Magnetic wormhole created for first time - <AUTHOR> http://www.uab.cat/web/newsroom/news-detail/magnetic-wormhole-created-for-first-time-1345668003610.html?noticiaid=1345689132054 <comment><USER2> But... but it's not a wormhole. Not in the usual sense of the word anyway. When I think of a wormhole, I think of a "hole" through spacetime that transfers something from point A to point B by entirely bypassing all the space in between; this is not that at all. It's more like a cloaking device. The magnetic field still travels the whole distance in exactly the same way that it would, it's just not visible to an outside observer. Still super awesome, I just wish they wouldn't use the word "wormhole".

<comment><USER3> It is a hole through space, not through time. Am i right?

<comment><USER2> From the abstract of the Nature article linked by @comboy below ([http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12488](http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12488)):

> the magnetic field from a source at one end of the wormhole appears at the > other end as an isolated magnetic monopolar field, __creating the illusion > of a magnetic field propagating through a tunnel outside the 3D space __.

Seems that there's no actual tunneling, just the illusion of tunneling.

<comment><USER4> The article is in the journal Scientific Reports, not Nature. Nature Publishing Group is the publisher of that journal.

<comment> semi-extrinsic Also, note that Scientific Reports has no requirements for a paper to be super-novel/cool/hot topic, in contrast to the actual Nature journal. Anything which is decent science will get published in SRep; it's NPG's version of PLOS One.

It seems Nature's strategy is working here, since many news outlets and the general public don't seem to be aware of the difference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you have trouble understanding what "magnetic wormhole" means / what researchers actually did, this figure from the original paper explains it pretty well:

[http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12488/figures/1](http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12488/figures/1)

Note red lines showing magnetic field, how they get cloaked by spherical device, starting on right side, then they re-appear on the left side.

This is the figure they use to show "wormhole", but it's just the figure above with erased spherical cloaking device (which must be physically present, field is still there, just the device hides it):

[https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp- content/uploads/201...](https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp- content/uploads/2015/08/dn28071-3_800.jpg)

And this is how it looks in real life:

[http://www.uab.cat/Imatge/758/790/cucweb.jpg](http://www.uab.cat/Imatge/758/790/cucweb.jpg)

Still very cool, but now you can see it's basically just some sort of shielding of magnetic field that creates distortion of the field on the other end, nothing is getting teleported.

<comment><USER6> Which is why we didn't just discover FTL communication. The term "wormhole" is a fairly loaded term for the layman. One of those rider concepts is _instantaneous_.

<comment><USER7> I am not sure I agree. For the layman, wormholes come in a couple of popular forms, and the most common is the one with a weird energy tunnel thing between the entrance and the exit. The version where the entrance is the exit, such as in the game portal, seems to be much less popularly considered.

<comment><USER6> Fair enough. It may be more accurate to say one of the rider concepts is they allow FTL.

<comment><USER7> I guess, is just that to think that FTL matters and ties up with causality means to grok relativity, and causality issues may be a result of a layman physics views of wormholes, but it generally isn't really a part of it.

I think you are making a category error by saying that wormhole is too loaded a term for the layman in this instance. Non-technical people are generally better at dealing with ignoring the details of a metaphor anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> as @kenbellows said ... it is not a wormhole.

It is an illusion of a wormhole. It is not creating a real path in the space- time. It is a magnetic phenomenon that makes it look as if two points got connected and a magical tunnel was established. Pretty cool experiment, though.

Authors suggest that this illusionary wormhole could also be used to making smaller MRI machines and patients don't have to go through the claustrophobic experience of current machines. Super Awesome .. Giant machine in one room and the patient is sitting on a couch in the other room, and being scanned.

Oooh wait - what if police investigation rooms get designed this way, such that as they ask you questions and from the other room, they are actually scanning your brain for changes in the signal pattern ?? - Crazy idea. Aight, I am re-pivoting as of now. Scanning as a Service...lol

<comment><USER9> Former cognitive neuroscientist here. In all seriousness, if this technology were dropped in today, it would be hard to use surreptitiously; you still need to immobilize the head to get a good fMRI signal at current speeds.

Also, interpreting a brain scan to determine lying is way beyond our actual abilities (though sadly, there are Indian courts and companies doing just that, despite the warnings of the neuroscience community).

<comment><USER10> Also, IIRC from "lying experts", there is no such thing as an objective lie. If you have no anxiety about the lie (I think I was reading about Lance Armstrong on this), or you don't think you're lying, you can easily pass a polygraph test.

You can habituate your brain to follow certain patterns even if you do know you're lying. I suspect there will never be a "magic lie detector" with any reliability for people who understand what is happening or take preventative measures.

<comment><USER11> I heard similar and figured it was a signal to noise problem. In that it was impossible to reliably eliminate false positives (the anxiety of someone normal being polygraphed) while still detecting trained liars (who minimize their anxiety while still lying).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So correct me if I'm wrong, but a lay-person's understanding might go like this:

It's like a fiber optic cable, except that instead of light, it transmits a magnetic field, and instead of being a cable, it's a metal ball.

</comment><comment><USER13> Jesus, this was the biggest letdown from a click bait title to TFA ever.

<comment><USER14> I don't know, I would have been pretty psyched to click on "Researchers create monopole magnet (kind of.)" Obviously not as useful as wormholes, but it's up there from a "that's physically possible?!!!???111?!" perspective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> More detailed description: [http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12488](http://www.nature.com/articles/srep12488)

</comment><comment><USER16> I didn't quite get the idea:

> "This consists of a tunnel that transfers the magnetic field from one point > to the other while keeping it undetectable – invisible – all the way".

I guess that means generating a magnetic field on A, which can be detected on C, without being detected on an intermediate point B?

> "This technology could, for example, increase patients' comfort by > distancing them from the detectors when having MRI scans in hospital, or > allow MRI images of different parts of the body to be obtained > simultaneously."

So that means placing the detectors away from the patient and making them receive the magnetic field through one of these "wormholes"?

<comment><USER17> I wondered about the MRI application too. Presumably you couldn't use this for the main bore magnet or gradient coils, so it'd have to be just the detectors. But could you run this "wormhole" thing through a hole in the bore?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I've read over this and I can't figure out if they really did create a magnetic monopole from the end of the sphere, or if that field is still coupled with the other side and it's only monopolar in some virtual or mathematical sense?

I'm kind of suspecting it is the latter, as a magnetic monopole discovery would overshadow their magnetic tunnel/wormhole work, and it's definitely not the focus of the report.

</comment><comment><USER19> I wonder if they would have similar clicks for calling it a 'magnetic flux conduit' or 'magnetic field hose'. I expect using meta-materials for magnetic shielding will be a bigger deal as really strong magnetic fields are needed for things like fusion reactors, but for now its just an interesting validation that you can cloak a magnetic field using meta materials.

<comment><USER20> Well, the 'hose' came out 2 years ago: [http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514201/physicists- build...](http://www.technologyreview.com/view/514201/physicists-build-worlds- first-magnetic-hose-for-transmitting-magnetic-fields/)

Am I correct in saying that this got a "wormhole" label just because the "hose" is shielded??

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> While magnets and their field are often pictured like this [http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/barmag.jpg](http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/barmag.jpg) in reality the field is everywhere like this [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Magnet08...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Magnet0873.png) so what the "wormhole" does is, it shields the field from the bar magnet inside the sphere, so only the field from the ends of the bar is projected outside, like this [https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp- content/uploads/201...](https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp- content/uploads/2015/08/dn28071-3_800.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER22> The word 'wormhole' suggests to me that there would be no loss of field strength or signal strength, irregardless of the distance in three-dimensional space. A device that could tunnel its magnetic field between, say, Tokyo and New York, with no energy loss -- that's my idea of a wormhole.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is a horrible and intentionally misleading article. They intentionally dupe the reader to imply it's a real wormhole.

        The overall EFFECT (emphasis mine) is that of a magnetic
        field that appears to travel from one point to another
        through a dimension that lies outside the conventional
        three dimensions

If anything in the article were like what it was implying this would be world- shattering news. It's entirely lackluster news by comparison. The author should be ashamed for generating this tabloid.

</comment><comment><USER24> Since they did not create a wormhole: Doesn't this submission's title go against the guidelines?

> […] please use the original title, _unless it is misleading or linkbait_.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is what happens when engineers try to be both physicists and marketers. This has nothing to do with an Einstein-Rosen Bridge. They've created a magnetic monopole in space through some cool engineering but don't seem to have any theoretical understanding of why it occurs.

If this really was a wormhole, the MRI machine might suck the patients brain into a different point in spacetime and possibly a different universe.

</comment><comment><USER26> Some schematics of it would be really helpful.

From what I got the magnetic field from point A is felt at point B even without being able to be measured between those 2 points.

Is that it?

<comment><USER27> Basically. They put the magnetic source in an shielded sphere, and then somehow moved the field outside of the sphere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Does the "wormhole" only exist inside the sphere?

I wonder if this could be used for undetectable point-to-point communication?

<comment><USER29> That is EXACTLY what I'm thinking. I read a few weeks back about how superconductors allow the free-flow of electricity without any loss of power, couple that with this shielding and you could (in theory) create a completely secure form of communication (during transit, not necessarily secure at the endpoints).

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> If the effect at the interface point of two spheres leaks similarly little field one could imagine a chain of these invisibility conducting huge magnetic fields with no loss or external effects along its path.

<comment><USER31> A new kind of lossless transmission line, perhaps? That would be a big deal if so. Such a line would also be immune to the effects of space weather, since the field along the tunnel does not interact with any exterior field.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Isn't that exactly what a shielded coax cable does?

</comment><comment><USER33> Is it possible to have one of these "wormholes" with one entrance and two exits?

<comment><USER34> Two girls, one wormhole?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> quick. stop. look.

its some sensationalism!!!!

</comment><comment><USER36> could you get a faster then light signal through this magnetic wormhole?

<comment><USER17> Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.

I _really_ doubt it. People are fairly convinced that faster-than-light communication can't happen -- and if it can, it's going to take a bigger change than this.

<comment><USER36> If wormholes are theoretically possible and allow for some sort of FTL communication by joining two points in space, then I thought perhaps the same goes for magnetic wormholes.

<comment><USER2> problem is it's not really a wormhole, so no FTL yet

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37>
      Scientists in the Department of Physics at the
      Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona have designed
      and created in the laboratory the first experimental
      wormhole that can connect two regions of space
      magnetically.

      > magnetically

Come on.

<comment><USER38> I don't understand what you're objecting to.

Perhaps you're implying that they're leading you on with implications of something really impressive and then the last word lets you down? But 'magnetic' is the first word in the title, so that doesn't make any sense.

<comment><USER37> The transfer of unseen magnetic force, across space, in this manner, does not constitute a "worm hole", and is clearly a "force field" instead, which is slightly less exciting.

If we were reading an X-men comic book, and Magneto's abilities were conflated as "worm holes", everyone would cry foul.

I object to the misuse of a well-known science fiction term as click-bate.</comment></comment></comment>


China Targets Apple with Push into Advanced Smartphone Screens - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-targets-apple-with-push-into-advanced-smartphone-screens-1532260804 <comment><USER2> Before anybody gets drawn in by the clickbait headline, the text of the article is about how China (i.e. large a Chinese vendor) is trying to win Apple's business away from Korean and Japanese vendors. So their sales teams are 'targeting' Apple, which is fine I guess, but not what most people think about when they hear that someone is targeting Apple.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for clarifying. This kind of clickbait headline should be punished somehow on HN. It distorts the facts and causes confusion and distractions.

<comment><USER4> It is the actual title of the article, but it isn't clear what the article is about without the byline that HN doesn't support.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >BOE Technology Group Co. plants already make display screens for Apple's iPads and MacBook computers,

Now sure why they still didn't make it into the iPhone LCD supply Chain.

>"Many years ago, people were saying that no, the China guys can't do it. But I think BOE makes a good example,"

That is me as well. Or I was more like it will take them some more time to catch up, even in an optimistic view, but they are so relentless in their R&D, they make a lot of progress that it seems now they can do the impossible. And they now likely has better OLED than LG for Smartphones.

Apple has been adopting more and more Chinese components which is slightly worrying. iPhone's Battery is from China, and they are definitely not the best in class. Some of the cover glass are from China, ( They are no all Gorilla Glass ).

<comment><USER6> It would be wise for Apple to make sure their suppliers aren't all in one basket.

<comment><USER4> They do that for most of their parts. For example, they also source batteries from Samsung.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Isn't Apple working on new screen technology? If so then why bother corning the market on tech which may become obsolete...

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-19/apple- is-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-19/apple-is-said-to- develop-displays-to-replace-samsung-screens)

<comment><USER8> New tech doesn't mean the old tech is obsolete. It may be great for non-top- end phones... with a huge Chinese market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> iPhones are already made in China.

</comment><comment><USER10> Pretty soon, no more need for Apple.

</comment><comment><USER11> When China already _makes_ all the Apple screens, but somehow the author thinks they managed to _target Apple_ by, erm, _continuing_ to make them.

<comment><USER12> Apple sources displays from Samsung, I assumed Samsung built them in Korea. Does Samsung do their manufacturing in China?

<comment><USER5> OLED Screen? Zero as far as I know. Only Battery and small quantity of NAND.

<comment><USER13> Have you heard of the iPhone X? All screens were manufactured in Samsung's flexible OLED foundries

<comment><USER5> But it is not manufactured in China. Which was what I was referring to.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


StarCraft 2: help us mourn the death of content freedom - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/08/starcraft-2-the-latest-game-to-control-user-created-content.ars <comment><USER2> Three separate points:

\- The 25MB file size limit is absurd and could cause real harm. I can't imagine any rationale at all for this. Storage is so cheap. There's also an arbitrary limit of 5 maps at a time per author, which is hilariously strange; needless to say, the most fun custom maps in WC3 and SC:BW came from prolific authors.

\- Ars doesn't mention the fact that their current system for browsing and playing custom maps is broken beyond belief. It's more or less impossible to play maps that aren't among the most popular on Battle.net. (details: [http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=139...](http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=139745))

\- The change everyone is complaining about stems from an actual good idea. In WC3 and SC:BW, people would constantly make tiny, ineffectual changes to custom maps, resulting in a profligation of one million versions of those maps, each of which you would have to download when you encountered them. You also had little assurance that someone had not modified a map to let them cheat it. The centralized distribution system is a real convenience, as it has the potential to avoid these problems (although they are still present right now, thanks to Blizzard's horrific design.) Unfortunately, it makes Blizzard somewhat responsible in the eyes of consumers for the content on the system.

<comment><USER3> The game was just released. Blizzard does a great job of releasing incremental updates for their games and servers. I remember BATTLE.net changing significantly over time when I was playing the original SC, from pretty horrible to pretty fantastic. I'm pretty sure the same thing happened with WCIII as well.

They will listen to their community and continuously make this thing better, I guarantee it!

<comment><USER2> I would sympathize if this was Blizzard's first networked RTS with a modding community, but it's hard to understand why they would decide to throw away ten years of aforementioned incremental improvements to SC:BW and WC3's community features and implement a far worse system from scratch.

<comment><USER3> I'm sure lots of people would probably disagree with you about that. Just because a small handful of people think the system is HORRIBLE doesn't mean the average gamer will say the same thing.

Maybe they just wanted to change things up a bit, or maybe they want to restrict things at first to see what people's reaction(s) are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I know that somewhere in this wide world there must be a heartbreaking work of staggering genius remixing corporate logos, edgy speech, and full-motion video into a mindblowing coming of age story about tolerance and true love that could only possibly be shown in the Starcraft engine, but you know how I read this headline? Starcraft 2: More Zergs, Less Penis.

That is a tradeoff I can live with.

<comment><USER5> The file size limitation is the killer, if you ask me. Starcraft and Warcraft III both had _huge_ mod communities which produced astounding content. In at least two cases, entirely new genres of gameplay: the tower-defense genre began with Starcraft mods, and the WC3 mod "Defense of the Ancients" has inspired several similar standalone games. Anything that limits the capabilities of mod designers is bad in my book.

<comment><USER6> Sorry no: _Tower Defense games began in 1990 when Atari Games released Rampart.[6] Early tower defense games later began to appear post-1997 in minigames for other platforms, such as Final Fantasy VII. By 2000, maps for StarCraft, Age of Empires II, and WarCraft III were following suit.[7]_ (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_defense>)

<comment><USER7> Well tower defense was indeed further defined and expanded in warcraft 3 where it saw its biggest market, and this just further supports modding of games. DOTA however is from wc3 and it is especially amazing that there have been two independent games made from it, as well as many other interesting game types.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Greed is probably the motive, but....

I get the feeling no CEO wants to be testifying at a congressional hearing and try to explain that the content some kid saw wasn't created by their company. "This appears in your video game and as we all know (like animation) all video games are for kids" "No sir, that was not created by us....." "You should stop this..."

<comment><USER9> Especially after the GTA "Hot Coffee" debacle. That was a different issue of course, but the general public doesn't seem to understand what a mod is, and assume the game publisher is responsible for any and all content, regardless of source.

<comment><USER10> Seems like HN commenters are confused as to what mod and content are as well...

Bethesda _was_ the source of the content for Hot Coffee. It was included in several versions of the game.

A mod was made to enable access to this content.

As the authors and distributors Bethesda is/was/and should be responsible for releasing that content.

<comment><USER11> Rockstar developed GTA. Bethesda made Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I bought SC2 and it's a good game. The licensing system is absurd though. The more interesting part is that the license is non-transferable, which is true for almost all MMOs, but this is the first 'normal' game that I think I've purchased which can't be resold. You have to register the game to your real identity, and blizz is 100% in control of what you can do with it. It's by far the least-free software I've ever purchased.

As a user, I'm going to let blizz get away with this one, because the game is good and we've been waiting something like 12 years for it to be finished. So I did buy it. But if other companies think that I'm buying their game if they pull this kind of crap, well, it's not happening.

<comment><USER7> Actually there is no real used game market for pc games and it has been that way for a very long time, starcraft one was only allowed 1 copy to be on battlenet at a time the only difference now is that games are online so much of the time that they are much more limited.

The thing that I don't like is that you have to login to battlenet for anything single player (other than playing as a guest) and this is an issue I wouldn't accept for any other game than sc2.

<comment><USER13> You can play offline single player, but it won't log your achievements.

<comment><USER14> That sounds completely fair. But you should still by able to resell the game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Anybody who's ever run a site with user-generated content quickly changes their opinion about free speech.

The internet has all the freedom you'll ever need, but you shouldn't expect to have that freedom everywhere you go on it. You can post anything you like to your blog, but I can't post anything I like to it. I have to do that at my own.

Deleting obnoxious custom maps from a video game is no different from trimming Ugg Boot spam from the front page of HackerNews. It's not impinging on anybody's freedom in any meaningful way. It's just making the game universe a better place to be.

</comment><comment><USER16> I've never been so happy to not buy a game. I've also never been so sad to not buy a game.

</comment><comment><USER17> A nasty side effect of consumer-inherent complacency. As long as you keep consumers' appetites satiated _just enough_ for them to want more, this sort of thing by and large will go condoned. People who don't develop Apps on the iPhone didn't care about the crappy developer agreement. People who just log onto Facebook to gossip about Johnny and Chachi didn't care about openGraph. People who only bought Starcraft to build pylons wont care about this.

The casual gamers and casual consumers outnumber power users at least 5:1, and that's what allows these sort of things to perpetuate and continue on the rate that they are.

<comment><USER18> It's not casual gamers, it's gamers in general. All of my friends who have bought this game ignore issues with it because "IT'S STARCRAFT II!!!!!!!!". Gamers are the weak, and easy to manipulate, they give in, boycotts aren't effective, and for video games you can forget about having any sort of unified front. Back when I still read reddit's /r/pics there'd be a weekly posting of BOYCOTT MWII steam group of some sort and everyon was playing MWII.

<comment><USER19> I think that's kind of a woeful generalization. The most vocal members of the population certainly have something like that, but plenty of people who play games (myself included) bought SC2 because they were happy enough with the content and not dissuaded enough by the downsides - I'm sure plenty of other people quietly went about their business, passing it up because of the various issues discussed in this thread.

<comment><USER18> For most gamers the upside of playing the game overrules the downside all the time. Me? I haven't bought SC2, L4D2 or MW2, because all of them disrespect the platform, and it's users. I want more features than I had in 1995, not less, I want companies to stand by their promises, and I don't want some neutered 1:1 console port, respectively. I also don't want Blizzard controlling the upstream of game content. Bobby Kiotik will want to monetize that, I'm not stupid. There's going to be Starcraft 10$ map packs soon. I refuse to relinquish my rights to companies who have proven that they are untrustworthy, even with entertainment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >Those of us who remember looking through Duke Nukem 3D fan pages for a new, great map to play and share with friends know what we've lost here, and, to put it bluntly, it sucks. Every now and again you'd trip over a swastika, but the Star Wars total conversions, the Predator sound packs, and the maps based on Star Trek ship layouts were always a good time. Those days are behind us.

Only if you buy this shit. I've got a large library of games with minimal DRM and large modding communities. Graphics stopped adding to the experience five years ago. I am quite content to battle away on Age of Mythology, Morrowind, Neverwinter Nights, Age of Empires III, the original Jedi Knight, and a dozen others.

When I game at all. It's just appalling that people so casually accept censorship in this day and age. As Ars says, this isn't a simple matter of keeping the trolls at bay:

>There is also the matter of the rating: StarCraft 2 is rated Teen, and if Blizzard doesn't keep Mature-rated content out, there could be a serious backlash.

Good content will be banned to keep the environment at a teen level. This is disgusting, and make no mistake it is censorship.

<comment><USER21> > _"Good content will be banned to keep the environment at a teen level. This > is disgusting, and make no mistake it is censorship."_

Actually, it's irrelevant anyways. Note that games have explicit disclaimers that online play is unrated by the ESRB and may be effectively higher than the game's box rating.

The ESRB acknowledges and accepts this - games are rated based on predictable content (e.g., dialogue in singleplayer) and do not include unpredictable player-generated content within reason (e.g., people swearing in multiplayer).

So, the whole ratings argument is bogus - SC2 will not suffer a ratings change even if its users distribute obscene user content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I just like how everyone is nerdraging about how bad Blizzard is, etc, and have completely overlooked possibly that you live in an era where offensive crap is automatically blamed on the company.

Think, if you will, what the hell Fox or CNN or someone would do with a SCII map that utilized suicide bombers or something. Good christ.

Talk about giving the idiots that think that all of us gamers are off to kill hundreds of innocent people because we do it in a video game a carton-load of ammo.

Then we'll have any good or "innovative" games completely yanked, and you'll bitch more about "losing" freedoms because some company didn't cover their ass.

Swear it's like a bunch of bickering high school kids in here sometimes.

<comment><USER23> I'm pretty sure your post was downvoted because of your immature tone and your downright ridiculous arguments - Starcraft II "innovative"? Ha! You're right though, that it is sometimes like high school, with the unsubstantiated arguments that are mostly just appeals or assertions, and the general lack of professionalism.

Gillian Anderson couldn't do anything about Adobe Photoshop, and if the anti- videogame crusaders couldn't manage to do anything significant with Manhunt and Hot Coffee, custom content for SCII isn't going to be any worse. (For that matter, "GTA Raoul Moat" fetched Rockstar an apology from the Daily Mail. <http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=256635>)

<comment><USER22> Wasn't saying SCII was innnovative in specificity, merely that games that allow sandbox innovation would be more likely to face intense scrutiny as to what they release as any sort of content from any user or otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think that the statement made about Benjamin Franklin is rather inaccurate. Ben Franklin was a printer, publisher, and writer for most of his life, which puts his occupation at a parallel with what Blizzard is currently doing. However, Ben never displayed censorship at this level. In fact, he published plenty of pieces which were considered quite racy and controversial by the day's standards. It is true that he would not publish articles that were malignant in nature, but I have a hard time believing he would condone the censorship that Blizzard is currently demonstrating.

</comment><comment><USER25> With war3, we always had to download 10 different maps manually and put it in the "right" place to watch a replay. For instance, the replay wanted the map in:

maps/download/(2)blabla and not maps/frozen throne/(2)blabla.

I honestly hope that blizzard will fix that by hosting everything.

And I'm sure that if 25mb is not enough, blizzard will increase it.. It's one of the few game company that encourage users to create maps and fan art.

Lastly, in my 10 years playing starcraft1 and warcraft3, I've never seen a map with mature content or things like that.. so in my opinion, it doesn't make a difference whether blizzard control maps or no.

</comment><comment><USER26> Is all this nerdraging warranted? The game is worth $60 without any custom maps at all. It's probably worth $60 without multiplayer. It's the most satisfying game I've played in years.

I think some people, judging by the comments here, have a giant void of actual problems in their lives and have nothing better to do than to complain about everything.

<comment><USER27> But everyone is judging it by what SC1 did. SC2 won't, in my opinion, have the half life (pun intended) of the original because of this. E-Sport companies are restricted by the new EULA. Modders can't do what they use too. In the end, Blizzard isn't protecting anyone, they are trying to gain control on the whole user experience and they will want to monetize it. Map Packs, paid tournaments, ....

I bought the game and like someone else said, if this wasn't blizzard I wouldn't have bought it. Same with the iPhone, how many would have bought it knowing the restriction if it wasn't made by apple. Same hardware, same software, same management.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Does anyone really think that "prevent obscenity" is the real reason, and that it has got nothing to do with the fact that pirated copies will have a hard time connecting to Blizzard's servers?

Seems pretty obvious to me.

</comment><comment><USER29> How much of this is an anti-piracy measure?

If you have to connect to a central sever it gives them a chance to check your account (whether they take it or not). I assume pirates would rather download an anonymous map over HTTP than from Blizzard.

<comment><USER30> A lot of it is an anti-piracy measure. Activision wants games to be bound to their servers as tightly as possible, because that's the best possible defense against piracy. It also creates a kind of lock-in that they hope to exploit to get WoW-style recurring income.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is fine, while companies like Infinity Ward / Activision / Blizzard censor artists and developers and remove creativity from PC Gamers, companies like Id, Epic, and Valve are filling in the gaps. Valve just released Alien Swarm for free with all the dev tools needed to modify the game. Blizzard, you need to return to your roots, and remember your fans, not your wallets.

</comment><comment><USER32> Listen dudes - if these limitations ACTUALLY impede the community's ability to enjoy the game, rather than just IN THEORY which is what this post and most of these comments are arguing about, then Blizzard isn't going to sit there and watch its potential sales of the next two StarCraft 2 games and other parts of the franchise slowly die because people are getting bored with multiplayer due to lack of innovative community-content as a result of these restrictions.

Let the market decide - if most devs have trouble making a fun map / scenario / mod that's under 25 megs in size, then obviously blizzard will change it. That being said, 25 megs is probably sufficient anyways. Relax.

</comment><comment><USER33> I don't mind this. I like controlled systems because they tend to keep the garbage out of my sight (steam, itunes). If they allow the masses to create really obscene things, it only hurts the developers that spend countless hours creating quality mods and maps because the consumer has to wade through trash 98% of the time.

Another point is that the game is still new. That 25 MB limit is probably not a hard limit. It 'could' go up if they start seeing a show of hands with people needing more space.

<comment><USER8> I don't think the big issues is what they allow on their servers. I think the bigger issues is that a lot of new games don't allow you to host your own content outside their system. I can see reasons for this (and I am sympathetic), but I do miss the old days of getting a WarCraft map from a friend.

<comment><USER34> You can still do that for single-player maps AFAIK -- the Map Editor lets you run any map that you can download.

<comment><USER33> Yeah, you can create a map and distribute it for single player vs. the AI.

\- <http://www.sc2mapster.com/maps/>

\- <http://sc2.curse.com/downloads/sc2-maps/default.aspx>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I guarantee that at some point in the future, if Blizzard doesn't get their heads out of the asses, somebody will crack some future rev of the software to allow LAN play and custom multiplayer maps and such, and that that will become the de facto version that everybody plays and shows up on Korean Starcraft channels. All this is is really a fantastically complex DRM scheme designed to keep the "we're in control" ball on Blizzard's side of the table.

</comment><comment><USER35> Bizarre. It's like they took everything that made Starcraft a decade's long phenomenon, and decided to try and put a fence around it so they could control it. Mind bogglingly stupid and guaranteed to turn SC2 into just another RTS that disappears in a year or two unless they fire whoever is responsible for such a brain dead idea and revert back to a more sane model.

</comment><comment><USER36> The article conveniently ignores every other game that does not have the same restrictions on user generated content, and then claims the "death of content freedom." Starcraft 2 is one datapoint.

Where was the article trumpeting the "renewal of content freedom" when Alien Swarm came out?

</comment><comment><USER37> I honestly, after seeing what Uno is like on XBoxLive, completely back blizzard in this.

<comment><USER38> After not seeing what Uno is like on xboxlive, I have no idea what you're saying. Is there a lot of Uno nudity?

<comment><USER37> It's a near 100% chance to see peoples' genitalia or other parts if you play for a half hour.

Think chatroulette, but more surprising.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> loup-vaillant Blizzard it taking more control than ever. The users can't tinker with it. The same happen to many games. Of course, this is only possible because those game are are proprietary.

Did anyone thought about free game engines?

</comment><comment><USER39> A friend just sent me an SC2 map. We're going to try to make a small custom game together. I'm at work so I can't open it, but I was surprised to see it in my mail box after reading the article and comments.

</comment><comment><USER40> so what, just torrent it and sooner or later there will be private servers/maps/lan. blizzard is too greedy from the WOW gravy train.

</comment><comment><USER41> Damn, there goes my ZergNigger mod.

</comment><comment><USER42> Amen.</comment>


CPU DB, a database of processors for researchers and hobbyists - <AUTHOR> http://cpudb.stanford.edu/

<comment><USER2> A link to the ISSCC keynote by Mark Horowitz, curator of cpudb. IMO worth a listening to for most anyone interested in CPU performance related issues. [http://isscc.org/media/2014/plenary/Mark_Horowitz/NewStandar...](http://isscc.org/media/2014/plenary/Mark_Horowitz/NewStandardPlayer.html?plugin=HTML5&mimetype=video%2Fmp4)

The plots shown in his presentation basically show off the underlying data in cpudb.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting talk. ISSCC also offers an edx crash course

ISSCCx ISSCC Previews - Circuit and System Insights ([https://courses.edx.org/courses/IEEEx/ISSCCx/3T2014/info](https://courses.edx.org/courses/IEEEx/ISSCCx/3T2014/info))

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nope:

      Failed to connect to cpudb.stanford.edu port 80: Connection refused

<comment><USER4> Latest instance in the Wayback Machine. (Don't forget to support such resources.)

[http://web.archive.org/web/20141013114803/http://cpudb.stanf...](http://web.archive.org/web/20141013114803/http://cpudb.stanford.edu/)

\----

Edit:

I don't know why this is at the top. I see now that couple of other people cited the archive in comments that are now 6 hours old:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8693001](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8693001)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8693004](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8693004)

(So send them the karma...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The actual link to get the .tar.gz archive is [http://cpudb.stanford.edu/cpudb.1416196069.tar.gz](http://cpudb.stanford.edu/cpudb.1416196069.tar.gz) (on the download page, both links points to the .zip file). They are basically the same size anyway (~728kiB).

A few interesting charts showing the evolution of CPUs:

* Transistor size ([http://cpudb.stanford.edu/visualize/technology_scaling](http://cpudb.stanford.edu/visualize/technology_scaling)): the process is still regularly scaling down

* Clock frequency ([http://cpudb.stanford.edu/visualize/clock_frequency](http://cpudb.stanford.edu/visualize/clock_frequency)): processors do not tick significantly faster than 4GHz, a speed they reached in 2004/2005

* Performance ([http://cpudb.stanford.edu/visualize/performance_by_freq_and_...](http://cpudb.stanford.edu/visualize/performance_by_freq_and_cache)): I am still unable to display this graph

The clock frequency graph shows a processor at 21.3GHz. It's the Z3480, whose clock actually ticks at 2.13GHz ([http://ark.intel.com/products/70102/Intel- Atom-Processor-Z34...](http://ark.intel.com/products/70102/Intel-Atom- Processor-Z3480-1M-Cache-up-to-2_13-GHz)).

</comment><comment><USER6> I love that it goes back to MOS 6502, Zilog Z80 etc. It also includes the WDC 65C02 which is still in production.

</comment><comment><USER7> Interesting. Pity it does not feature anything DEC beyond Alpha.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is it down? Any mirrors?

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems so. Here is the mirror on archive.org

[https://web.archive.org/web/20141013114803/http://cpudb.stan...](https://web.archive.org/web/20141013114803/http://cpudb.stanford.edu/)

I've seen this happening several times after submission to HN.

<comment><USER9> It would be slashdot effect if slashdot was still relevant.

<comment><USER10> On Spain is called "Meneame" effect</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Submitted iPhone App Hacks iTunes To Allow Wireless Sync - <AUTHOR> http://appadvice.com/appnn/2010/04/bold-itunes-wireless-sync-app-submitted/

<comment><USER2> Also discussed here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1294800>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> You're right, I missed it</comment>


Ask HN: Why is there only one Reddit? - <AUTHOR> Reddit is such a key element to my web usage, that I am surprised that there are seemingly no alternatives. I mean, Google has competition, AirBnB has, Amazon too.. why is Reddit the only site of its kind? <comment><USER2> There's a lot of reddit alternatives, and I happen to work with one:

1\. [http://snapzu.com](http://snapzu.com) (I work with this one part time)

2\. [http://getaether.net](http://getaether.net)

3\. [https://stacksity.com](https://stacksity.com)

4\. [https://frizbee.co](https://frizbee.co)

5\. [http://hubski.com](http://hubski.com)

6\. [http://empeopled.com](http://empeopled.com)

7\. [http://voat.co](http://voat.co)

8\. [https://piroot.com](https://piroot.com)

9\. [http://www.linkibl.com](http://www.linkibl.com)

10\. [http://criticl.me](http://criticl.me)

</comment><comment><USER3> You'll notice that the entire source code for reddit is hosted publicly here ([https://github.com/reddit/reddit](https://github.com/reddit/reddit)) which makes your question that much more interesting.

And the answer?

It's the community and the centralization.

By making a subreddit, you have a chance at scoring some of the people who already visit the site, rather than having to look for them or advertise on your own. Discoverability aids the community, but it's only made possible by centralization.

Then there are things like global shadowbans and antispam and the fact that karma is shared across reddit.com. If you made a separate reddit, karma on your site would not be reflected to the original. Which would suck.

Reddit.com dominated the reddit market for just about everything.

</comment><comment><USER4> There are tons of sites like Reddit. However, people need a reason to leave Reddit to go to one of these new sites.

Unless they pull a Digg, this probably won't ever happen. Reddit actually got really lucky that Digg collapsed when it did, or we might even be using it today.

</comment><comment><USER5> Digg used to compete, but the redesign killed it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Here's a Reddit-like site I found out a while back--the community is growing, too. [0]

[0]: ([https://voat.co/](https://voat.co/))

<comment><USER7> A lot of people from Reddit consider Voat basically the /b/ of Reddit.</comment></comment>


Books Every Entrepreneur Should Read - <AUTHOR> http://jasonevanish.com/2012/07/01/11-books-every-entrepreneur-should-read/

<comment><USER2> > The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho

Ok, nothing to see here, move along.

Disclaimer: I am Brazilian and read this book in Portuguese. That might explain why I don't like Paulo Coelho. I see him as a pop version of Herman Hesse, an easy to read cheap mystic. Gave up on these kind of readings a long ago.

<comment><USER3> i know i know you should never open a "hate" group on facebook, i did so anyway a few years ago after one of his books took two hours of my life that i will never get back.

here is the fb url <https://www.facebook.com/groups/40433509545/>

i know that this is not very HN, but neither is a "xx books ever entrepreneur should read" linkbaitblogpost on the front page.

here my favorite quotes:

"porn movies has better plot than his books"

"He mixes a couple of diff books in one (but the other two arent his :-)"

"Reminds me something that could be called langue de bois, a suspicious rhetoric that is targeted towards desire of happiness. Too good to be true, to abstract to be examined, too vague to be accomplished. I guess the speeches of early USSR politics could be depicted as a same type langue de bois, that were talking about a perfect society in a loud tone of sentiments and deep emotionality, but created nothing more than utopian abortion."

"in my opinion people who actually like Paulo Coelho have never ever read a real book and are unable to enjoy literature. Paulo Coelho = scary new age pseudo babble for lost middle class brats. It is good news for Paulo Coelho's bank account the world is full of those."

<comment><USER4> It's fair enough to not like a book. I didn't really care for it either.

When you express this level of hate for something however, I'd venture to say it's more about yourself than you might think. You talk about 2 hours of your life wasted, yet your still burning energy in hating it, and forming a group of all things.

<comment><USER3> i know i know

nonetheless i made an exception for that guy. if everyone (according to bestseller lists and the linked blogpost above) is an awe of that guy, somebody has to point out "that the king has no clothes" (reference to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperors_New_Clothes> )

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My general advice for entrepreneurs (although I am sure most of them know already) would be to not read books too close to the subject you want to know about. Instead you should read books about subjects around the field of entrepreneurship. (accounting or financing as an example)

If I where to give one recommendation it would be Clayton Christensens "The Innovators Dilemma"

That book isn't specific to entrepreneurs but to business in general. It is however the one book that will give you an understanding of the game you are in.

As en entrepreneur you are trying to find the holes in the cheese or create your own. Not to eat it.

<comment><USER6> Agreed about The Innovators Dilemma; and from the original list, Founders at Work, Crucial Conversations, and The Design of Everyday Things. Your mileage may vary on The Alchemist; some people find it transformational, others aren't so excited. I haven't read the others on the list so don't mean to be dissing them, just don't have any first-hand experience.

I'd also add

\- Sherry Turkle's The Second Self \- Geoffrey Miller's Crossing the Chasm and Inside the Tornado (a different Geoffrey Miller than the one in the original list :) ) \- Rita McGrath and Ian MacMillan, The Entrepreneurial Mindset

<comment><USER5> I have never understood why people are so positive about "Design of everyday things".

I guess the book might make you appreciate design and that might affect your sensitivity to design.

But I think you need to have a general affection for design in general to really get anything out of the book.

Otherwise you run the risk of thinking your understand design now that you have read a book about it.

Just my opinion of course.

<comment><USER7> _But I think you need to have a general affection for design in general to really get anything out of the book._

In my experience you don't :-) At least, I've seen it switch many people out of the design == "making things pretty" mindset into something more productive. It's always on my reading list for people who don't get design, or people who understand that they need to get design. Seems be effective with both groups.

I think it has something to do with it not being written as a "design" book per se. Remember the original 1988 title was "The Psychology of Everyday Things". It's up there with "Peopleware" as a book I keep buying for clients :-)

<comment><USER5> In general I agree.

But I think the question is whether you can be a successful entrepreneur without having some sense or idea about design.

In my experience from working with many many startups the entrepreneurs either get it or they don't. In fact if they don't they wont even entertain the idea that they don't get it.

But yeah our experiences might differ :)

<comment><USER8> Most skillful people will tend to develop good taste and a sense of design in and around their own field of expertise. The Design of Everyday Things has helped people I know expand that sense beyond its original narrower confines to, as the title suggests, the world of everyday things.

The downside is that now some of them think they can instantly render a well- founded opinion on anything relating to design. Although that may simply be a corollary of the general phenomenon where experts in one field (and programmers and engineers may be the worst) think they possess the master key to critical thinking and problem solving in any and all fields.

<comment><USER9> fantastic!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It makes me sad that Peter Drucker is so out of style with you kids. I was recently reading a book about Google and they made a huge reference to Druker's OKR system (outcomes and key results). I found a decent article on it here if anybody wants a summary: <http://jephmaystruck.com/how-do-you-measure- your-strategy/>

<comment><USER5> I couldn't agree more. His books are some of the most thoughtful and insightful books I have ever read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd highly recommend Nassim Taleb's "The Black Swan", that's a useful tool for reminding you how little you know and how little everyone else knows.

Personally, that's a motivator to build a product without being concerned about what all the other products are doing / how they look. It's also a great reminder of the importance of empiricism in some parts of life, which is great to keep in mind with something as simple as debugging your code or doing customer support...coming at a problem like an experiment, from the position of knowing nothing, means you can get to the answer faster (usually) and with more accuracy and precision.

</comment><comment><USER12> Here's my tip, stop reading books about it, stop reading the 15 articles published about it daily, just get on with implementing something. No, really.

</comment><comment><USER7> One that's pretty much always on my list of recommendations is DeMarco & Lister's "Peopleware" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopleware:_Productive_Projects...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopleware:_Productive_Projects_and_Teams)

More than twenty years old now—yet still incredibly relevant. If you're new to building/leading/managing teams or project management, and don't have a copy, go get one now.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Curious what books the Hacker News community considers must read?

<comment><USER13> Hacker News stories which contains plenty of book recommendations (sorted by points, labeled by topic):

Science Fiction: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2978027>

Computer Science: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3595599>

General: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1752139>

Design: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3276986>

Computer Science: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1636275>

Developing mental models and increasing cognition: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3277457>

Quant finance: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3177815>

General: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=663662>

General (non software): <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1226736>

Math: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=665029>

General: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=875686>

Entrepreneur: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2928211>

Statistics: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=902074>

Philosophy: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1503137>

General: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1865350>

Math for beginners: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=755043>

Military strategy: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=456275>

General: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=797070>

Investing: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=248469>

"I want to start a web company": <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1567456>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for puling this list together...I added it to the bottom of my post so more people can see what you helped assemble. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To add a few that span outside entrepreneurship, but are of course very valuable to entrepreneurs:

Inspired: How To Create Products Customers Love ([http://www.amazon.com/Inspired-Create-Products-Customers- Lov...](http://www.amazon.com/Inspired-Create-Products-Customers- Love/dp/0981690408?ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=mypred-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0932633439)) - The best if not only required reading for product management

Peopleware ([http://www.amazon.com/Peopleware-Productive-Projects- Teams-S...](http://www.amazon.com/Peopleware-Productive-Projects-Teams- Second/dp/0932633439?ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=mypred-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0932633439)) - Great read on managing and understanding people as it relates to organizations

Managing Humans ([http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software- Engi...](http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Humans-Humorous-Software- Engineering/dp/159059844X?ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=mypred-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0932633439)) - Obviously on management, you can read much on this <http://randsinrepose.com/>, though the book does a great job of consolidating it

<comment><AUTHOR> Great call on Inspired. Hands down the best Product book out there...haven't heard any others even in the conversation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Doesn't anybody realise that affiliate links to amazon.com don't catch users from the UK or Europe. Surely it's not that difficult to install a geotargetting plugin to rewrite those links to amazon.co.uk, .ft .de, etc.

Also a question if any Amazoners are reading this. Why when I click from the amazon.com to amazon.co.uk does it not remember the book I'm looking at. Come on guys it's not the 20th century anymore.

</comment><comment><USER16> For _entrepreneurship_ some people may say you you committed blasphemy by ommiting Lean Startup and Business Model Generation

<comment><USER17> Lean Startup fell pretty flat for me. It felt like there wasn't much "there there". Recommended alternatives:

Read it, liked it more than Lean Startup: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0055D7O1U/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0055D7O1U/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0055D7O1U&linkCode=as2&tag=dedasys-20)

Started reading it, seems much more thorough than Lean Startup: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0984999302/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0984999302/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0984999302&linkCode=as2&tag=dedasys-20) \- annoyingly does not have a Kindle version.

Haven't ready it, heard it's good: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006UKFFE0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006UKFFE0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B006UKFFE0&linkCode=as2&tag=dedasys-20)

And of course, my favorite of all, because it's full of real, practical advice, Start Small, Stay Small.

<comment><AUTHOR> I gotta agree with you. Conceptually Lean Startup was ok, but there was zero content in it that I could easily grasp and apply to a company. It was all too high level. I think most of Clayton Christensen's books are the same way.

Eric Ries is in the consulting business (like Clayton) and he's trying to bring Lean Startup to the mainstream & big companies. I think his book achieves that goal but at the expense of being helpful to startups.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _The Halo Effect_, Phil Rozenzweig: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Halo-Effect- Business-Delusions/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Halo-Effect-Business- Delusions/dp/0743291255)

This revisits books from earlier in the decade (like _Good to Great_), and shows that many of the profiled companies failed. It's a great way to learn _how_ to read entrepreneurship books; many theories are based on "Intel is successful; Intel does X; therefore doing X will make you successful".

In general, go read books from ten years ago and see if any of the predictions held up. Likewise, I recommend _Founders at Work_ because so many of these (currently) successful companies were launched with opposing philosophies, and all of them worked. Open plan? Works! Offices? Also works! Deep funding? Works! Bootstrapping? Also works!

<comment><USER19> This is part of what makes The Innovator's Dilemma so great and believable-a lot of the predictions the author makes turned out to be correct over the next 15 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> >How to Win Friends and Influence People OR "How to Win Friends and Influence People in the Digital Age" by same Author

<comment><USER21> In case anyone is wondering how Dale Carnegie wrote a book on "How to Win Friends and Influence People in the Digital Age", the actual author for the current edition of both books is credited to "Dale Carnegie & Associates"

<comment><USER22> I must admit, that was a head-scratcher... an amazing accomplishment when they're still crediting an author from the 30s.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> High Output Management by Andy Grove

Jack Welch: Straight From the Gut

The Innovators' Solution.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'd add "Reality Test" by Guy Kawasaki.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'd add Poke the Box by Seth Godin.</comment>


BBC News - Cheques to be phased out in 2018 - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8414341.stm <comment><USER2> Electronic Cheques should be easy to implement in an online banking infrastructure.

The debitor logs in and creates a new cheque. Amount, "pay to the order of", "for" and expiry-date are filled out as well as an e-mail address for the creditor. Perhaps also a password.

The bank emails the creditor saying that there's a cheque for him, tells him to click the link. He's prompted for the password, and asked to provide the account for the money to be transferred into. Once he confirms, a regular bank transfer is set up, and at the same time the recipient gets a confirmation that there is coverage for the cheque.

The final check could be that the debitor bank queries the creditor bank to confirm that the account is in the name of the creditor.

This procedure allows you to "cut a check" in advance for a business meeting. The e-mail arriving is like putting the money in escrow. When you sign the contract, you give the creditor the password, and that completes the transaction. If not, just wait for the expiry-date and the money is out of escrow.

<comment><USER3> That sounds extremely complicated. I don't see the need to emulate checks electronically, when there are good solutions today.

Scandinavian business and personal users have no problems with transferring money using online banks. You can even get the invoice electronically and just click a button to pay it, and the amount will be automatically transferred at the due date. I have heard rumors that checks are sometimes used in B2B, but I expect it to be in a very limited set of cases.

I remember some old people who used checks in the stores when I was a kid (many, many years ago), but I doubt the stores would even know what to do with a check if they were given one.

Edit: I did a search and found an article from 2006. The newspaper suggested that people should have a check book in case of problems with the electronic system (many don't carry much in cash). They interviewed the CEO of a major bank, and he wasn't even sure that the bank gave out check books at all :-)

<comment><USER2> Large sum transactions with low level of pre-established trust still don't have a replacement for a check. I bought a used car from a small dealership. The dealer didn't have the resources to check my credit, and I didn't trust him enough to just wire money to him ahead of time. Also, there's no way I'm going anywhere, especially not in the kind of neighbourhoods that have small used car dealerships, with enough cash to buy a car on me.

So I went to my bank and got them to make a check in my name for a ridiculous fee, and brought that, and figured, "why can't I just do that online"?

Another purpose would be quick settlements of bills. If I transfer the money it takes up to three working days for the amount to appear in the creditors account -- sometimes that's not practical if I need someone to ship something to me today -- this electronic check would solve that problem, because the creditor would be informed immediately by a trusted party that the money is there and on the way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm from the US, never really liked checks, and then moved to Holland (where they simply do not exist) and was amazed.

You have 4 ways to pay for things:

* Transfer from your online banking. You need the other party's account number, their name, and city. It's free for both parties; instantaneous (money is no longer available to your account, and is immediately available to the other party); can't be done if you don't have a high enough balance (no bounced checks); and can be set to be recurring. It makes the US checks/fees/delays look like a joke, but doesn't provide 10 different revenue streams for the banks.

* You can use your debit card (called _pinnen_ or 'PIN-ing') at any stores that have a scanner. There are no fees, you have to enter your pin. Most places (supermarkets, restaurants) will let you PIN, but don't take credit cards. Like transferring money, charges are immediate, done in the order they are received, and don't go through if there's not enough money.

* All debit cards have a little smart chip on them, which can be used to 'ChipKnip'. You load small amounts of money directly onto your chip, and you can now use your card to pay for small things (parking meters, printers at a university, etc). It's insecure (no PIN required) and if you loose your card the money's gone. It also (I think...) doesn't require a live connection to the ATM network, so transactions can be run later

* Giro. Giro is the opposite of a check (it's a credit-transfer instead of a debt-transfer). Sometimes bills are sent with a GIRO slip, which the payer fills out and eventually makes it way to the payer's bank, where a transfer is initiated to the recipient. I've never used a GIRO in the 2+ years I've been here.

</comment><comment><USER5> They mean personal checks, right? Because businesses still use checks all the time, despite being more sophisticated users of money than consumers.

<comment><USER6> nope, as far as I am aware (my parents use them a lot in their business so they have a particular interest) it's all cheques.

<comment><USER5> It's hard to believe that business checks are going to be phased out in a world where Morgan Stanley takes $9Bn in funding in the form of a paper check.

For small businesses, it's also hard to see how you replace the value of being able to fedex a check to a new vendor. Online payment works in places where both companies are established and have a relationship, and less well elsewhere.

I know this is UK and not US, but is there something I'm missing about how business works in the UK?

<comment><USER7> The US is about the only place where people are scared to give out bank account details and that is because in theory you could initiate an ACH bank transfer from the other parties account. What many people don't understand is that that same information is on a check.

In most of mainland Europe everyone pays everyone through online banking. In Denmark people put their account details on their web sites and letterheads.

There is really reason why you couldn't do the same here even with first time vendors. Except that some banks make it really hard to do.

My old bank Wellsfargo had me sign up for something called I think DirectPay where you could do it easily. But my new bank CitiBank make it just as easy as in Europe from both my personal and business accounts to send money.

This love afair of checks that American business has is all about float and frankly I am incredibly annoyed that all my clients insist on paying me by check.

<comment><USER8> It's required by law in the EU to put your bank account details on the web if you run a company.

<comment><USER9> Maybe. I guess it's possible there's a EU guideline that has to be implemented by the member states, but hasn't been implemented yet e.g. for me in Belgium.

Here's the guidelines (in Dutch): <http://www.vbo- feb.be/files/ondernemingsnummer.pdf>

So the website needs to contain the company registration number, the way it's incorporated and a bunch of other stuff, but not the bank account number afaics. Though the bank account number does need to be displayed on invoices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't get it, according to the figures in 2017 we'll be down to 300 million cheques a year, which is roughly 4 cheques per year per person in the UK.

That's still a pretty high number in my book given that a lot of them will be for large money amounts.

<comment><USER11> Most of them are students paying for drinks at the bar by cheque. Will not be missed.

<comment><USER12> Sauce?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm over 30 and I have never owned a checkbook. Checks are backwards, insecure and prone to abuse with no real guarantee for whoever gets one that he will actually get money, which makes them even more worthless.

If I were a bank I would do everything in my power to get rid of checks pronto.

<comment><USER14> You're clearly not from North America then. :(

Not that I disagree with ditching them, of course.

<comment><USER15> Indeed. I never owned a checkbook until I moved to the US. Why does everybody love them here?

<comment><USER12> It's a convenient way to give a person more money than you carry in cash. No one I know has a personal card reader they carry around (yet).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cheques should be reintroduced in Europe so that the US. can't ocpy all the transactions as it does right now with SWIFT.</comment>