Never needed to actually use it. I wouldn't overthink it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have a $1M/occurrence general liability policy I bought direct from Hiscox that costs about $300/yr. Fortunately have never needed to use it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. Hiscox is one option I am considering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use techinsurance.com. Good service and value.</comment>


History of Neural Networks - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/The-Believers/190147/

<comment><USER2> I had no idea his models are considered marginal. To be honest his contributions to learning are much more effective and applicable than all of today's computational neuroscience. We need more people with his theoretical insight, to make sense of current data about how the brain works. I wonder if one day the lines of artificial intelligence and computational neuroscience will converge.</comment>