I Do Not See Myself Represented in Essays on Dating - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@enkiv2/i-do-not-see-myself-represented-in-essays-on-dating-78488462efa6 <comment><USER3> Sounds like this dude is insufferable and exhausting and probably presents himself as such on his dating profile.

Edit: Before you start writing a treatise on the socio-economics of contemporary market-based internet dating in the age of diverstity.. just try the following:

1\. Put up a crisp, clear picture of yourself dressed nicely with a smile. Put up a second clear picture of you doing some kind of interesting activity (hiking in the wilderness, doing art, playing with a puppy, etc).

2\. Write a self-description that gives off vibes of you being a generally positive person, and relatively charming and perhaps a bit funny. If you can't be charming, you can at least be polite. If you're not funny, you can at least be lighthearted.

<comment><USER4> > just try the following

This is the typical format when responding to people who have dating issues. "Sounds like you're too X. You're overthinking things. _Just_ do Y."

Typically, Y is the most mundane, boring straight-forward cliche advice that everyone and their grandmother gives. It's delivered as if the person with the problem just never thought to try out the basic advice, like do an interesting activity or be a positive person.

<comment><USER3> I mean, this is a guy whose avatar on Medium is a semi-close up picture taken with a low-quality somewhat-fisheye webcam with bart simpson faces pasted over his eyeballs.. Yeah, he's probably lacking some of the basics.

<comment><USER5> Because, without a doubt, Medium profiles are the way to meet your dream mate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >For some people, their expansive social network provides a pool of friends whose friendship can grow into romance; this won't work for me, since I am too exhausted from my day job & side hustles to maintain hundreds of close friendships.

I see this right here as his principle problem. He needs to make time for getting out of the house and doing things with other people. On top of that, he needs to make sure that this social time isn't laser focused on finding a romance, and let interactions with women play out naturally.

<comment><USER7> Any tips or advice for this? Preferably tuned for someone who has no friends.

<comment><USER8> My sister shared a tip she uses when moving to a new town. Say yes to every social engagement no matter what.

I have gotten a lot of leverage out of being religiously involved (not just showing up Sunday morning, but showing up for workdays and midweek bible studies), sports leagues when moving to new locations and hosting occasional dinner "parties"/potlucks.

I like to throw a Christmas in July potluck where I cook a couple of turkeys (bought at Thanksgiving and freeze until July so they are $0.99/lbs), make five lbs of mashed potatoes and gravy and rely on guest to fill in the rest of the details. Then I invite everyone I am friends with or might want to be friends with, neighbors, coworkers, people I met from sports leagues and church etc.

<comment><USER9> I also recommend just introducing yourself to everyone you can when you move to a new town or neighborhood. Your physical neighbors, the clerks at the stores nearby, the bus driver, the postal carrier, etc etc.

People might think you're a bit strange, this day and age, and the simple introduction isn't going to blossom into any bosom friendships, but it can transform you from a _stranger_ to a _neighbor_ , and vice versa for the people around you, so you don't feel like an outcast in your own home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I spent years having an overall pretty bad dating experience very similar to the author's. But there is one thing I eventually learned that seemed to help.

> if I don't get an extremely clear indication of interest, I try not to show > any myself.

If you're a weirdo like myself who has no idea how to flirt, your best bet may be to simply be as open as you can about your feelings. People generally like openness, and they like it when people like them. I've told friends that I was in love with them, and in cases where the feelings weren't mutual they let me know, and I dropped it. I'm married to the one where they did turn out to be mutual. :P

</comment><comment><USER11> From reading this, I wonder if there is a business case for a "faux" dating business. Before a date, you could get certain opinions on how you look, how you present yourself, etc. And you could go on some sort of outing with someone, and at the end, you get feedback on what you did well and what you didn't do well. This would also give you an opportunity to "practice" your date skills (for lack of a better term).

Also, being blunt, with dating apps, it really is all about physical attraction first. If who you are trying to court isn't physically attracted to your pictures (or think you're trying to hide something), they simply won't interact with you.

<comment><USER12> > From reading this, I wonder if there is a business case for a "faux" dating > business.

Idk, I think this type of thinking is a major part of the problem. We're turning everything we can into a profit seeking venture. Even dating itself has been commodified. We no longer form relationships by talking to the people around us. Instead, we stare at our phones and swipe left or right. Someone is able to make a profit that way.

From the article:

"For some people, their expansive social network provides a pool of friends whose friendship can grow into romance; this won't work for me, since I am too exhausted from my day job & side hustles to maintain hundreds of close friendships."

It seems we need to set aside more time as a society for things like social activities and forming relationships instead of being productive or generating someone money.

<comment><USER11> That's fair. I hear this and am thinking that it sounds that the author needs to have someone to give him an honest opinion on why he hasn't been dating. And I wonder, what would be the best way for that?

<comment><USER12> I think as a business idea it's a good idea. There would actually probably be a market for it.

And that's the problem.

Instead of having time to make friends who can give us dating advice, we instead spend our time making money, then paying a business to give us dating advice. Then we turn to another business to introduce us to potential romantic partners. Almost everything that we do these days is making someone money, which is great for the economy, but not so much for happiness. A business can't replace actual friends and an actual community in a truly fulfilling way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > It's soul-crushing to spend every day of your life making bets you know > you're going to lose, but the alternatives are giving up or becoming a > monster.

I've never used dating apps, but I would assume it attracts a certain type of people, which this author seems to be complaining about. Why not try a sport or hobby to meet people?

<comment><USER14> I dunno 'bout you, but I'm a dude, and sports/hobbies would just be a way for me to meet other dudes. (even assuming I had outgoing social skills)

This kind of advice can be so frustrating to receive. Like when other women (often old enough to be my mother) suggest meeting females at the supermarket. Like, what? Nobody wants to be bothered while they are grocery shopping. This could only work for the top 1% of extremely attractive guys.

The "just meet people" or "just talk to her" narrative doesn't work in modern life. Everyone is walking around with headphones on and their noses pointing at a screen. Nobody wants to talk to you. Especially in a romantic context. On dating apps, there is an implicit romantic intention, so at least a guy is free to flirt and hit on girls in that context. In other contexts, he has to worry about attention being interpreted as harassment, on top of the risk of rejection.

<comment><USER15> > _" The "just meet people" or "just talk to her" narrative doesn't work in > modern life. Everyone is walking around with headphones on and their noses > pointing at a screen. Nobody wants to talk to you."_

But that's exactly why hobbies are so great. You get to meet people you already share a common interest with. They may want to talk to you about that common interest. While talking, you could discover you have more in common and just like talking to each other in general. And then you make a date to talk with just the two of you.

> _" On dating apps, there is an implicit romantic intention, so at least a > guy is free to flirt and hit on girls in that context. In other contexts, he > has to worry about attention being interpreted as harassment, on top of the > risk of rejection."_

That's true, but when that's not working, it's time to try something else. There's no single solution for everybody.

<comment><USER14> But how do hobbies help tho? Lets say I wanted to improve myself, leave my introverted hobbies behind and do something more social with my time. You still need to create relationships with people in order to be invited to do those hobbies together.

I should add that I am actually married, even though I've never once in my life ever hit on a woman. I got snatched up entirely by accident. So I've grappled with these issues but they aren't relevant to me anymore.

<comment><USER15> You can go to meetups or join a club. Or join an online forum and agree to meet with people there. But even introverted hobbies can be done together. Roleplaying is popular with introverts yet done in a group.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was like that. Actually, I'm worse. I never got laid before I was 32. I've always been very respectful of boundaries, didn't want to impose, and due to social awkwardness, that meant I had a hard time approaching women. And to be honest, I don't really have an easy solution; in the end I met my wife and we've been happily married for 12 years now.

For a while I did give up. Particularly in university, I wasn't very interested in the dating game. I did have the occasional crush, didn't know how to act on it, and when I did, it generally amounted to nothing. After 30, I decided to try this online dating, went on lots of dates, most of them amounted to nothing, then I met a woman I fell madly in love with, and she apparently with me, but we soon realised it wasn't going to work: she smoked, I hated smoking. I wanted children, she didn't. We broke up, and I soon met my wife on that same site. And I believe she was the one to contact me first, which definitely helps.

That site that got me two hits in a row, wasn't a normal commercial dating site, though. It was really cheap, low threshold, aimed specifically at Christians, and not just at dating, but also at friendship. And it supported blogging. Maybe that lowered the threshold somehow. I don't know. But I've become a strong believer in non-commercial, focused on special interest, dating-but-also-friendship sites.

For one thing, commercial dating sites are mostly scams. OKCupid used to love exposing those scams, but I believe they've been bought by the biggest dating scammer, so they're likely as useless as the others now.

Ultimately, all you really need, is a way to meet new people with similar interests to yours. Not identical, but it helps to have some common interest, whether it's a hobby, religion, activism, or whatever. It doesn't have to be a dating site, it can be a real-life activity. It can be an online game (I know a couple that met on World of Warcraft). Make sure you can talk about something other than dating. See if you can talk to them about other stuff than dating. If it turns out you can talk to each other, ask her out for a coffee or some other small thing. Or maybe do something hobby related together, see how that works out. I suppose you've got to become more confident at making the first move if you don't want to be totally dependent on the whims of the other, but the move doesn't have to be aimed straight at dating.

Though to be honest, I don't know how much my advice is worth. People like me never get a lot of dating experience; once we find the right person, we stick with them.

<comment><USER16> Out of curiosity, what was the site?

<comment><USER15> A Dutch site: funkyfish.nl.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Women call people like him "nice guys", and that's not a compliment.

<comment><USER18> This meme needs to die.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The hacker ethos is "It doesn't matter whether the subject is popular, everybody who's interested is interesting".

But the dating ethos is "Men with badly-groomed beards who write harem anime reviews don't get dates". There's just no way around it, that's the problem here. Having a house and job are attractive characteristics, in the same sense that a functioning set of limbs is, but they don't set you apart. It's the personal details that matter.

<comment><USER20> IMO owning a house in early thirties is pretty good. It should also be attractive for those people who want to start a family.

<comment><USER19> It's really good actually but it's not a differentiating factor at the dating stage. Dating is an emotional competition, marriage introduces practical considerations. You need to get past the likeability filter before any woman is even asking herself whether she'd settle down with you.

If you present yourself as marriage material without succeeding at being dating material, you're selecting for economic opportunists ("gold-diggers").

</comment></comment></comment><comment> awinter-py His point about the missing middle in dating apps is valid feedback about dating apps and all algo-based matching platforms (including news aggregators like this one, although in the case of aggregators it may be desirable).

Designing non-WTA systems is really hard

One system that gets around it is the matching algorithm for medical residency, which is designed to match every student with a space. But (1) this is probably not appropriate for dating, and (2) professional licensing has its own problems.

<comment><USER21> WTA?

<comment><USER22> WTA probably means winner-takes-all in this context.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What about people who don't want to have friends? I have had "friends", people I considered my brother. A person I loved. But in due time, it all feels like they were using me. That I was just a toy for them to pass the time. Someone they could exert their demons out without judgement. Be the space that no one else would give them. I had boat loads of fun, but I never really felt cared for ever. The only people who ever cared for me where my parents.

<comment><USER24> You either change your mindset or stay alone forever. There is no other option. Unless you are a suave lone wolf in which case you could also be fine, but it seems like you are focused on the negative things that happened to you while you should really be improving yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Opinionated advice, ymmv.

Get off dating apps; they're toxic. Use Meetup, take a pottery class, a yoga class, join a hiking group, a book club. And crucially, don't expect any of that to yield a romantic partnership. Make friends. Go to their weddings, parties, etc. There, you might meet women who are looking for a guy like you. Or maybe one of your friendships will blossom into more.

When I was single and presenting as male, I found myself in a similar conundrum. I found success in "playing hard to get," eg., rather than immediately biting at every flirt, I'd respond with low-key flirts and not escalate for some time. After I got enough consistent-seeming signs, I'd ask somebody out long before I got attached to the idea. "Hey, you wanna get lunch some time?" "Uh, do you mean a date? I've got a partner." "Oh, haha, yeah I meant a date, no worries." When you can do that without feeling devastated, you're on the right track.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's old but there's a list of bars etc. here, if Tinder etc. are that bad: [https://www.connecticutmag.com/the-connecticut-story/the- sav...](https://www.connecticutmag.com/the-connecticut-story/the-savvy- singles-guide-to- connecticut/article_be536921-6669-5ec4-a6ad-1d830e4664e4.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> I found OkCupid (where I met my now-wife) extremely easy to get to know people. Tons of filters and search options, the most amazing matching algorithm of any site (you answer questions from "Don't agree at all" to "Agree 100%", then you can say what you want your match to answer and finally how important their answer matching is; this enables way more than more naive sites). You can mark-up any word on your profile as a keyword.

And people reply. Back then I was pretty overweight but almost every woman I messaged replied, including those with the scary "rarely replies" badge. The few times I asked they said it's because most men who write them either just said "Hi", "Great tits", or showed they didn't actually read their profile first.

But this was all several years ago, so maybe things got worse. I know nowadays the push to pay them is a lot more heavy-handed and OkStats is gone.

<comment><USER28> Okc has gone to speed swiping format like everyone else. You can only message someone you match with now, which is unfortunate because you used to be able to demonstrate some kind of attractiveness other than initial appearances. I get that women have a problem filtering the deluge of low-quality messages otherwise, but I wonder if there isn't a better way to meter the problem than mutual swiping.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Seems like he lacks basic social skills and expects women to date him because he owns his own house. He feels guilty and "like a monster" hitting on or asking women out because of this thought process. He himself said he had been successful in the past -- why not continue that and make yourself happy?

<comment><USER5> > Seems like he lacks basic social skills and expects women to date him > because he owns his own house. He feels guilty and "like a monster" hitting > on women because of this un-empathetic, objectifying, and entitled thought > process.

What if his brief statement about financial stability is to deal with claims that he needs to first take care of himself because women aren't interested in highly unstable men who can't take care of themselves?

What if, no matter what he states, people immediately jump to conclusions which require assumptions with no evidence and include quotes that he didn't make?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> There's a traditional low-tech solution to this problem, used by generations of nerds. Step 1, hang out in real life with a bunch of guys. Have fun with them. (If you're really sucked into your work, this step could take a while.) Step 2 is that women will appear and you will date them.

</comment><comment><USER31> Not that I am an expert, but like (I assume) most people I put in my time in the dating mines.

And this is my observation about people who have this complaint: the vast majority of couples are aesthetically matched. You might be hoping for a certain aesthetic. You have to match that. The easiest way to do this is to start eating healthy and working out. By working out, I don't mean an occasional job, but the heavy stuff: lifting, crossfit etc. It goes without saying you should not injure yourself.

This small "trick" \-- working out -- will have a dramatic effect on your dating life.

</comment><comment><USER32> Online dating has many problems, but not all failures to obtain a positive outcome from online dating are the fault of the system. It is easy to blame the system and more difficult to accept that the system is not at fault in some situations. You can't simultaneously reject the current societal dating standards but also expect that a system based on those same standards will work for you. Given this, might it make more sense to find a method of dating that is more in line with the societal standards that you seek to live by?

</comment><comment><USER33> I think the problems may be that 1) he blames the patriarchy 2) he doesn't see himself as a catch

I know men are in a difficult position because they want to err on the side of caution and not make a move when it could be seen as a violation/unwanted, but these attitudes (blaming the patriarchy, etc) are projected to the would-be partner and it's probably a turn-off. Find someone you can build trust with where every interaction between the two of you isn't interpreted through some larger cultural lens.

</comment><comment><USER34> I read most of the post (unlike others in here) and his issue is distinct from that of many others on dating apps (or at least it is according to his self- reported behavior).

it is probably not relatable to most here (because he's bending over backwards to be egalitarian and most on here lean the other way) so I'll just respond in case he ends up reading this.

I share many of your concerns and sensitivities around feminism and autonomy. despite being arguably just as sensitive as you are (according to feedback from former partners) I do well on apps and in dating. how? I'm assertive and aggressive but I get explicit consent at every escalation. And if you think I'm exaggerating I am not. Evey escalation. now obviously I'm not tactless - <USER2> do not have multi form contracts that I ask for signatures on. I simply check in and we have a short, always interesting, conversation about boundaries and trajectory and all that. most of the time everything goes as expected but I have been rejected (which is also how I'm sure the way I'm doing it is working - because when feel free to say no).

it works very well. I have deep meaningful dates (that turn into relationships often).

aside from that I'll say, from the photos of you online, you're not doing yourself any favors. I think I could help you but I don't know you personally. I have toyed with the idea of starting a consulting service that taught men how to present themselves such that they're attractive.

</comment><comment><USER35> Not directly related, but the biggest obstacle that I find I face is that people who share my religious background tend to be more conservative while, in terms of lifestyle and worldview, I tend to be more progressive. I find that the women who I am interested in rarely share my faith while the women who share my faith rarely share any of my interests.

</comment><comment><USER36> What would be the optimal way of finding partners, or simply people you would like to spend time with, among 7+ billion people?

Here's my answer* : train an A.I to "flirt"/"have conversations" with others A.I. Use reinforcement learning to tailor the A.I. to specific users.

Nice, everyone now has their own personal I.A. that can go on dates with other personal A.I. Thousands of them per second, if needs be. If the system works well enough that A.I.s "get along" as well as their human models would (/would not), you have found a very nice way to perform a "double blind" matching platform. Feed back the results after you go on a real date! "A.I." here could be anywhere on the spectrum of a simple regexp, to neural networks, to AGI.

Of course, in my experience, shared experience is a big part of what makes relationships (non romantic, and prob. otherwise), while previous experiences or interests are a way to discover things to do together (or recall shared experiences), so this can't replace getting out and sharing activities.

* TBH, that's just shower thoughts, but could turn into a fun research/week-end/startup/fediverse project (or just a writing prompt for a novel).

Edit: split this post in two different ones.

<comment><USER36> _Yes, I could use some dating advice as well_. But I find this post a bit self-pitying. Even if I find some of myself in the words expressed by the author, it is unreasonable to always ask the other party to do the first move. For now, I sort of stopped caring, and see flirting as a social sports of sorts (hone my social skills). Lots of missed opportunities (I generally don't know how to behave if things start going too well), lots of fun and new friends as well :)

Edit: I sort of realize that I am catching up with the social interaction I didn't have at (high) school (too young, different countries, different interests such as tech stuff). Other people generally do the opposite and catch up on the skill side later. Either way, I'm still learning, as always.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Maybe he should try speed dating. In that kind of context, it's easy to start a conversation and not awkward to show interest in someone. And it's more personal than getting to know someone through an app. But maybe it doesn't attract to kind of people he'd be interested in.

</comment><comment><USER38> > I'm no catch, but there are probably a half dozen people I know who I would > date & who would date me if communication opened up. (I know this > empirically: there was a short period in college where I hit on everyone, > and while I stopped because I realized I was probably making a lot of people > uncomfortable, I ended up having a casual thing going with about ten young > women simultaneously — and this was back when I was broke, out of shape, and > the special kind of dumb that only college students can afford to be.)

It sounds, friend, like you have a misguided (outsized) sense of nobility. You aren't wrong about what women put up with in our society, but you also can't write off _any initiative by you at all_ as dangerous. Your own anecdote shows that when you put yourself out there, plenty of people have interest in you and don't feel the need to run for the hills. It's admirable how hard you're trying not to be a part of the problem, but don't make yourself a martyr. After a certain point, it isn't helping anybody.

I'm sure striking the right balance is much more difficult for someone who has trouble picking up on social cues, but it's just a matter of trying it out and learning the curve. Maybe you could practice with or ask advice from women you know platonically? You said you're friends with most of your exes- maybe they can give you insight into how you came off in those relationships?

It's a big and complicated world out there. It's good to try and be sensitive to others, but you can't let yourself get totally buried by worry about how you'll affect them. You just have to do your best, and then apologize if you mess up. And that's okay.

You have it in you to grow past this and find a companion. Everyone deserves to be loved. Best of luck.

<comment><USER24> It is as simple as you ask a woman out who you are interested in. If she ignores you or says no, you move on. If she keeps saying yes to your date invitations it means she likes you. Avoiding or being scared of making the first move is very unattractive and shows extreme lack of confidence and confidence is the most attractive trait.

<comment><USER34> >It is as simple as you ask a woman out who you are interested in

No it's not that simple. Some women are propositioned so often that it becomes a trial just to be out. Time and place are important too.

<comment><USER39> I rarely admit this to people, but when I was 19, I paid $700 to go to a weekend "PUA convention" like what Tom Cruise caricaturizes in the movie Magnolia.

The eye-opening part for me was when we broke out in small groups, went downtown in Austin, and the group leader (employees of the event) cold- approached women with a level of success I only thought was possible in Hugh Grant movies and reserved for nobody other than Hugh Grant in real life. And my group leader was a 39yo bald guy.

Most of the "wisdom" around approaching women are simply superstition and self-sabotage. "No, there's no way that could work so I won't even try."

<comment><USER38> See, this kind of thing seems like it would _actually_ start to enter the territory that the OP is terrified of. Confidence is essential, yes, but you can be confident and also be considerate. Setting aside the plethora of things wrong with a "PUA convention", your group leader probably made lots of women very uncomfortable. There's a difference between taking initiative in a context where women are actively looking for those kinds of interactions, and taking initiative randomly on the street.

<comment><USER39> I think your post demonstrates my point of sabotage. You took a general explanation of a scenario ("guy talks to women with great success") and assumed the worst, that this guy must have made women uncomfortable by approaching them, as if discomfort is an intrinsic part of human interaction.

If you trot out this self-sabotage enough, you won't even leave your house because you might inconvenience someone by taking up the sidewalk tile they might've wanted to occupy. Yet this is the kind of thought process you see in men all the time when it comes to women and dating. As if women are anti- social automatons that don't actually like meeting new people much less single men who find them attractive and interesting. Or maybe they're just putting on their makeup and high-heels to meet everyone but you with your +discomfort debuff aura.

I recommend trying to not just talk to women in the wild, but anyone. Just strike up some quick convo instead of assuming you're making them uncomfortable.

I think you've come into this comments section with quite a lot of baggage about how you think these things need to play out.

<comment><USER38> You misunderstand; I don't have any trouble with human interaction, including strangers.

But I've heard many women describe being exhausted by getting hit on constantly, in situations where they really just don't care and just want to get their coffee, or get to work, or be out in the world for literally any other reason. If you're at a bar or on a dating app: go for it. In that context, people are actively soliciting that kind of interaction. There's an implied social contract: "we are here to flirt". You may still be rejected, but you're invited to put yourself out there. In most other contexts, jumping straight into romantic interactions out of the blue is probably going to be unwanted. Being friendly to all people is great, sure. But read the room.

And, from others' anecdotes, those annoying interactions are the _best_ case scenario. Some (a minority, but not so small it doesn't matter) men don't handle rejection well. They get persistent, or pushy, or sometimes even irate or violent. Even if it only happens one out of one hundred times, it's enough to put someone on edge when a stranger approaches them and compliments their hair. Just another reason to keep unprompted amorous interactions within the appropriate contexts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It seems like a victim complex to me. If his mindset is like that no wonder he is not getting any.

</comment><comment><USER40> > in western society (and in some eastern ones too), women who directly reject > men are subject to male rage & women who seem too enthusiastic are subject > to slut-shaming (which can also result in violence).

Perhaps he would have more luck dating in a less patriarchal society, with higher gender equality?</comment>


Censorship of the Internet Takes Center Stage in "Online Infringement" Bill - <AUTHOR> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/censorship-internet-takes-center-stage-online

<comment><USER2> Become a member here! [https://secure.eff.org/site/Donation2?idb=1197241400&df_...](https://secure.eff.org/site/Donation2?idb=1197241400&df_id=1280&1280.donation=form1)

$5/month. You can afford it! ;)

<comment><USER3> If you're willing to become a member, you might as well take the extra step and contact your congressmen (<https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml>) and senator ([http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_c...](http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm)) as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Two words: selective enforcement.

It's impossible to enforce copyright thoroughly on the Internet. Any website that accepts user-submitted content is bound to have at least a few pieces of infringing material. Nobody can shut them all down. Which means that the powers that be can pick and choose which sites to target.

The fact that everyone else is breaking the law is not an excuse for you to break the law, so you can't complain when the feds choose to target you instead of somebody else. For all you know, you could actually have been targeted because of your views on Proposition 19 or whatnot, and that infringing spam comment you didn't even know existed is just a convenient excuse.

Sounds like tinfoil hat? Ask somebody from China, Iran, or any other questionable regime. Heck, ask a South Korean, they made a similar law last year.

</comment><comment><USER5> Another reason why I give to the EFF every year. Please consider it.

</comment><comment><USER6> They could easily use this to take down sites like Wikileaks. I don't condone piracy, but this is going way too far. As long as there is a force against it, P2P will thrive and expand.

</comment><comment><USER7> The EFF's description of this makes it sound functionally equivalent to the Chinese system. This seems like a very bad idea especially because it would legitimize internet censorship globally. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER4> If by "legitimize internet censorship globally" you mean the US would set an example of censorship for other countries to follow, I guess that makes sense. Remember, Hillary Clinton took Google's side in criticizing China's internet censorship. China will go into full US-bashing mode when this bill gets passed, not to mention all those blackberry-censoring countries. I'm glad I live in neither country, but my government loves to follow the US's example so I'm concerned. Time to start routing my traffic through Sweden!

<comment><USER7> That is exactly what I meant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They want to use DNS to censor the Internet? Ooh, great idea!

Wait until they hear that anyone can run a DNS server or just type the IP into their browser. And then tell them about IPv6. And then tell them about countries outside of the US. And then tell them about Tor and VPNs. Omigod, it's like the Internet is too big for the government to censor. OH NOES.

Also, that whole first amendment thing is a major problem. I recall several other attempts to censor the Internet, and they were struck down by the courts. And that was for child porn; this is for movies. If you can't get the courts to censor child porn, you won't get them to censor a couple leaked screeners.

<comment><USER9> I hope you're right. I think you're probably right. But there is a hell of a lot more money behind blocking leaked screeners then there was behind blocking child porn.

As far as telling them how technology works, please don't. I think the main thing that's saved the internet so far is that the people with the biggest interest in stopping it have no idea how to even begin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I like the free market principles defined by such a bill.</sarcasm>

The idea of blatant censorship, even though it might be used to protect copyright holder's rights, is entirely out of line with the First Amendment; let alone free speech principles. Posting on a website is technically fair use, it's only when accessed that you have issues. IANAL, of course.

How long can the MPAA's (and the ilk) reign of terror and lobbyists last? The free market always wins, provided regulation doesn't occur. That's exactly what they want to happen.

It is time for a serious disruption(s) in the content producers, not the content distributors. The content distributors will never change, the internet has ruined their business model. They are clawing to recover their broken ideas, dreams, and bank accounts.

The first company to figure out how to take the content directly from the producers and deliver it to the public in a free (not monetarily free, but in regards to civil liberties) manner will make a killing. (iTunes is a stop-gap. Netflix is also. Both continue to access through distributors.)

</comment><comment><USER11> This bill is also an example why come election day in November, every single sitting member of Congress (all 435) and every senator up for reelection, needs to __lose their seat__.

The only thing that politicians in today's world actually understand is "loosing my seat". That is the one and only thing they hear louder than their big-business supporters.

Unemploying every single member of both houses up for reelection would send a strong message to both the newly unemployed as well as the new members that the voters have woken up to the fact that they are no longer representing us, the voters, but are in fact representing the special interests of big business. And it would firmly point out to them that it is us, the voters, who truly control their destiny, not big business, and that they better start listening to us.

And that is why, come November, my choice of who to vote for is easy. If you are an incumbent, you will be voted against.

</comment><comment><USER12> I do not believe any of these unintended consequences are unintended, they were intended but never spoken out. Authoritarian traitors of human kind are very patient about reaching their goals, no matter where they come from, we are sitting on a major entitlement problem that will have a extremely violent outcome of which I hope will not happen during my time on this planet. But shit will really hit the fan if current development stays it's course.

</comment><comment><USER13> More people should also consider migrating to i2p: <http://www.i2p2.de/>

<comment><USER14> I2P doesn't work very well as outproxy to surf the regular Internet. There's just one outproxy as far as I know.

Tor (<http://tor.eff.org>) is built to work mainly as an outproxy, but depending of what outproxy you land in, you might hit a wall: the Great Chinese Firewall, the censorship in Australia, etc.

A better alternative seems to be a VPN from IPREDator (<https://www.ipredator.se/?lang=en>), by The Pirate Bay folks, so your traffic gets routed to Sweeden, where there is no censorship (yet). IPREDator costs €5 a month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> DNS is long overdue for a replacement anyway.

<comment><USER15> So HN downvoters prefer the current centralized model of Internet name services which are vulnerable to a denial of service attack from technologically illiterate politicians?

I just don't understand the world anymore.

Takes all kinds I tell you.

<comment><USER3> They're downvoting you because you're not only missing the point of the article with your first comment, but because allowing this to happen would make DNS even less likely to be replaced any time soon. Once the government is involved in attempting to control the flow of traffic to different websites, any backbone essential to their method of control will stagnate and remain in place almost indefinitely. These people still use IE6 out of misplaced fears for security and a general laziness when it comes to updating, remember?

<comment><USER15> That point which I am making.

You are not getting it.

If we had followed up on proposals in the 90's for distributed DNS this article would never have needed to be written.

Is this so hard to grok?^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

Edit:

<singin'> Good night sweetheart... time to go... </singin'>

<comment><USER4> DNS is not the only place where an ISP can block a website. They could block the IP, or sniff your unencrypted requests. Look at China, they even do keyword filtering! I can see this "feature" being marketed as parental control or whatnot...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ngrok – Expose any local server behind a NAT or firewall to the Internet - <AUTHOR> https://ngrok.com <comment><USER2> As is usually mentioned in reference to this, the same can be achieved on the command line with:

`ssh firstname.lastname@example.com -R [remoteport]:localhost:[localport]`

Where 'yourserver.com' is a server you own, such that accessing '[http://yourserver.com:[remoteport]'](http://yourserver.com:\[remoteport\]') tunnels to '[http://localhost:[localport]'](http://localhost:\[localport\]').

<comment><USER3> This approach, at least for my setup, would require opening up a port in my server's firewall as well.

The other benefit is that ngrok provides a nice web interface so you can watch and inspect web requests as they go by.

<comment><USER4> Don't forget HTTPS support. Great if you're developing something like a Facebook app where you have to give them a HTTPS endpoint to hit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Pagekite does the same and is opensource.

[https://pagekite.net/](https://pagekite.net/)

<comment><USER6> Wow never realized that the latest version of ngrok isn't open source. Strange that you can just hide versions of your software, because you don't want it open-sourced

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is the definition of software that I would not trust to run unless it was open source. This is a real shame.

<comment><USER8> Count this as another vote for software I wouldn't run unless it was Open Source. It doesn't have to be Free - but I won't run it until its been audited independently, and Open Source is clearly the best way to accomplish that ..

<comment><USER7> Absolutely, you said it much better than I.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's a sad indictment of how far we've come from the early vision of a pervasive, distributed Internet that it's considered a novelty to run out of your own home or office, rather than on the servers of a couple of massively centralised megacorporations.

<comment><USER10> Wow. Many people don't want to try and keep up with the absolute latest security issues and don't have the bandwidth for even the most trivial DDOS attack.

You can host with companies a lot smaller than Google or Amazon. Let someone else carry the pager, you know?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Erm, i'm confused, is ngrok really currently proxying 17 million tunnels?

How are they supporting so many IPv4 tunnels? Presumably they don't have the IPv4 space to assign standard ports to them. HTTP is easy but they say they let you "expose any networked service".

Why are folks only worried about the closed source client, which likely does nothing interesting, when all the magic must be at the backend?

<comment><USER12> 65535 * 256 gives 16776960 ... so this is a single C class network.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I guess localtunnel - [http://localtunnel.me/](http://localtunnel.me/) \- does the same thing? Its open source too.

<comment><USER14> I've used both. Localtunnel always seemed janky to me with occasional crashes or just not working for seemingly no reason. Ngrok simply works, and works well. It's also got a few nice features like being able to inspect requests in the browser. Was an absolute life saver when working with webhooks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I really like how the firewall is illustrated as a wall on fire with a hole in it. It describes NAT really well.

</comment><comment><USER16> ngrok is really cool software but it's unfortunate that version 2 went closed source. I'll be sticking with version 1.x

</comment><comment><USER6> Previous HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5946981](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5946981)

</comment><comment><USER17> I like [https://meetfinch.com/](https://meetfinch.com/)

</comment><comment><USER18> Repost, but really handy, used to easily test a website on my phone not long ago. It felt like a good lazy mans solution to testing stuff.

Also good to quickly let friends try your local server.

</comment><comment><USER19> And then there is pwnat that tunnels nats without 3rd party...

<comment><USER15> You have to use pwnat on the client too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What's wrong with using IPv6 and an allow ACL? Rather use that than some mysterious software that isn't open source.

<comment><USER21> How to get a /64 ipv6 subnet when the ISP won't supply one? My ISP just hands out 1 ipv4, thankfully without DSLite or CGN. Any link to a howto out there which incorporates your suggestion?

<comment><USER22> [https://tunnelbroker.net/](https://tunnelbroker.net/) (HE) or other free IPv6 tunnel brokers are one approach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Because it is simply impossible to configure NAT to forward the ports to the internal network...

<comment><USER24> ...and noone ever has to worry about carrier grade NAT or heaven forbid, being in a managed office and unable to easily alter the firewall for their LAN or deal with inept IT departments... \s

<comment><USER23> while I see your point, I respectfully disagree. You could get a real carrier that gives you external IP. And if your office hides your computer behind firewall, they could have a reason for that. For, I don't know, corporate security. And there you go, running bugFTP 0.3 inside the company network where every computer is trusted... Sure, that's a great idea.</comment></comment></comment>


Google Goes Big With Its Hulu Bid - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20110906/google-goes-big-with-its-hulu-bid/ <comment><USER2> Google's mystery bid undoubtedly has to do with the content rights and the length of time associated with those rights.

Of the proposed suitors, Dish is the only one with any power to realistically do any sort of negotiation on the content rights since they can bundle Hulu into their carriage agreements they make with their content partners.

Google's smart enough to realize that they would need to get something like a 5-10 year window on the rights to content for this to make sense. They need the demand for IPTV streaming to really catch up, where if Hulu shuts down the networks would feel some consumer pain. Right now if Hulu closed its doors Fox/ABC et al, would barely notice.

But if Google is successful, you might be extremely close to Google being able to complete a full IP delivered ala carte "cable system" and that would change the game completely. Their biggest issue here is that they'll be doing it over their competitors pipes since cable is the primary broadband mechanism. The real final piece to the puzzle would be rolling out some sort of Google broadband via wifi/fibre etc all the way to the home.

<comment><USER3> I can think of a couple other things Google would want in addition to longer license terms.

1) A license to stream for free to any device. No more differentiating between a computer, a set top box, and a mobile device. No more Hulu Plus to use the Android app to watch what you could see from a PC for free. Just like how Time Warner was blocked from streaming TV content to an iPad app, Hulu has restrictions around streaming content to anything but a computer.

2) Licenses in international markets. Hulu is primarily in the United States only. Google wants to take all its properties international so it probably wants something in writing up front this will be an option.

If Google is asking for anything close to the above it's understandable why it's separated out from the other bidders and why Google felt it needed to throw down serious money to get everyone's attention. Media companies just don't sell broad rights to one buyer because that eliminates most of the bidders and puts the seller at a disadvantage. These kinds of requests go against the very nature of modern content licensing. Everything is supposed to be divided up as much as possible and sold piecemeal to the highest bidder.

I suspect there is a problem where different bidders appeal to different owners of the Hulu venture. Some will appeal to the Starz argument and prefer Dish. Some will prefer Amazon, who will probably bid the most under Hulu's terms and already has close ties to Hulu's executive team. Some might entertain Google's bid, although it would have to be ridiculously lucrative. Like Skype, what were they thinking lucrative. Usually Google walks away when someone asks for "too much." Whoever prefers Yahoo is a loony. I'd guess Yahoo is only kept in the bidding to keep Amazon and Dish honest.

<comment><USER4> As far as I understand, 2) isn't possible. Its a mess. Every country has different contracts and right holders for all this intelectual property.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The big question is: what are Google's intentions and when does their "spring cleaning" come to their content infrastructure? Right now it's a mess.

Google Music lives under Andy Rubin, while the actual music deals they have in place live under Salar at YouTube, 3/4 of which are in a JV arrangement with Vevo through Universal.

Google has arguably the best ability to combine editorial content and advertising with a deep level of personalization, but they are so fragmented in terms of this focus, especially around the Android/YouTube groups its ridiculous. They also are burdened on the music side with deals that are very inverse. Bad for both sides.

I hope if Hulu comes to pass they streamline their strategy around content, platforms for the content and advertising sold against it.

</comment><comment><USER6> Hmm, add Hulu to the formidable resources coming from Motorola Mobility's Home division (that is one of the largest cable box suppliers in the US and also has IPTV holdings in Europe, e.g. Kreatel) and you can see that Google is positioning itself aggressively in the coming TV war with Apple TV.

</comment><comment><USER7> IMO, Dish is the best place for Hulu. They're already launching the Netflix competitor.

I see Dish' bid as them adapting as a business to consumer wants/needs.

</comment><comment><USER8> One could see why they're willing to pony up lots of cash - the combination of Hulu content served by an omnipresent Google TV and paid for with Google ads sounds great.

<comment><USER9> And the Google TV would be manufactured by Motorola, no less!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It seems like the future of streaming content is really up in the air right now. As someone that has been downloading videos for over a decade, I was surprised by the lack of attention HBO got when they aired the upcoming episode of entourage a week early exclusively on HBO Go. It made me create my Go account and I do like the service.

Even with Hulu, onDemand, and Netflix I still find myself downloading files. I hope someday someone gets this right and I can purchase episodes(full seasons) early as well as watch any season from any show. Because I would pay double for that.

<comment><USER11> I think the lack of attention comes from a lack of interest. Who really cares when something airs nowadays, especially in the case of streaming content?

No offense intended, but I think you may be in the minority.

<comment><USER12> "Who really cares when something airs nowadays, especially in the case of streaming content?"

Quite a few people.

I think you're confusing what day/time a show is on with the _premiere date_ of a show. People care a lot less about the former, but a lot of people still tune into a show the first time it comes out and talk about it the next day. This is the first time (of a large show) that a premiere occurred online before it was ever seen on TV.

<comment><USER10> Right, TV Ratings are based on viewers during episode premiere dates. Not on how many streamed the show.

Besides, my point was that I was able to stream the new entourage and I think thats a great idea to get people to sign up for their new service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder how that humble pie tastes for Google, after the Clown Co comments[1] when Hulu was formed? Still - I'll give them credit for admitting when they were wrong.

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2007/03/23/what-we-know-so-far- about-n...](http://techcrunch.com/2007/03/23/what-we-know-so-far-about- newtube-isnt-good/)

[2] [http://techcrunch.com/2007/03/22/confirmed-tv-networks- launc...](http://techcrunch.com/2007/03/22/confirmed-tv-networks-launch-new- company-to-counter-perceived-googleyoutube-threat/)

</comment><comment> brown9-2 Hmm, so how much would it cost to buy a whole studio?

</comment><comment><USER14> Interesting, the article doesn't really mention Google's motivation for the bid, but I'm guessing it would just be to lock down the rights to some of the media associated with Hulu? If exclusivity was part of the deal, maybe their intention is to use that content to kick start the premium offerings on Youtube?

<comment><USER15> I don't think it's for a premium Youtube. I think it's to bolster their Google plus offering. Watching hulu shows live with friends across the world could be something to set them apart from Facebook. Right now Facebook's model is based on "sharing" what you've already done (I watched a show on Hulu). Google can one-up that by making it truly social (you're watching a show with your friends).

It depends how committed they are to Google plus. If they want to give themselves a (another?) significant differentiator from other social networks, acquiring Hulu could do that.

<comment><USER12> They would be insane to buy a whole stack of premium video content and _not_ tie it into YouTube at all. The idea of watching a TV show with someone on Google Plus strikes me as... kind of awful. Maybe that's just me.

<comment><USER15> It's certainly not for everyone. One of the big selling points of google plus is being able to do things with friends. The goal seems to be to add an additional level of "social" to their social network. They're doing that through games and youtube video. Hulu video seems like a natural extension of that. It won't appeal to everyone (nothing does), but it will to some.

Better sharing settings (through circles) and better social features (watch videos or play pokers with friends) could be a recipe for success.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Suggest PG: A Virtual YC - <AUTHOR>

Can we please have a Virtual YC that can give everyone a glimpse of what startups are taught at YC?<p>A step by step guide to build a successful startup by YC mentors will be a great resource for entrepreneurs from all around the world. <comment><USER2> I don't see how describing the network effects which are the primary benefit of YC is going to be a meaningful substitute for access to that network.

I also don't see how YC and the companies in which it invests would benefit from such a project.

</comment><comment><USER3> You can start by filling out the application some time but not submitting it. It is good food for thought.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I would recommend everyone do this. Save it in a folder, and do a new application every cycle. It's interesting to see how the answers change from cycle to cycle.</comment></comment>


Was This the Decade We Hit Peak Free Speech? - <AUTHOR> https://reason.com/2019/12/16/was-this-the-decade-we-hit-peak-free-speech/ <comment><USER2> "If the headline is a question, then the answer is no." \- Betteridge's law.</comment>


Quick Kudos to Google, Twitter on Egypt - <AUTHOR> http://blog.andrewhubbs.com/?p=138 <comment><USER2> Worth blogging about for readers of your blog, but would make more sense to just comment your view on the main HN discussion thread about the service than to submit the blog post. "Thank you for doing this" isn't really a view complex enough to justify a seperate submission.</comment>


How Airplanes Fly: A Physical Description of Lift (1999) - <AUTHOR> https://fermatslibrary.com/s/how-airplanes-fly-a-physical-description-of-lift#email-newsletter <comment><USER2> This is excellent and straightforward. People seems to get really confused and surprised that lift can be as simple as pushing air down to generate a counteracting upwards force. But it is that simple. The shape of the wing is about pushing air downwards with minimal energy expenditure to doing other things with the airflow. There's no need to over-complicate this thinking.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, wings' reliance on the Bernoulli effect certainly explains why it is impossible for paper airplanes to actually fly. ;-)

On the other hand, the Bernoulli effect might also explain why floating ping- pong balls held up by an air stream don't fall out of it.</comment>


Ask HN: Easiest document management system for a small business? - <AUTHOR> My wife's small service business has a long time admin who's retiring and to this point, everything has basically just been on his laptop. His duties are being spread to other people at the company who are being promoted but it's not all going to one person who can just be handed "the laptop".
These people bounce between 2 small offices. Ideally, I would like to have some type of document management system that can help them keep things in sync but restrict access on a per-person basis. I was initially thinking Dropbox but one of the computers is a front desk computer that other people will sub in on from time to time. For documents like Quickbooks, for example, I'd want password access every time the file was opened.
Any suggestions? I haven't looked at these systems in about 8 years. <comment><USER2> As Microsoft-hesitant as I am, Office 365 handles this use case well, bundling a lot of additional functionality into their subscriptions (Email, Office, etc.) that decreases the administrative load on a small business. SharePoint with a well-maintained access control list would cover what you mentioned.

If you have truly sensitive information and/or regulations involved, you can layer RMS (Microsoft's DRM solution, could be additional purchase depending on subscription level) on top of SharePoint and get document-level encryption that follows files around and enforces your ACLs elsewhere. It uses your identity instead of a per-document password, which is a nicer UX.

<comment><AUTHOR> After researching this a little bit and because we're almost entirely a Mac office, I'm going to evaluate OS X Server for it. It LOOKS like it will give us what I'm looking for.

With a $20 price tag, I'm going to give it a shot first before I go the Sharepoint / 365 route. That will be next on the list though.

We're currently using Rackspace hosted email ($2 / user) so the Rackspace Sharepoint might be a good fit for us.

Thanks for the info.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I setup all smally businesses like this with a Google Apps account. Gmail (with your business domain if you have one), Drive for all docs and sharing. Its really easy to administer.

Its $5/month/user. Ideal for up to 10 people with insensitive (google eyes) content.

</comment><comment><USER4> My friend runs this company called Documentica, I can put you in touch if you are interested: [http://documentica.com/](http://documentica.com/)

I think they have released version 1.0 now.

</comment><comment><USER5> You should look into something like Sharepoint for this functionality. [http://sharepoint.rackspace.com/](http://sharepoint.rackspace.com/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Use Google apps. Comes with drive for uploading stuff, word, excel, presentation stuff that allows real time editing. Always in sync.

</comment><comment><USER7> Go with Google Apps . . .

</comment><comment><USER8> Google Drive...

</comment><comment><USER9> owncloud seems a good fit.</comment>


Let's Say FeedBurner Shuts Down… - <AUTHOR> http://css-tricks.com/lets-say-feedburner-shuts-down

<comment><USER2> They barely care about FeedBurner as it is. They've discontinued all of the advertising intergration, not updated the blog in any amount of time nor do you really get that much of the product itself. There's some pretty basic Google Analytics connection, but the main data we get out of it is download numbers for our podcast (<http://76streetpod.com>) and podcast network (<http://76streetnetwork.com>). It seems like every couple weeks the statistics stop for unexplained reasons only to have the Google group light up with nary an explanation. Along with mostly useless developer documentation for how the product outputs what it does or how it changes entries in a feed, FeedBurner is a useless hunk of crap that is almost certain to shutdown. An recent gripe is that when you use it as a feed proxy it doesn't pass along subscriber numbers like any other good feed parser, so a FeedBurner feed of a FeedBurner feed doesn't pass long info to the original FeedBurner feed or feed (but will pass along downloads, though it's only because FeedBurner is just a glorified Location header then.) I originally only went with FeedBurner over an open solution for expediency, but I've never liked giving Google more information on our users or giving up my control of our feeds to a product that has been limping along for years. It wouldn't take much effort to replicate FeedBurner. Maybe it's time I hunker down and do it. I've been planning for a FeedBurner switch since the beginning by using its "branded" feed feature and using a subdomain of ours for feed hosting. I hope everyone else has been wise enough to do so, as well, though looking at our network membership feeds, I know they haven't.

<comment><USER3> When they removed the ability to serve ads -- presumably the whole reason the service exists -- I knew its days were numbered. But honestly, I had assumed there would be tons (years) of notice before they unplugged anything. Now I'm not so sure about that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> An alternative.. <http://uri.lv/>

w/ migration from feedburner.. <http://uri.lv/feeds/migrate>

<comment><USER3> If you're worried about FeedBurner going away, I would think you'd be worried about this free service going away one day too.

<comment><USER5> We're adding a premium tier in a few days, with some nice premium features.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you're using FeedBurner and haven't already, consider enabling the MyBrand service. It's free, and gives you full control of the feed URL. I wrote instructions for doing so here: [http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff- geerling/using-feedb...](http://www.midwesternmac.com/blogs/jeff- geerling/using-feedburner-sake-control)

[Edit: link]

</comment><comment><USER7> There's a bigger problem: FeedBurner wraps URLs in the google feedproxy redirector. If they shut that down, a ton of old shared links will break.

<comment><USER8> Like closing down a URL shortener.

<comment><USER9> Indeed and there's a lot of usage of URL Shorteners as well.

That's why it's so important to save where they head to and/or not use a shortener. Some URL shorteners even change their short codes every now and then (ie they lead to new places).

The ArchiveTeam have a URLTeam that's dedicated to unshortening URL shorteners and releases their data sets every now and then. Feel free to check out <http://urlte.am/> <http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=URLTeam> and/or stop by #urlteam on EFNet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The one wrinkle I can see is that a lot of podcasts (including my own) use Feedburner. While shutting down Reader directly affects the people who chose to use it, shutting down Feedburner would disrupt a millions of innocent users. The end user just sees a great podcast go offline and subsequent firestorm of blaming Google. They'd be shutting down the customers of their customers, which seems a little more evil.

<comment><USER11> There's an underlying problem to that: RSS has no concept of a signal for "feed discontinued at this URL; use other located at <new URL>". At its simplest, this would just require RSS readers to understand 301 redirects and actually change their stored URL for the feed in response.

(Well, that, and to not use feed URLs as primary keys, which I know some RSS clients are guilty of. ;)

<comment><USER12> 301, you mean, but I'd be surprised if RSS readers don't honor 301s. The RSS feed is served over HTTP, so it's not the job of the feed to specify its location. That's what "Moved permanently" is for.

<comment><USER7> This is exactly what almost every reader on the planet does, thanks to discussion and evangelism 5+ years ago

<comment><USER11> Do they actually change what URL they have stored in their feed database, though? Or do they just follow the redirect each and every time they access the feed? It matters when the old server is eventually taken down. (Keeping in mind that while Cool URLs Don't Change, most servers and domains are managed by Uncool people.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This was my first thought as well when they announced the death of Reader. I don't see why they'd keep feedburner running. If they're going to kill it, they should just announce it now, rather than prolonging the pain.

<comment><USER3> Yup, last week I made sure all my sites were broadcasting a direct RSS URL. One would hope they would at least give plenty of warning before actually pulling the plug, but who knows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Some thoughts:

1\. I haven't looked but I bet there's already a WordPress plugin that counts feed download stats. Or just use tracking links (redirect with a counter) in your feed--lots of services (Budurl) do that if you're not a coder.

2\. It's disgusting that Feedburner feeds do not anywhere reveal the original URL of the source material. I'm glad this is getting attention finally.

3\. As a user, I don't want the middleman Feedburner between me and the source material. 80% of the time you can just add /feed/ to the blog's URL and WordPress will have the original feed there for you. Even if it's not advertised--it's still there :-)

</comment><comment><USER15> I doubt Feedburner will _ever_ be shut down (by Google at least). The backlash that Google will suffer can not be worth the savings they will receive by shutting it down. It will remain a tax on a bad acquisition decision and it'll continue on with the bare minimum of maintenance.

Maybe Google will "sell" the service to a lesser known company who will let the service die after a while. They could also spin it off with a seed fund of its own and allow it to die if it can't be profitable. This method might allow Google to get away with killing the service and take so much of the blame.

<comment><USER9> If there's a lesson I've learned with Google: They don't sell their acquisitions.

They've probably integrated too much stuff into what they originally acquired.

Authentication, advertising platform, support (ha) flows and what not.

<comment><USER15> Good point. I was more cynical but maybe they could allow the acquiring company to integrate account data into their service rather than a transfer of software.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I believe Feedburner will ultimately shut down, the question isn't really IF it'll shut down BUT WHEN it'll shut down. We have a simple to use Feed Fetching API at <https://www.feedsapi.org> with our extended documentation (in work) at [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vCL_W9XGnsa- EN8oAhNl8tOq...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vCL_W9XGnsa- EN8oAhNl8tOqEtP4u6UM5OiVi5D0pbs/edit?usp=sharing) , it's not a clone of the Google Reader API, but it's really good for what it's supposed to do.

</comment><comment><USER17> Google Reader was too much integrated into the Google brand and also had a very easy and clear migration path to other services. You like it or not it's expandable.

Feedburner on the other hand would be harder to migrate. They might do the same as they did to SketchUp and just sell the service to someone that is interested in making a business out of it.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wouldn't it make more sense for Google to first shut down FeedBurner and then Google Reader?

That way Google could ensure all FeedBurner subscriptions in Reader would be replaced A) with the location of the new feed provided by the site owner, or B) in case of no action from the site owner fall back to the original feed as known by FeedBurner.

When they've done that, they can shutdown Google Reader and all the new RSS readers out there that let you import your Google Reader feeds would have the new updated non-FeedBurner feeds.

I guess having a 301 redirect option in FeedBurner and advising other RSS readers to implement would work as well, but it seems more error prone than Google solving as much of this problem as possible themselves. With Google Reader they are/were in the ideal place to do so. I realize it requires some development costs, but it would be a nice gesture to their user base.

Of course this is all hypothetical. We don't know what Google's plans are for FeedBurner. Perhaps the fact they shutdown Google Reader is an indication FeedBurner is here to stay for the time being as otherwise they would have taken the above approach.

<comment><USER19> > Wouldn't it make more sense for Google to first shut down FeedBurner and > then Google Reader?

Not particularly. As it stands now, FeedBurner feels more like a utility whereas Reader is a service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's not only Feedburner what will be shut down, blogger will shutdown because G+ team already working on the alternative

Introducing their own blogging platform:

<http://gplusproject.appspot.com/new-apps-iphone-android>

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm not a feedburner user myself, but it looks like a lot of people use it just for stats - I wonder could google roll it into google analytics as an extra stream?

</comment><comment><USER22> Google Alerts + email filters = makeshift RSS reader. Now if Google cans Alerts I'll throw down.

</comment><comment><USER23> feedburner shuts down</comment>


The Real Cost of Owning a Car - <AUTHOR> http://www.startupceo.co.za/2010/05/23/millionaires-dont-have-great-cars/

<comment><USER2> Not a good article at all.

a) Nobody has ever confused a car with an investment.

b) "Assuming a modest 10% return". 10% after taxes and inflation is not a modest return by any stretch of the imagination and I'd be _thrilled_ if I could achieve that consistently. If he hasn't factored inflation and taxes in then all his sums are wrong.

c) "Here, look, my $4000 student car costs more than $4000 in running costs and depreciation over three years" is not a useful example in the context of luxury vehicles. With luxury vehicles your running costs will be a much smaller fraction of the original outlay. (Although I admit depreciation will still be a big factor. Probably best to get one second hand that's a couple of years old.)

d) It's just a generalization of the general truism that millionaires have often become millionaires because they're frugal.

e) If you've got, say, five million dollars, you can cheerfully drop a hundred grand on a car and it's only a small fraction of your wealth. Not a sensible idea, but not fatal either.

f) In the second paragraph he essentially says "Millionaires often drive cheap cars except when the drive luxury cars". This is not a particularly impressive insight.

<comment><USER3> The entire premise of his title is dead wrong. "Why Millionaires Don't Have Great Cars" is a failed assumption. The zip code across the river from me (on the southeast coast of Florida) has the highest concentration of ex-CEOs in the nation. By consequence, there are a disproportionately high number of millionaires driving around on the beach side of town. It is a rare occasion that I see one of these people driving a Toyota Yaris. Most of them drive some form of Lexus, BMW, or Mercedes, with lots of Porsches thrown in the mix, and the occasional Ferrari, Masseratti, or other exotic.

Millionaires drive what they want. If they don't "want" a nice car, they won't drive one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really, really recommend reading The Millionaire Next Door (I have no affiliation with it. It's kinda old-school, but in no way out of date.).

Almost the entire book is about how luxury goods are NOT consumed by rich people, but by semi-struggling middle class people. (BMW's, Rolex, premium liquor, etc.) (Or at least people who have to go in to debt to consume these things.)

(It's also about how rich people DO live, choose to buy stuff, negotiate, etc.)

Everybody in this thread who's saying, "duh, cars aren't supposed to be an investment," are technically right. And everybody should indulge in things that really make them happy. If cars are your thing, go on, do your thing. It's all good.

But in the Millionaire Next Door, it goes over how cars are an especially precarious purchase for most people, as they just really eat up a lot of money over time. For most people, even non-luxury car purchases require a loan.

Cars might be more dangerous for us than say Rolexes, because most of us think "well either way I have to have a car, might as well get a _____."

Anyway, maybe this article wasn't the most persuasive case, but it is true. Most rich people don't have fancy cars, or probably fancy anything.

(In the Millionaire Next Door, it says we get confused by this because there are a famous outliers who show off their wealth, so we incorrectly associate wealth with luxury, when they're rarely related.)

<comment><USER5> i think the big issue, is that there is rich and "rich"

real rich can afford to spend $100K on a car w/o really impacting their income too much. i.e. 100K = 5% of their yearly income($2mm/yr)

the "fake" rich, still make $300-400K a yr, but they think they are "rich" rich, so they also buy the $100K car. But for them that $100K is a much higher % of their income.

personally I feel like 5% of your income on cars, is more or less living within your means. If you keep your car for 4-5 years, that's only 1% of your yearly income going towards cars.

Granted if you are a car enthusiast and cars are your only hobby, it's ok to bump that number to 10-15%

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yes cars are extremely expensive. But for many the ability to live within driving distance of work is worth it. I know people who don't have cars. They really miss them. I can drive 250 miles to see my family on a whim. It takes 4-5 hours. Taking public transit requires 7-8 hours, and only gets me within 25 miles of my parents' house (which is pretty good compared to much of the US).

And something like reliability is difficult to quantify. The difference between a $20,000 car and a $4,000 car is often that the $4,000 car is more likely to fail on you unexpectedly. You'll wake up one morning to find the battery dead, or you'll be halfway to work and your brake lines will rupture, or maybe it's just that the door sticks and is a minor subconscious annoyance. Eventually the amount of money you have to sink into a clunker to keep it running will be as much as it would have cost to buy the newer car.

But yeah, anything more than that, unless you need the car to impress clients, is pure luxury. If I had to blow $50,000 on a luxury, it would not be a car.

<comment><USER7> Anecdotally, for the first time in 6 years I don't have a car and I'm loving it. I'm living about 10 minutes walk from the CBD. To visit anyone I'd fly anyway, and the airport is only 15 minutes away by bus.

Walking everywhere is much more satisfying, and not having to worry about breakdowns, oil changes, registration - not to mention the cost - is very nice. On the occasion that I decide to take a road trip, I can rent a car, for a small percentage of the annual cost of ownership.

It probably helps that I live in a dense, pedestrian friendly city though (Wellington, New Zealand).

<comment><USER8> You're truly blessed to be living in such an ideal location. I'd kill to be able to be 10 minutes away from _both_ the CBD _and_ the airport.

<comment><USER9> You'd kill, but you wouldn't move?

<comment><USER10> The market for hitmen is currently saturated, so even if he works overtime and does a few extra hits on the side under the table, he still isn't going to make enough to move into the more expensive, more central neighborhoods.

Plus, there's all those fees to keep your contract-killer's license up to date.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> quick notify ferrari, lamborghini, porsche, maserati, aston martin, jaguar, bentley, audi, cadillac, morgan, rolls-royce, bugatti, TVR, volvo, spyker, saab, land rover, lotus, bmw, mercedes, lexus, lincoln, maybach, pagani, gumpert, koenigsegg, acura, infiniti, weismann, mosler, ascari, mclaren, ssc aero,..that they are in the wrong business.

First of all a luxury car is not an investment. A person doesn't buy a Ferrari, thinking it'll appreciate, they buy it to show off their wealth, and at a certain point, the 200K for a Ferrari is only a small portion of someone's income. And since high end cars tend to hold their value really well, they don't depreciate as much as regular ones.

Second of all, the lost opportunity cost is just the cost of owning a car. Live a little, you don't get to take the money with you when you die.

Finally, there are only a few types of millionaires who don't own a nice car. 1. those who lease the luxury car with their companies. 2. those who are always traveling for business, and who pay the $30K/yr to belong to those super car rental clubs. 3. those who see a car as just something to take you from point a to b.

<comment><USER11> well, you forgot some brands on your list like: hennesey, saleen, caterham, ariel, ultima.

<comment><USER5> tuner, tuner, kit car, maybe, kit car

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Owning an expensive car is actually not as bad as the author suggests. Once you get beyond around $80K cars depreciate at a much slower rate than other cheaper cars. One reason for this is that the more exotic a car is the lower the mileage it is likely to carry becomes. Another strong factor is that when you are paying more than $80K for a car you are paying a lot for the brand of the car and this is likely to be evaluated later at an emotional rather than mechanical level. A 5 year old Aston Martin is still an _Aston Martin_ , whereas a 5 year old Honda is basically a commodity to be evaluated on its mechanical merits.

In terms of this argument the worst car to buy would be something like a BMW 5 Series - its not expensive or rare enough to ensure it would be evaluated on its emotional appeal when you are selling it - but it is still pretty expensive.

<comment><USER13> I love it when somebody makes an intelligent distinction in an overarching argument. Thanks.

Especially when it's something I can use to talk my husband out of his delusion of getting a BMW as our first car, when we'll drive it 10 hours a month. In Europe, where BMWs are twice as expensive... and four times as common.

<comment><USER14> BMW's are twice as expensive in Europe? You lost me there. I currently on vacation in Europe, and you won't believe some of the deals (on both brand new and used) BMW's I've seen.

<comment><USER13> Where are you?

In Austria, a Toyota Yaris (different name) costs 15,000 - 16,000 euros. That's around $19,000+ even with the weak euro right now. A BMW X3 SUV starts at 41,500 euros. That is $52,000 now but, before the colossal euro drop, it would have been more like $62,000.

Last I checked, a Yaris costs $12k in the US and an X3 starts around $37,000.

So you're right, it's not double, but it's close enough for me. Especially as soon as the Euro gains its strength again, or the US dollar drops down.

That amount of money for a car is ludicrous to me. When I spent 10 hours a week in the car, I had a Toyota Matrix and it was perfect. When I plan to spend 10 hours a month in a car, it's beyond ludicrous. :)

EDIT: If you're looking at export deals, you might be looking at prices without the 20%+ VAT and additional luxury taxes.

<comment><USER15> I don't know how it is in the EU, but in the US it makes very little sense to buy a new luxury car. Many people who like luxury cars also like owning the newest one. This means they lease and/or buy them and only keep them for 1-2 years. If you look in the used luxury car market you can find great deals. So great in fact that I'm amazed anyone buys one new, but that's what people like to spend their money on I guess.

<comment><USER13> I'm from the US. Here's why I previously bought a new car (the high-end trim level Matrix, not luxury though):

I wanted a low mileage car because I had owned several high-mileage, but reliable, used cars, and calculated that I spent at least $200/mo over the year on routine repairs and maintenance.

A low-mileage (sub-30K) late year model, otherwise identical used car cost only $2,500 less than the new car.

The interest rate on a no-downpayment loan for the new car was 0% for 12 mos and 3.9% after. The interest rate on the no-downpayment loan on the used car was 13% from the start.

On the new car, I wouldn't have to pay for the first major service for about 18 months. On the used car, it was coming up in a matter of months. (The 30k). Not to mention it would soon need new tires, brake pads/rotor turning, and it was the half-life for the struts and major transmission services, too. (That's $1000 right there.)

You have no idea how the used car was treated in the breakin period and early oil changes, etc, and by only 30K miles, the damage won't have shown itself the way it will have by 80K miles. So when buying a low-mileage used car, sometimes you're actually making a greater gamble.

As you can see, all the logical points added up to buying the new car. It would actually cost less because of the financing and repair bills I would be less likely to pay during ownership.

Additionally, I was able to buy it right away, without having to hunt around, because the first few used ones I found with the trim level I wanted were safety cone yellow. Ugh.

Moral: BUYING USED ISN'T ALWAYS A SMARTER DEAL.

I love splurging on things, but not when the splurge comes back to haunt me month after month. ;)

EDIT: I agree with you about the luxury car, period, and also I wouldn't buy one used. That's why I'm trying to talk my husband out of a BMW, period. IMO the cost difference between a low-end BMW and a high-end VW isn't worth it.

<comment><USER15> Where are you banking that your used car loan is 13%?! The one I have now is 6% and bank rate lists current used car loans for 48 months at 6.38%. You need to find a new bank :) I really hope you're not using dealer financing...ugh.

I agree that buying a used car does take a bit of leg work. The last one I bought took me almost 3 months of looking. At the time I bought my last car the dealership wanted $33k for the base trim new. I bought the 1 year old version with 12k miles and higher trim level for 24k. The car was a 4-Runner, not exactly luxury, but a nice reliable car. I'm looking at Range Rovers now and the price difference between new and 1-3 years old is amazing.

I also get a mechanic to check out any car before I buy it. Luckily I have multiple mechanics in my family.

Oddly enough I have bought 1 new car in my life and it was the car that gave me the most problems. I had it in the shop every other week because of some computer/vapor exhaust issue. When I finally sold it, the engine light had been on for about 3 of the years I owned it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > How much would I have after three years? Assuming a modest 10% return per > year

Is 10% really a modest return?

<comment><USER17> No, it's not. If you're steadily earning a 10% return on your investment, year over year, you are doing amazingly well and should stop doing whatever day job you have now.

<comment><USER18> Not in South Africa. Look at the rates on South African government retail savings bonds: <https://secure.rsaretailbonds.gov.za/ViewHistory.aspx> .

<comment><USER19> Statements like that generally assume that that's an investment adjusted against inflation or devaluation......looking at the interest rate alone on a currency is meaningless without the rest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I find it difficult to believe that a Ferrari would consume 100x on all of fuel, fines, insurance and licensing costs.

But I would rather consider your choice of car beyond basic requirements as consumption, much like food. I'm sure one wouldn't consider fine cuisine a good investment either under these circumstances, but that doesn't justify living off ramen your whole life.

<comment><USER21> True, but I bet the servicing costs are terrifying. I once saw an ad for a used Ferrari that featured the words "engine-out service". That can't be cheap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It depends on where you live. In the States or outside a fair-sized town, there's (so far) no alternative to owning your own car out of sheer necessity. In the city, especially here in Europe, it's a different story. The usual rule of thumb is the cheapest car costs you _at least_ 300 €/month (taxes, depreciation, not counting gas money)!

When my son was born this made it easy for me to decide to buy an Xtracycle (<http://www.xtracycle.com>) for my bike instead of a car. The Xtracycle covers 95% of my transportation needs and 300 € buys a lot of trips by taxi whenever that's necessary.

Still, the point of the article as I see it is that most people underestimate the cost of their car. That's a small problem. The big problem is that our societies underestimate the external cost of private car ownership. When you figure in loss of life and health through accidents, noise, and pollution, loss of usable space in inner cities through car-only streets and on-street parking, and general loss of quality of life - the private car becomes the most expensive mode of transportation ever invented.

<comment><USER23> >The usual rule of thumb is the cheapest car costs you _at least_ 300 €/month (taxes, depreciation, not counting gas money)!

These prices are hardly uniform across all of Europe. I live in a smallish city in the Netherlands and you can probably own a car for 60 - 100 €/month here.

<comment><USER22> They're not, that's true. Be sure to count all your car-related expenses, though. Even minor repairs quickly cost over 1.000 € and you'll be racking up a lot of those over the life of the typical car (if you have an older one). For a new car, depreciation runs even higher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Found this very interesting, and especially so since I've been evaluating the financial efficacy of owning a car a lot as of late.

I own a Green 98 Subaru Forrester with about 150k on it that my father gave me on my college graduation. It's been a heap of problems, due mostly to its age, but I've come to realize that owning it is actually not a bad value (it is of course not an investment, but a consumable product). The problem is one of cash flow.

My Forrester recently had a wheel bearing go out on the rear passenger side, and it was going to cost several hundred in parts and labor to get it fixed. Since the car is so old and I'm tired of fixing it, I decided to just let it sit for a while and try out not having a car.

I started using a car sharing program (CityWheels), which requires you to pay for each time you use one of their cars. Although the cost of operating a rental car is higher and the use case is less flexible, it's not a terrible deal.

What it has made me realize though, is that for the cost, owning a car isn't a bad deal if (like me) you live outside of a huge city, there isn't a lot of public transit, and you want to get around. As I mentioned above, it's cash flow that gets in the way of realizing the value.

When you own a car, you pay for gas, insurance, incidentals and repairs, and it's the last category that really gets you. Figuring up the cost of ownership, I pay about $.27/mi to drive the Subaru compared to ~$.40 for the City Wheels car, but the CityWheels car feels like a better deal because I pay everything up front. If I need to drive 30 miles, I have to pay the $12 now. If I drive my car 30 miles, I sometimes don't have to pay at all (if I don't need to put gas in it). But then, about 2-3 times a year, I have to pay $400 or $600 all at once, and it makes me resent the thing.

I've heard it said that more millionaires own Toyota Camrys than any other model, and it makes sense: as some of the commenters above mentioned, paying for reliability and quality is worthwhile, but paying for an Aston Martin should not be viewed as an investment, but as a consumable.

</comment><comment><USER25> The one thing worse than car ownership? Taking a loan out to buy the car: [http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=634&pagenu...](http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=634&pagenumber=) . I'm shocked at how we allow people to take 5 year loans for cars that depreciate 30+% over that time.

I live in Texas where a car is required, and bought a "new-to-me" year old used subaru a year after graduating college, with a couple years of warranty left on it. It was mentally better than paying to maintain my previous car, which needed thousands of dollars in repairs. I do all the easy maintenance (oil/coolant/filter changes) myself, and hope to have the car overall for 10 years.

<comment><USER15> No, the worst thing is buying the car _new_. When you drive off the lot a car gets hit with immediate depreciation. The first year captures a lot more of that 30%. If you simply buy cars that are 1 year used you save a ton on the deprecation to the point where a 3-5 year loan at 6%ish never puts you underwater if you put a little money down.

<comment><USER19> Underwater? Viewed as an investment any car puts you underwater immediately - it's a net loss.

If you borrowed money and are also paying interest on the vehicle, that's just MORE cost... I don't get the rationalization.

Yes, a new-ish used car is a better value for money deal than a brand new car - but if you have to borrow money, you are probably better off convincing your ego to let you buy a cheaper model rather than borrowing money from the bank to purchase something.

<comment><USER15> The general definition I use for 'underwater' is if I were forced to sell my car today would I get enough money for it to pay off the bank? Nowhere did I mention viewing a car as an investment.

There is no rationalization. Of course it's more cost but there is also cost associated with reducing the amount of cash you have on hand. With that said, a car is the second biggest purchase most people make. It would be great if they all had the thousands of dollars to buy a reliable car with cash, but many don't.

Personally the last car I bought was used and I got a 6% 5 year loan. I typically make double payments on cars so the loan is almost over less than 3 years in. I did the math the other day and accounting for interest I've done much better by buying the car on credit and leaving the rest of the money in my various investments. Over 2-3 years 6% isn't much to begin with so it's pretty easy to beat with other various investments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The author makes a good point, similar to those made in the excellent book "The Millionaires Next Door." My wife and I have make it a habit of saving for new big ticket items like cars to avoid debt payments and it makes a difference: both in saved interest payments and fewer purchases. I have worked just part time my whole life making a good but modest living while my brother owns two optometry offices, has lots of income, but not so great investments and buys a lot of "toys." It seems really strange to me that I am ending up with more assets than he has when I took it easy in my career and had fun.

</comment><comment><USER27> Technically, owning anything that is depreciating is a bad investment and that includes cars.

<comment><USER12> Only if the value you are getting from using the asset is not more than the amount by which it is depreciating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think the real title should be "why millionaires don't have great cars while they are becoming millionaires." When they are rich, they can and do by nice cars.

</comment><comment><USER29> "If it flies, floats or fornicates, always rent it.. it's cheaper in the long run." - Felix Dennis

<comment><USER30> So which of those three does a car do?

<comment><USER28> None of the above. He's talking about planes, boats and women.

<comment><USER30> I know that, what I don't understand is the connection to the article, which is about cars. If you're very rich, joining a supercar club rather than buying a supercar probably makes great financial sense. If you're on an average income and want a 'normal' car, I doubt renting would work out cheaper than buying.

<comment><USER31> The article is also about large hidden costs, which the above mentioned 3 contain.

<comment><USER30> Well, the article is pretty useless, as pointed out by philk above, so here's some advice for everyone who's not a millionaire:

<http://www.banking.state.ny.us/brblc.htm>

"Leasing can be beneficial if you want the newest model car, plan on getting a new car every two to three years, plan to drive fewer miles than the lease limit and plan to take very good care of the car... If you plan on driving the car for more than four years you are probably better off buying."

And for those with money to burn, here's a George Best quote:

"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> It's hard to put a value on the freedom to, at a moment's notice, get up and go wherever you please, without having to rely on anyone or anything. It's what continues to attract people to individual transport.

<comment><USER33> ... except for fuel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have a fairly nice car. Have owned it for 7 years now. While there have been minor problems like scrapes on the rims, trim peeling, etc., the engine, transmission and all the real guts of the car have performed flawlessly the entire time. The car has been paid off for 4 years.

I feel I could drive this car for another 5 years at least. That would be at least 12 years without purchasing a car and 8 years without making a car payment.

My car was expensive, but I feel it was engineered so well that it can last. Quality cars last a long time.

<comment><USER12> This is definitely my approach as well. I have a BMW and take exceptionally good care of it - and feel that this is the best way to deal with the fact that cars depreciate. Get a really well built car and use it for a long time. Due to the "lemon" problem it is not possible to sell a car second-hand at its proper value if you have maintained it well. But this isn't actually a problem if you don't mind driving a slightly older car. My BMW has 60K on it and I expect to drive it for at least 6 more years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I dont understand the comparison of cars with investment. Car is a utility which makes life better, hence expenditure. You invest to make money to spend on utilities which make your life better. :)

</comment><comment><USER14> This is complete bull. Owning anything that depreciates in value is not a smart investment idea. Most wealthy people don't go around in a Prius. Even if they own one, they will always get a "safer" car for their family (at least) such as a Volvo, Benz or Range Rover.

</comment><comment><USER35> Sometimes it's a good idea to own a "desirable" item rather than go with the masses with a commodity. When it's time to sell your old convertible, you'll find a buyer. The old sedan is basically scrap metal.

</comment><comment><USER36> One thing this argument ignores is social signals.

If you're in sales, as one example, you may want an expensive car. This lets clients subtly know that you are doing very well, and can serve as a form of trust for some people.

If you have a small penis and no significant other...

</comment><comment><USER37> Most of the wealthier people I know have reasonably nice cars. Maybe not Zonda/Lambo nice, but Audi, BMW, MB, Infiniti, Lexus and Cadillac are the norm.</comment>