A Bullet That Could Make 3-D Printed Guns Practical Weapons - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/11/atlas-314-3-d-printed-guns-bullets

<comment><USER2> This kind of worries me. Not because I'm worried about 3D printed guns killing me or other people. If somebody wants to kill other people, they're probably going to do it. This doesn't really make it much easier.

What worries me is that this will be used to regulate 3D printing. As somebody with a 3D printer, and as somebody who is excited about the potential of 3D printers, this terrifies me. It's exactly things like this that could be used to incite mass hysteria and banning of 3D printing, especially since 3D printing doesn't yet have wide consumer adoption or appeal.

<comment><USER3> Did you know that when they erected a suicide barrier at a bridge in Washington, suicides in the state dropped? People lacking the means didn't just turn to other methods. They quit altogether. Why do we pretend that the ease of doing something has no effect on the likelihood of it being carried out?

<comment><USER4> Over the past 20 years gun regulations have been eased and the number of weapons sold has skyrocketed. However in that time the violent crime has gone down.

<comment><USER5> Correlation != causation

<comment><USER4> I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the common thought would be that more guns = more crime. But according to the latest FBI study thats not the case. The cause of the dropping crime is due to many factors, but it definitely has not gone up even though there is greater access to firearms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like the lateral thinking on display here. From what I've seen the most successful adopters of the new wave of fabrication technologies are adept at solving problems by looking at them in a way that is "upside-down and backwards" compared to how most people would.

The fact that these bullet casings are milled out of steel rods isn't that big of a deal, if you have the right CNC mill you could automate that too.

Despite the antics of defense distributed I don't think printed guns are that big of a deal in and of themselves, but the idea that someone could be creating untraceable weapons is the worrisome part.

It wouldn't surprise me if the moral panic over custom fabricated guns were used to build support for DRM requirements on mainstream printers. But the push for controlling fabrication technologies is going to come from established economic interests wanting to keep extracting rents from the rest of us, regardless of the fact that the realities that created their business models have changed in fundamental ways.

And just wait until molecular fabrication technologies become cheap enough that average people can generate any molecule they choose just by picking it from a catalog. That's when the sewage overflow will really intersect with the turboprop intake.

<comment><USER7> Anybody that is concerned by printed or "untraceable" firearms should go on YouTube and look up the videos of shotguns that teenagers in the Appalachians have been making out of plumbing parts from hardware stores for decades.

Give me $50 and access to a Home Depot I can _legally_ make a shotgun in an afternoon. That includes labor costs, though I keep the gun. Transferring it would be illegal.

Since I'm bored: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OoBwLVXpFc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OoBwLVXpFc) Obviously anybody with any sense would just go to Walmart and buy a proper shotgun. But obviously anybody with any sense wouldn't use a 3d printed plastic gun either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> So he machines a "barrel" into the round (presumably with a lathe or mill) and it takes _an hour_ for each round. So why not just machine a little metal barrel for your plastic gun? Or just take your same machine tool and make a metal gun? That would be because people have been doing that for 200 years. You have to say the magic words "3d printed gun!!!!" to get a magazine article about yourself.

<comment><USER7> His "thing" is using emerging technology (3d printing) to get people to realize the current state of things (it being trivial to manufacture your own firearm).

Many people believe that it is currently difficult to make a gun, and will not believe you when told otherwise. However when you give them an excuse to be wrong without being ignorant (emerging technology), _then_ they listen. 3d printers allow people to acknowledge that it is easy to make a gun, _without_ forcing them to admit that it always been for the past century.

<comment><USER8> This I consider to be a Bad Thing. The reason being that by allowing them this comfortable linus-blanket of ignorance, we give them an opportunity to vilify and regulate 3d printers despite the 3d printer being no more important to the construction of the workings of the firearm than hammers, screwdrivers or bits of wood. The 3d printer is part of this deadly firearm the same way "Lucky Charms" are part of this nutritious breakfast.

I do NOT want to be anywhere near the "war on 3d printing", "permits" and inspections for 3d printer owners, county "stickers" for my stepper motors or anything even remotely along those lines.

<comment><USER7> I just realized that the guy the article is about does not seem to actually be affiliated with Defense Distributed. What I said applies to Cody Wilson/Defense Distrubuted, not necessarily the guy the article is actually about.

Anyway, Cody Wilson is first and foremost a gun guy, not a 3d printing guy. 3d printing may very well be a casualty of his political activism, but his priorities are such that this possibility likely seems worth it to him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Part of me is somewhat worried. Part of me recognizes that a 3D printed firearm is hardly very practical, consider it's easy enough to get a real firearm, even for convicted criminals. (I'm speaking of the US here.)

What keeps people in the US from going on shooting rampages is not the difficulty of getting guns. It's the fact that most people don't want to go on shooting rampages. And while I'd much prefer it if guns were banned in this country, in the end, I'm not planning to lose any sleep over it. I'm far more likely to die in a car accident, even without adjusting for risk factors like where I live or my lack of involvement in criminal activity. So if I want to worry about something, I'll focus on driving more carefully.

Anyway, there's precious little you can do to stop 3D printed firearms from eventually being available. Betting against progress is rarely safe, especially in this domain where it's pretty obvious how things are going to go.

<comment><USER10> I just don't understand the appeal. As far as firearms go, the last thing I want is one that can not be relied upon. I get that solving technical challenges is fun but in this case, to what end? To make practical home-built firearms? Boys in Afghanistan are making practical ak-47's with little more than a file, scrap and tenacity. If you want to build a firearm (semi-auto) at home in the US it isn't even illegal.

<comment><USER11> _If you want to build a firearm (semi-auto) at home in the US it isn 't even illegal._

Incorrect. The only limitation is you can't make an NFA weapon (automatic, etc) or build it out of more than 10 imported parts.

 _" Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer's license under the GCA provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. "_[1]

[1][http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/0501-firearms- top...](http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/0501-firearms- top-10-qas.pdf)

<comment><USER12> So you are disputing that it's not illegal? Or something?

<comment><USER13> I think they likely misparsed the parent comment. :)

<comment><USER11> Haha... yup, misread the parent!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In a way, with this, each bullet is like a miniature percussion cap musket.

Ammunition robustness isn't only important for plastic guns: witness the explosion of an 1895 Lee Navy, where the use of relatively thin .30-40 brass (since original 6 mm ammo is not available) is suspected to be the culprit [1]

[1]: [http://www.forgottenweapons.com/winchester-lee-navy- safety/](http://www.forgottenweapons.com/winchester-lee-navy-safety/)

</comment><comment><USER15> If you are going for the "shell as a barrel" solution you might as well maximize the utility and make it either silenced (captive piston) ammo: [http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1812](http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1812)

Or make it electronically fired multishot using a superposed load like the Metalstorm: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposed_load](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposed_load)

That being said, while metal home use printers won't be feasible anytime soon, FDM plastics are getting much, much stronger (Ulthem etc) and being released to prosumer market at an impressive rate. Having a barrel stand up to a dozen shots or so will not be a problem for long.

</comment><comment><USER16> Well that is a non-novel solution :-) Basically the cartridge is the barrel. A much more novel solution would be a barrel that was a rail gun, then just recharge it to refire. Of course we can't really store enough energy in a capacitor or battery that we can in gun powder yet. .22 caliber CO2 fired guns would be more dangerous (they could have longer plastic barrels and be more accurate.) But all of this simply strokes the survivalist bent that folks have to somehow come out on top when the world comes crashing to an end.

I am much less worried about a nerd trying to mug me with a plastic gun than I am with the wrong person getting hold of a UAV with a shotgun [1].

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYz_D89BLUg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYz_D89BLUg)

</comment><comment><USER17> I see a lot of fear in the comments; the worry is that 3D printing will be regulated.

I find it terrible that pragmatism will be skimmed over by the very liberals I associate with who will use "new 3d printed bullets" as political ammunition.

<comment><USER18> It's almost as if modern nanny statism and traditional authoritarian statism are just two sides of the same coin... or two manifestations of the same personality disorder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think it is aligned to Metal Storm tech: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Storm)

At least I can see how they intersect - in both cases barrel is a round.

</comment><comment><USER20> A gun with a 2 inch-long barrel is going to be pretty useless at not much more than a dozen feet. Good for mugging somebody I guess, but not self-defense or fighting the next revolution. And you can mug somebody with a knife.

<comment><USER21> That's now. The 3D printing landscape will look very different in a few years time.

<comment><USER20> The rest of the gun doesn't matter. A two inch barrel leaves almost no space for the propellant to expand before it escapes containment (and all its remaining energy is wasted), and no chance for any useful rifling.

<comment><USER11> I agree the lack of rifling doesn't help, but what's wrong with a 2" barrel? There are snub-nosed revolvers with barrels just as short.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Gosh, thanks, guys! More paranoid backlash and stupid regulations are just what the 3D printing industry needed!</comment>


To be an angel investor with $100,000, why not start your own Y Combinator clone? - <AUTHOR> http://y2combinator.picwing.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a lot of money to diversify the AngelConf strategy into anything but gambling. With three people putting up $100,000 or a generous State Government, anyone can start their own YC clone. There will always be the n-bucket list of startups that don't get into their seed program of choice. I think the long tail could go down surprisingly far in this case, especially as you started to move outside of software.</comment>


Are Silicon Valley Startups More Likely To Be Acquired? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/15/are-silicon-valley-startups-more-likely-to-be-acquired/?awesm=tcrn.ch_3vp&utm_campaign=techcrunch&utm_content=techcrunch-autopost&utm_medium=tcrn.ch-twitter&utm_source=direct-tcrn.ch <comment><USER2> "A startup based in Silicon Valley has a 6.9% chance of being acquired. New York startups come in second with a 4.9% acquisition rate."

Then how do they explain Washington's higher 8.2% rate?

<comment><USER3> They conveniently ignore it since it doesn't fit in well with their agenda/propaganda? Either that or Mike isn't very good with numbers.

I like this comment though:

      >> The data could also get interpreted that startups in
      >> the valley have a lower revenue success rate and fewer
      >> working business models and the only strategy remaining
      >> is an acquisition before landing in the deadpool.

      >> Since when is the primary goal of startup to get
      >> acquired? I thought companies are about finding a
      >> business model. Oh wait, that might just be my "out
      >> of valley" thinking model…

<comment><USER4> to be honest, it looks like he assumed the table was sorted by acquisition rate... would have made a lot more sense that way, instead of sorting it by # of startups

<comment><USER3> Yeah you'd have to be a rocket scientist to be able to look down the list and find the biggest numbers...

Off topic, but very funny: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This stat is not surprising. The tone of the article assumes acquisition is the only interesting result. I prefer profitability. Stats on profitability of startups is sparse. I would guess some locations would show higher rates of profitable startups simply because its your only meaningful goal.

<comment><USER6> I don't think you can say one is necessarily better than the other. Some people may be better at going from zero to something than running a larger, steadier firm. These people are probably better off building and selling. Likewise, some people may be great at profitably running large (or at least more stable) firms, but fail at creating something from nothing.

<comment><USER5> I'm sure acquisition is much better for many, just not what I go for usually...don't get me wrong, I'm happy to get acquired as well ;). The reason I'm wildly guessing that other cities might show better profitability ratios is simply that they have less expectations from the start of acquisition.</comment></comment></comment>


The Last Bookbinder on the Lower East Side - <AUTHOR> http://lithub.com/the-last-bookbinder-on-the-lower-east-side/ <comment><USER2> Bookbinding is a fairly easy hobby to pick up. Besides the paper, all it really requires is a flat surface, a bone folder, an awl, an x-acto knife and some needle and thread. For those in New York, SVA offers evening courses in bookmaking. The Center for Book Arts is also located somewhere in Flatiron, I believe, and offers occasional workshops on specific binding techniques.

<comment><USER3> I absolutely can echo that the basics are pretty simple and fun. With some creativity it makes for great gifts. I used to make docking-stations and other desk-appliances with it.

Having worked for a bookbinder for about a year though I absolutely can assure anyone "hobbyist" binding has little in common with what professionals do. There is more tooling, more (expensive) machinery, more steps and more process refactoring. As can be expected, if someone's hobby is another one's craft and income. It's less of "The journey is the reward".

<comment><USER4> > I used to make docking-stations and other desk-appliances with it.

I'm having a hard time visualizing this. How do you use bookbinding techniques to make these things? I think I have a wrong picture in my head.

<comment><USER5> Yes, befuddlement abounds

<comment><USER3> Well, first excuse me if I don't use the bookbinder-english correct words as I'm not a native speaker.

How did i build docking stations? Well, the way you create the back of a book (not of course the "inlay" or "pages") is usually by working on a thick board (you may call it "paperboard") and covering it with some sort of leather (my literal translation would be "leather paper"). With the same technique you can create other objects as well. Boxes would be the most obvious ones but any form that comes to your mind and you consider doable. I basically did that "around" a cable ;-)

<comment><USER5> Most cool. I totally wasn't ridiculing you. I apologize profusely if that's how it came off. I would never make fun of anyone's English, and I didn't find yours defective anyway. I was sincerely trying to wonder how a leather docking station would work. Also, I haven't seen docking stations around in ages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I admire a guy who works for so many years. He's just gonna keep going until he literally cannot make it to the shop any more.

He likes the work. He likes what he makes. He likes the customers. Seems like a good life, a good career path -- the kind of path programmers don't necessarily get to traverse.

Pictures of his shop: [https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/henry-bookbinding-new- york](https://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/henry-bookbinding-new-york)

</comment><comment><USER7> Maybe not NYC but I randomly bumped into a young woman in her 20's who was a professional bookbinder and restorer in Boston on the T about 7-8 years ago...so there is at least one representative the younger generations doing it somewhere..

</comment><comment><USER8> He did my Masters thesis from NYU Poly, actually everyone in our department for like 30+ years was getting done with him. It was an experience that I would never forget.

</comment><comment><USER9> Maybe it's the cost of doing business in NYC. There are over twenty book binderies in Detroit.

[http://www.yellowpages.com/detroit-mi/book- binding](http://www.yellowpages.com/detroit-mi/book-binding)

</comment><comment><USER10> But not even the last bookbinder in Manhattan.[1]

Some on-demand printing services offer hard-cover bookbinding.

[1] [http://www.ivrybookbinding.com/](http://www.ivrybookbinding.com/)

<comment><USER11> _Some on-demand printing services offer hard-cover bookbinding._

That's not bookbinding, it's a cheap not-quite-replacement for the real thing. When difficult-to-replace volumes from your personal library start losing pages you see a bookbinder, not your corner photocopying business. University libraries used to have them on the staff, but they seem to have gone the way of the glassblower in the chemistry department. I understand that one can find still find bookbinding shops in strict-orthodox communities, people like to keep their prayer book, even after the original binding has given up.

<comment><USER12> UC has a bindery in Oakland that is run by Berkeley but takes jobs systemwide. There is also a "Cal Trade Bindery" by my house on 24th St in Oakland.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Min programming language - <AUTHOR> https://min-lang.org/ <comment><USER2> Nim programs can be easily compiled to JS, right? Can I embed it in JS?

It seems to be purely functional, so without infinite loops and other stuff like that, would it be a feasible option for letting users run each other code snippets in their own browser?

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually didn't try yet. I presume I will have to remove some of the modules and symbols that are not likely to work in browsers, but other than that yes, it should compile to JavaScript!

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll give it a try!</comment></comment>


Steve Jobs email hints at no upcoming Blu-Ray support on the Mac - <AUTHOR> https://www.networkworld.com/community/node/60208

<comment><USER2> If I understood that very good "Longest Suicide Note In History" screed against Vista correctly (and my memory is not failing me), adding Blu-Ray support would require a lot of engineering work _that would make their machines less stable_. E.g. the electrical margins have to be narrowed to make it less likely someone can tap in.

Maybe it wasn't true, is no longer true, Apple is already doing this, etc., but that could be an additional reason. Lots of other ones, like minimal adoption, were cited in this item.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not surprising at all since that would hurt iTunes.</comment>


Cambridge professor on how to stop being manipulated by misleading statistics - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/643234/cambridge-professor-on-how-to-stop-being-so-easily-manipulated-by-misleading-statistics/ <comment><USER2> "We know, for example, that "relative risks" can be used to look impressive."

This is, sadly, extremely true and even more sadly, very often used. 5 times more likely to die from x, sounds impressive, risk increase from 0.001 to 0.005 percent does not. Newspapers want to ... sell newspapers, and sounding dramatic is part of it. If every person capable of reading "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre did so, this would be a better world. It's by the way the best I've seen to give the amateur an understanding of statistics, studies, being critical, manipulation by media, et cetera... (while being entertaining and an easy read, a frequent present of mine to other people).

"Depends on what you mean by rational. I don't like that word. You could use other words like "value-congruent," which fit in with what people feel is the appropriate value. Those are the decisions they will make and not regret in the future."

"Value-congruent", nice one. "Rational" is indeed one of those empty words that is thrown around.

One thing I also find incredibly important: People have to understand science is a METHOD, not an AUTHORITY. Because people don't listen to authority, but in many cases they can't argue much with reason. This is incredibly important, a lot of the anti-science sentiment stems from viewing science as an authority, and this is extremely stupid.

<comment><USER3> It should be noted that there are reasons, both good and bad, for why we use relative risks: [http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Pages/articleviewer.aspx?year...](http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2010&issue=01000&article=00002&type=Fulltext)

Also, at this point, relative risk models are _much_ more well developed. While we'd all love absolute risk measures, if you have to choose between an absolute measure with known confounding we can't handle with current methods, or a relative measure that can, the choice is much less clear.

<comment><USER2> At the end of the day, as noted in the article, different data has to be presented in different ways, or actually the same set of data may be presented in different ways, it depends on what you want to focus on, what exactly is your subject of interest, et cetera. But, and that's my point, if the entity responsible is not interested in how to represent data or a certain conclusion one has made as clearly as possible to the public, but to sell newspapers and get clicks[1], then what do you expect?

So it is not my intention to disregard any form of presenting/visualizing data without a specific example or proper context.

[1] It is my personal belief that Social Media, Twitter, and the short attention span of the modern age all aided extremely in this. If you look at "sophisticated media outlets" at Facebook, they are playing the click-bait game nevertheless. How to be on Facebook or Twitter and not be a tabloid?

<comment><USER3> This was actually more of a general note than one addressing you specifically. I've seen "Relative measures are wrong and bad and you should feel bad!" enter what I'll call the "Educated Layperson" lexicon regarding statistics, while ignoring that there are often very good reasons for why these choices are made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For more reading on the topic, I'd recommend "How to Lie with Statistics"[0]. It's a short read (144 pages), with mainly tongue-in-cheek instructions on how to mislead.

Most of the usual tricks ('drop the axes', percentage-points, etc) are there, but there are many other, less obvious tricks.

One of the cooler arguments in the book is that it's easy to lean on someone's implicit assumption of volume to modify their understanding.

If you inflate a 15% increase in house spending to look larger than it is, drawing pictures of houses that are 15% wider will make people intuit a 50%[1] increase, despite reading 15%. The author suggests that even if you're incredibly clear with the text surrounding the charts, people still use the charts to understand the scales of change.

[0] [http://amzn.to/1RmCVmL](http://amzn.to/1RmCVmL) (disclaimer: affiliate link) [1] 1.15^3 ~= 1.5

</comment><comment><USER5> >"I got very grumpy at an official graph of British teenage pregnancy rates that apparently showed they had declined to nearly zero. Until I realized that the bottom part of the axis had been cut off, which made it impossible to visualize the (very impressive) 50% reduction since 2000."

Don't understand. I'd think _not_ truncating the y-axis would make it more difficult to see a change.

>"I thought people would know that 3 out of 100 is equal to 3% is equal to 0.03. But they are very different!"

Don't understand. Those numbers are all the same by definition.

<comment><USER6> > >"I thought people would know that 3 out of 100 is equal to 3% is equal to > 0.03. But they are very different!"

> Don't understand. Those numbers are all the same by definition.

They are ways of representing that same number but people respond to them differently.

<comment><USER5> So the numbers are not very different, just erroneously perceived to be different (according to psychologists). I guess it isn't as odd as I thought after skimming, but I still don't like it.

<comment><USER7> Numbers are not different mathematically. Written representations of numbers are different psychologically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's a fun video he created with Cambridge University a few years ago, called "Professor Risk". Worth a watch (6 minutes) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1PtQ67urG4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1PtQ67urG4)

Takeaway from the video "I've come to the conclusion that one of the biggest risks is being too cautious."

</comment><comment><USER9> Another source I can link to when people in comment sections blindly state, "y axis should start at zero!", which is almost as annoying "correlation isn't causation". Context.</comment>


Wing Commander (the game) is Coming Back - <AUTHOR> http://techzwn.com/2011/12/wing-commander-saga-carries-the-epic-tale-of-the-classic-series/

<comment><USER2> Another team of indies that doesn't understand intellectual property law. Why pour all this effort into something that's going to get shut down by the IP holders? Chris Roberts may be 'cool' with it--but I doubt EA will be. C&D in 1...2...</comment>


What Is Digital Humanism? - <AUTHOR> http://kottke.org/17/04/what-is-digital-humanism <comment><USER2> Speaking very generally (and based on slightly faded memory), one reason they liked old things in the Renaissance was because there was a point of view that the prior ~1,000 years, since the fall of Rome, was a waste intellectually, and that the way forward was to revive the Roman and Greek knowledge. I don't think the same conditions apply today, and IMHO perhaps Humanism's goals should be accomplished by other means than focusing on preserving or reviving the past.

(Disclaimer: The following mostly is based on memory; details may be off a bit. Sorry.)

Hegel said in the 19th century (paraphrased), "he would 'put on seven-league boots' in order to skip over the thousand years between the 6th and 17th centuries and, having at last arrived at René Descartes, said that now he could 'cry land like the sailor.'"[0]

Even the name of that prior, wasted period, the "Middle Ages", was given to it by people in the Enlightenment: From their point of view it was the middle between two great periods: Classical antiquity of Greece and Rome, and the Enlightenment.

The Middle Ages ended, in a sense, with the reintroduction of most of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle's works to Europe, where they had been lost for centuries. Aristotle was highly respected and presented a worldview that challenged Scholasticism, the philosophy of the Church. Thomas Aquinas, a name many recognize, made it a mission to reconcile Aristotle with the Church.

It's a good reminder that civilization is a fragile thing, and we are stewards of it. We don't want the next 1,000 years to be lost, too.

[0] [https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scholasticism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scholasticism)

<comment><USER3> Aristotle's works were never lost to Europe, they were doing fine in Spain the entire time. This entire thing is a long propagated mythology that things were at their best when Europe dominated the Mediterranean. The Middle ages were Islamic and Chinese golden ages, and the Han dynasties equalled or surpassed anything in the Greco-Roman sphere.

<comment><USER2> I don't quite understand. The scholars of Europe did not have access to Aristotle's works. Are you saying that isn't true? Was Spain isolated from the rest of Europe during the Middle Ages?

> This entire thing is a long propagated mythology that things were at their > best when Europe dominated the Mediterranean

I don't understand how saying that they lost access to their greatest scholar, Aristotle, and had to rely on people from another part of the Mediterranean to preserve and return his works to them, supports a claim that "things were at their best when Europe dominated the Mediterranean".

Also, do you have some source for what you are saying? If you look at the cite in my post, you can read much of what I said, including about Aristotle.

<comment><USER3> >I don't quite understand. The scholars of Europe did not have access to Aristotle's works. Are you saying that isn't true? Was Spain isolated from the rest of Europe during the Middle Ages?

Uh yes? Spain was part of the Umayyad Caliphate and then various other Caliphates until the Reconquista ended Islamic Spain in 1491. Islam never lost Aristotle.

Saying that Europe largely lost Aristotle isn't propagating the myth, repeating Hegel and Descartes Eurocentric views is, as is saying civilization is fragile when it survived fine.

A lot of the reason the European's liked old things is that they could then claim it was European knowledge rather than Islamic. Examples include Aquinas commissioning a translation of Aristotle from Greek sources, as the existing copies were translated from Arabic.

As for sources, yours only shows that Aquinas rationalised Aristotle and Catholicism, which is true. On what I've said, if you didn't know about Al- Andalus I don't know where to begin. Anything about the Umayyad Caliphate would be a start, or almost any modern history of the age.

I'm also completely ignoring that the "Fall of Rome" happened in 1453, largely considered the end of the Middle Ages.

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately, I don't think I want to get caught up in this kind of conversation.

<comment><USER3> The only controversial part of what I said is that they liked old things to avoid the tie to Islam. Al-Andalus was Spain, Islamic philosophy was heavily influenced by Aristotle, everyone called the Byzantine Empire Roman, and we are taught a very Eurocentric history.

Sorry to continue on, wanted to establish that these things are certain. Don't want to fall into a new blend of scholasticism.

<comment><USER2> It was the tone and listening (or lack thereof), not the content. No big deal, but life is too short ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> On a similar note, if you're interested in the sort of things the Renaissance Humanists were preserving the Ritman Library[0] has quite a collection that it's in the process of making available online.

[0] [http://www.ritmanlibrary.com/](http://www.ritmanlibrary.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Would SciHub count as an example in this case?

</comment><comment><USER6> It's funny to me how comments on an article on digital librarians has strayed so far down a rabbit hole.

</comment><comment><USER7> Kopimi is the Word. Kopimi is the way.

</comment><comment><USER8> THANK YOU Humanism NEVER meant Atheist anything till just a few decades ago. Stop destroying the meaning of a word that goes back centuries just because you don't want to use the word Atheist. Thank you

<comment><USER9> Why did that trigger you?

<comment><USER8> I went to Graduate School for a Masters in Theological Studies. My focus is the Historical Theology (To know what people groups believed in specific times and locations). So this is a high travesty of centuries of thought both Christian and non-Christian.

Just look at the founders of Humanism, one being Martin Luther. The whole Reformation was built on Humanism. Martin Luther's whole world change from being a Priest to being the first Reformer to actually die of natural causes was that he was going to the bathroom and realized that Jesus also poops. Popular thought is he was scared by lightening, but that's weak academic research. That really is Luther's turning point, Jesus pooped. History of the Western and now the whole world has changed because of that one Humanist thought.

The whole birth of Humanism was "emphasizes the humanity of Jesus." Now we changed the term completely 180 just so people won't use the term Atheism to define themselves but they will fight to hold on to the equality of humanism and atheism.

I actually have had days of discussions with various modern Humanism thinkers and leaders. They don't deny that fact, but they also choice to defend that Humanism equals Atheism. It is like a Intellectual Hijacking of Centuries of Thought and Philosophy. It's because the preference of semantics but it is the actual opposite of the word, thought and historical meaning of that word.</comment></comment></comment>


Bye-bye blackboard - <AUTHOR> http://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/blackboard/introduction.htm <comment><USER2> Is the blackboard really disappearing, though? First, while there are some subtly-different affordances between a whiteboard and a blackboard, they're not _that_ different. Second, where powerpoint and presentations and slides are making inroads are in places where the blackboard was already simply being used for slide delivery. A professor can get up in front of a 500-person class and say whatever words they like about how they want this to be an interactive experience, but it's still by-and-large a bulk slide dispensing class by necessity. (I say this as one of the lunatics who would participate even so, so yes, I know it's possible. But on average, 496 people are passively sitting there.)

Once you clear away the essentially non-interactive uses, is it really "disappearing"? Except for maybe a few whiteboards instead of blackboards, it's not going anywhere any time soon, I think. I've never seen a digital replacement that even comes close.

All the blackboards they show that are plausibly snapshots from real classes (as opposed to the three or four that are being used just a political polemics) would still be blackboard-based today, quite likely.

<comment><USER3> I went on a classroom tour at Princeton. I was there for a confrence of Librarians. On the tour there was construction happening in all the classrooms.

Princeton removed all their white boards and replaced them with black boards. Reason the professors kept using permanent markers on them and the person in- charge replaced all of them that summer. (2007)

<comment><USER4> All you have to do is trace over the permanent marker with a dry-erase marker, and then erase. Comes off as if it was all dry-erase ink. Works on a variety of surfaces (I removed permanent marker from a stainless steel coffee mug that I inherited using this technique)

<comment><USER5> This works amazingly well! I had accidentally left a black sharpie inside a pants pocket of mine, when it hit the dryer it burst from the heat and managed to be fairly evenly distributed inside the white dryer. Using a dry-erase marker it all came off! (I would not suggest trying it on anything that isn't a "shiny" surface ie: un-treated wood, cloth, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's interesting that blackboards are almost exclusively used to teach mathematics these days (at least in my experience at university). It's still much easier to do maths by hand than with a keyboard. Is that just a side effect of the way our keyboards are designed, or is there something deeper going on?

<comment><USER7> Try typing something as simple as a fraction. You'll quickly discover that it's not the keyboard, but our convention of formatting text in lines. LaTeX and now MathJax solve this for writing papers, but to quickly write math expressions, you have to do it by hand.

<comment><USER8> this is something mathcad had done very well imo. it provided you with a blank page where you could write anywhere and the equations nearly looked like they had been written with latex. even better, all changes to variables were live and you could tweak things anywhere to see how it effected your numbers. miss it a lot. calca is similar to it now on the mac, but not nearly as pretty and you still end up with lines of text and no equations.

<comment><USER9> The problem is that it's still a pain to type complex formulas in MathCAD. So, it's not really suitable for when you're trying write out equations live.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For those that didn't get the title reference, it borrows from the jazz standard Bye Bye Blackbird.

Here is Miles Davis on the great 1957 album, 'Round About Midnight:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV2lNHfSXBQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV2lNHfSXBQ)

</comment><comment><USER11> FWIW, all of the lecture halls and most of the tutorial rooms at Carleton University still have blackboards. A few labs have whiteboards, every room has a projector or two, but the blackboard is still ever present here.

</comment><comment><USER12> I hope the maths departments still cherish chalk boards. When I was teaching in 2007, I specifically requested a blackboard when all of my colleagues preferred whiteboards.

<comment><USER13> My math professors all preferred blackboards because chalk is an order of magnitude cheaper than markers. Of course, all of our classrooms had whiteboards. :)

<comment><USER14> I have fond memories of my favorite math professor, always looking somewhat disheveled, and often with streaks of chalk on his clothes or in his hair. Whiteboards just aren't the same.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Similar: [https://whatsonmyblackboard.wordpress.com](https://whatsonmyblackboard.wordpress.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing this. I learn a couple of new thing with that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a bit old - Bobby Robson died in 2009.

<comment><USER17> On the intro page it mentions the guest blackboards were prepared in early 2005.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I was hoping this was about the Blackboard software; some of the worst product I had the displeasure of working with in my life.

<comment><USER19> I am surprised to see the bad comments about Blackboard software. I never use it. But my ex-manager and several ex-colleagues (software developers and QA) are now working for Blackboard. They are confident in their company's future.

<comment><USER20> That doesn't mean that they make good software.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Meanwhile, Blackboard software[1] continues to infect universities with its half-baked cash-grab approach to UX (slop on a nominal manifestation of a "feature" so that it can be listed in a sales-pitch checklist, then let it languish for years and move on to our next anti-interpretation of a UI fad we heard about 5 degrees removed). It is obvious why their HQ is located in Washington, D.C.

[1] [http://www.blackboard.com](http://www.blackboard.com)

<comment><USER22> My understanding is that its hard to be competitive in this space because Blackboard is very patent litigious. Patent 6,988,138 "Internet-based education support system and methods" is considered overly-broad and has been used against competitors.

An East Texas jury gave Blackboard 2.5m in damages in a suit against a competitor in 2008 using this patent. Read the patent, it a complete cockup, by the already low standards of the USPTO. The abstract is laughable because its so broad:

A system and methods for implementing education online by providing institutions with the means for allowing the creation of courses to be taken by students online, the courses including assignments, announcements, course materials, chat and whiteboard facilities, and the like, all of which are available to the students over a network such as the Internet. Various levels of functionality are provided through a three-tiered licensing program that suits the needs of the institution offering the program. In addition, an open platform system is provided such that anyone with access to the Internet can create, manage, and offer a course to anyone else with access to the Internet without the need for an affiliation with an institution, thus enabling the virtual classroom to extend worldwide.

<comment><USER23> Abstracts don't define the patent, claims do.

In the UK the abstract is part of the patentee's submission, but examiners would redraft them as needed to make them useful. IIRC the USPTO doesn't spend any resources on abstract re-drafting(?) and so abstracts are very poor.

US6988138 is "EXPIRED DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEE" as of 2014; note that in 2010 it was "EXPIRED DUE TO REEXAMINATION WHICH CANCELED ALL CLAIMS"!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Thought this was referring to the Blackboard software. From the comments it seems that people agree with me :)

<comment><USER25> I think those are the people who didn't open the article</comment></comment>


.onion - <AUTHOR> https://www.ietf.org/blog/2015/09/onion/ <comment><USER2> Wow the page that article was on is severely broken when viewed on iPhone Safari, the main content is stuck on a second column and word wrapping every say 2-3 words.

Surprising considering "The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better..."

<comment><USER3> Keyword: internet, not web. You should redirect your complaints towards Apple, the W3C and/or the WHATWG.

<comment><USER2> The sites uses tables for layout.

I think your right, they've broken the Internet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't get the use of certificates for onion websites: isn't the name of the service its public key? Why would you also need a certificate?

</comment><comment><USER5> Dibs on Router.Onion</comment>


New NixOS 17.03 Release - <AUTHOR> http://nixos.org/nixos/manual/release-notes.html#sec-release-17.03 <comment><AUTHOR> Packages: [https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/tree/release-17.03](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/tree/release-17.03)

* Nix packages can be extended via overlays [https://nixos.org/nixpkgs/manual/#sec-overlays-install](https://nixos.org/nixpkgs/manual/#sec-overlays-install)

* GCC = 5.4.0, systemd = 232. Linux kernel = 4.9

* Packages in nixpkgs can be marked as insecure through listed vulnerabilities

</comment><comment><USER2> so what's the difference between overlays and package overriding?

<comment><USER3> Overlays is a way to extend Nixpkgs in a format which can easily be shared, imported and combined. An overlay can add or override packages, like any user could do before with packageOverrides.

An example of overlay is the rust overlay provided in the nixpkgs-mozilla[1] repository, which package all latest versions of the rust compiler[2].

[1] [https://github.com/mozilla/nixpkgs- mozilla](https://github.com/mozilla/nixpkgs-mozilla) [2] [https://github.com/mozilla/nixpkgs- mozilla/blob/master/rust-...](https://github.com/mozilla/nixpkgs- mozilla/blob/master/rust-overlay.nix)</comment></comment>


The Rise and Fall of Facts (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://www.cjr.org/special_report/rise-and-fall-of-fact-checking.php <comment><USER2> Great article but the title is a little misleading. I was expecting analysis of the fact-checking culture in the modern day, the "fall" part in particular. The article ends up mostly being a history of facts in journalism.

</comment><comment><USER3> Research departments work well because they are a supporting role. The author must correct inaccuracies, but it's still basically the author's voice.

Fact checkers who publish on their own are a problem. They can't resist bringing their own perspectives and arguments into the dicussion.

A lot of stuff is technically true but misleading. So the fact-checkers write something of the form:

"Pants on fire: technically true, but [inject rebuttal essay here]."

That's all fine except that it's done under the moral banner of correcting lies. People who disagree with the viewpoints of the fact checker are understandably put off when they to take this moral high ground.

</comment><comment><USER4> >Early newspaper printers had more interest in opinion and polemic than objectivity.

Has this really changed? Does (can?) there actually exist an organization or person which can report just verified facts (if a "fact" is even possible at all)? Am I just getting old and cynical?

I've been watching the White House's COVID briefs in their entirety since I'm just sitting around at home. It's nice background noise while I work. It has been a fun but horrifying experience, having seen the entire presser, to then see which pieces get clipped by which organizations and in which context.

Each news org (pick your fav) is reporting the facts as they see them. They'll back up these facts with the little clips they pulled, or by referencing studies/papers (the "scientific literature" infallible after all as long as the conclusion matches what you need), if they're feeling really bold, they'll prove "facts" through a little in-article "math" which is, of course, based on the shoddiest of premises.

Almost all of their work in justifying their position with "facts" is undone by the simple act of seeing the source material, at which point the illusion is shattered, and everyone is just toeing the line.

<comment><USER5> > Does (can?) there actually exist an organization or person which can report > just verified facts (if a "fact" is even possible at all)? Am I just getting > old and cynical?

I think it could definitely be done, but as a commercial venture, I'm not sure how many people are interested in reading actual truth. There seems to be a rather strong distaste for it.

I'm quite curious to see if we see a noticeable change when Trump is out of office, I sure hope that event helps normalize things at least somewhat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't understand the point hiring fact checkers if you're going to make shit up that contradicts what he says. Interpreting "hinting dog" to mean "sheep- herding dog" makes less sense than interpreting "hunting dog" as meaning "cat". At least cats hunt!

</comment><comment><USER7> Knowing something about the 19th century press, it bares a lot more resemblance to today's social media "bubbles", hyperbole, and opinion driven journalism than the post WW2 media environment. Whether it was Frederick Douglass's publications or the local political party backed newspaper - newspapers that existed to promote their agenda more than to give some objective reporting on the facts.

</comment><comment><USER8> Title should be "The rise of fact checking"

<comment><USER9> And, back before the fall, it would have been.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Reminds me of the protests against Justice Kavanaugh. Some (semi-professional) protest groups prepared generic protest posters, then filled in the nominee's name later.

[https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/four-examples- showi...](https://abcstlouis.com/news/nation-world/four-examples-showing-that- trump-opponents-planned-to-attack-any-supreme-court-nominee)

<comment><USER11> They don't even bother to say who "witnessed" that or back it up with any other "accounts." Seems like they just expect you to believe it at face value without any evidence whatsoever.

<comment><USER10> There's more, but you have to dig a bit.

If you follow the last tidbit and Google "In response to Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court", Google will bring up plenty of reputable media sources that ran it.

In this case, it was 'The Womens March' that had a template protest sign ready, but incredibly neglected to fill in the blank with the nominee's name.</comment></comment></comment>


Defending the One Percent - <AUTHOR> http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.27.3.21 <comment><USER2> Isn't the entire 'one percent' debate (in America) centered around the fact that one party wants to institute a modest tax increase on that group, and the other party wants to, irrationally, keep cutting their taxes even when faced with deficits? Nobody reasonable is actually advocating for 'perfect economic equality'.

I'm generally a free market guy (in that I believe the free market should be the foundation of the economy but not dictate every aspect of it), but I just can't see a reasonable tax increase as being a problem.

I don't see a problem with a reasonable minimum wage either ($12-$15/hr), especially when tax dollars are subsidizing the working-poor with food stamps, students loans, public housing, health-care etc. As much as I'm disappointed with Wal-Mart for not being embarrassed their employees are on food stamps, I understand that they can't raise their wage unilaterally lest it puts them at a competitive disadvantage - which is why you need legislation! Make it fair for everybody.

<comment><USER3> _and the other party wants to, irrationally, keep cutting their taxes even when faced with deficits_

One thing we've learned is that never, ever happens. Instead, increased revenues, such as provided by Reagan's tax _rate_ cuts, allows higher leverage AKA deficits. So "starving the beast" seems to be the best approach, until, of course, the accumulated deficits are inevitably reneged on one way or another (e.g. inflation "works").

<comment><USER4> It's important to note that they (republicans) tend to want to cut taxes but not services, because they can't compromise and cut both the military and medicare/Medicaid/welfare/etc. They just want to cut the latter.

The lack of compromise leads to neither happening so many republicans really don't want smaller govt. Some do, don't get me wrong. But many don't.

<comment><USER3> Actually, Republicans can be quite willing to cut the military, remember Dwight "military-industrial complex" Eisenhower, under who it was cut after the Korean War wound down, and you could make a case that the current sequester is cutting the budget. It's very very hard to analyze, because you have to factor in wars, especially ones we did not exactly choose to fight (e.g. Korean), and weapons procurement. E.g. however bogus the F-35 is, or the premature cut of manufacturing the F-22 was, one way or another we'd be spending a lot of money right now replacing the tactical airplanes we started building in the '70s (especially since the F-15A through D models were improperly manufactured: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Structural_defects))

And I see no signs the establishment GOP is truly interested in cutting "medicare/Medicaid/welfare", however much they might talk about cutting the latter two. Heck, they can't even bring themselves to terminate with extreme prejudice the National Endowment for the Arts.

<comment><USER5> I'd argue that this was a very, very different brand of republicans you had then compared to the current breed, which seems to lack any rationality, whatsoever.

<comment><USER6> Eisenhower was a republican before the conservative military hawks entered the republican demographic (resulting after Nixon's Southern Strategy[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy\])) so they were the progressive and liberal republican party. More closely linked to a libertarian ideology of the time and would be likened by most modern liberal democrats.

<comment><USER3> It's not that simple. E.g. how would you score Teddy Roosevelt, who was both a progressive _and_ a "conservative military hawk". Vs. William Howard Taft, who per Wikipedia had a "domestic agenda [that] emphasized trust-busting, civil service reform, strengthening the Interstate Commerce Commission, improving the performance of the postal service, and passage of the Sixteenth Amendment" (income tax) but had a less bellicose foreign policy?

I actually don't know much about that period of US history, but certainly Goldwater counts for both a "conservative" military hawk and a libertarian. And domestically Nixon was quite liberal.

Basically, there's been "liberal" and "conservative" strands in Republican party history for more than a century, continuing to this day. Things don't map out in simple ways, e.g. the first post-Snowden House vote on those issues didn't split along _any_ recognizable patterns I could discern, party, region of the country, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The absurd example in the second paragraph put me off, so I didn't really find it in me to read the argument thoroughly. But if the premise is that a single man can "come up with an idea" and magically produce an _ipod_ with comparable personal effort, and no reliance of a third world factory economy -- as an author can come up with a book -- then I don't think the author of the article has the required connection to reality to discuss economics at all.

Earlier today I came across this, which may (or may not) be an interesting counter-point -- or at least make a meta-point: "Exposing the false prophets of social transformation": [https://opendemocracy.net/transformation/nicole- aschoff/expo...](https://opendemocracy.net/transformation/nicole- aschoff/exposing-false-prophets-of-social-transformation)

<comment><USER3> Did the iPod _require_ a "third world factory economy", or was that merely the best way to make it when it was developed?

Go back to the original Apple II and subsequent products, they were per memory and Wikipedia all made in the US until the late 1990s. The IBM PC was originally manufactured by SCI Systems in Huntsville, Alabama.

<comment><USER8> Woohoo -- thanks for calling out my previous employer, which also built Macs for a good while (in Colorado).

What a lot of folks don't seem to understand about "third world factory economies" is that the prototyping and initial product runs are still frequently done in the west. Some EMS companies, like Flex, even have hardware incubators in Silicon Valley (google "Lab IX" sometime); all of them offer JDM & ODM services, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A large number (majority?) of people who are proponents for american-style capitalism, advocating for less government intervention, are from big universities around the U.S, and will often earn a relatively high wage. Although it's very hard to quantify, I feel as though these people are very disassociated from the everyday life the claim to be studying. If you live near Harvard earning ~300k a year, how easy is it to imagine (pretend?) that everything is fine and that the skewed income distribution is actually a positive thing. Boiled down - can people who are part of such a skewed system really produce unbiased studies and theories about the system?

They back up their claims with various arguments as to the nature of the average consumer and echoes and remnants of trickle-down economics theories.

Why don't people instead look at the actual world for more accurate evidence? The U.S. is a pioneer of creating highly divided cultures, with the top 1% earning ridiculous amounts of money and living in relative luxury, while having a very large population of people struggling to make ends meet, or even get healthcare due to the associated costs.

At the same time, countries exercising a highly socialistic economic policy (welfare countries), such as the Nordics and Germany to some extent have a far higher "average" quality of life, as well as (arguably) a happier population. Being a taxi driver in Norway or Denmark doesn't mean you live in near-poverty and have to work 80 hours a week to make ends meet.

While I'll try to not get into details of economic theory, and so forth, one question that has always irked me is the following:

Does the evidence not speak for itself? In what country has pure capitalism (or at least as close as we can get), actually worked to produce a happy and harmonious society?

<comment><USER10> Wow lots of strawmen here.

"A large number (majority?) of people who are proponents for american-style capitalism, advocating for less government intervention, are from big universities around the U.S"

Source? So what?

"Boiled down - can people who are part of such a skewed system really produce unbiased studies and theories about the system?"

Can people who are part of the lower earning rung of society give a unbiased opinion of the system?

"Does the evidence not speak for itself? In what country has pure capitalism (or at least as close as we can get), actually worked to produce a happy and harmonious society?"

Yes the evidence does speak for itself. Capitalism worked out pretty great for much of Western Civilization. Everywhere where more socialist approaches were tried it failed. Just ask all soviet countries', Japan, East Germany, China etc. citizens if they are happy.

America is not for nothing the land of opportunity, and it is not for nothing that emigrants are flocking to the USA, Europe and Australia.

Unfortunately the soviets discovered you cannot have a classless society. It is that drive to elevate yourself to a higher class that makes us want to achieve more than the absolute minimum required effort.

<comment><USER11> Creative quoting on your part but let's not pretend he was talking about communism. It stated pretty clearly [countries with] "highly socialistic economic policy (welfare countries)". All the mentioned countries are successfull capitalistic countries with better safeguards and policies.

<comment><USER12> Well, in Germany we call the system we're using 'social market economy' and it does not aspire to be pure capitalism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This article seems to argue "Taxing the rich leads to reduced growth and therefore all of society is worse off for it." That every extra $1 the rich makes leads to a economy wide increase in $1.10. If this were true we would want to reduce taxation levels of the rich considerably. And we would expect inequality to be associated with very strong growth.

Luckily we don't have to just speculate. The IMF has done in-depth research on this topic. And they found found that not only is growth not associated with inequality, but there is evidence inequality actually leads to lower growth rates.[0]

[0][https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf](https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf)

<comment><USER14> You know when even the IMF is recommending we tax the rich more, there's probably something to the idea...

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The trouble is not that inequality exists -- I think, that some form is necessary in our world -- but that the inequality is increasing in a rapid rate and that in the current state of our society, not achievements where the society benefits are rewarded by the system, but rather achievements where society looses (e.g. speculations, pure possession of wealth, investing -- whatever frivolous it might be, omitting taxes by using legal holes and off- shore trickery, ....)

Even Buffett spoke out, that his class wins, but it should not (for the good of society). And he said, that something is wrong, when his secretary has to pay a much higher tax-rate as himself.

<comment><USER16> > Even Buffett spoke out, that his class wins, but it should not (for the good > of society). And he said, that something is wrong, when his secretary has to > pay a much higher tax-rate as himself.

Did you read the article? Mankiw noted that when CBO statistics are used, taking into account _all_ taxation, not just income taxes, the United States have a very progressive tax system.

<comment><USER17> On paper.

In reality, there are many loopholes (the more money involved, the more fully legal loopholes)

<comment><USER16> No, the CBO study looked at the actual dollars coming from people; as Prof. Mankiw notes, while there might be invididual exceptions the overall figures are as stated.

<comment><USER15> So, your claim is, that Buffett does not know how much taxes he pays? If this would be true, I would wonder, how he got all his money in the first place.

>the United States have a very progressive tax system

Compared to which system? The system of Sweden or of Uruguay? You of course can find dozens of third world countries, with dysfunctional tax system.

I guess, they are similar studies as can be bought (in dozens) in the country, I live in.

<comment><USER16> > So, your claim is, that Buffett does not know how much taxes he pays?

No, Prof. Mankiw's claim is that Mr. Buffett did not include all taxes in that statement.

> > the United States have a very progressive tax system

> Compared to which system?

In absolute terms, according to the CBO's figures. The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office, and is widely reputed to be honest.

<comment><USER15> "In absolute terms" \-- you currently know, that there are more underdeveloped countries in the world than so called "first world" countries? And when you also count in countries like Russia than you get a feeling, what is compared to.

Once, the US prided itself to be the most developed nation, today it must compare itself with Uganda and other countries.

Compare tax rates of today with those after the 2nd WW -- the era, where the US flourished most. Today, only the banks of the US are flourishing. When you are no banker and earn below 7 figures a year, you should start to think.

The sentence about "honesty" I will not comment!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Be advised that the most relevant credential for this author is that he was the top economic advisor to the administration of George W. Bush. Defending the 1% is literally what he does for a living.

</comment><comment><USER19> I could not finish reading this. The paper started with examples of entrepreneurial success that depend heavily upon government regulation; namely the artificial scarcity generated from copyright and patents.

Also the statement "These high earners have made significant economic contributions...", which is an axiom I am not willing to accept without some convincing argument.

I found it impossible to read a paper that started dense with immature postulations and grandiose assumptions. The author should have been aware of the political climate of such a paper and attempted some care of his argument: At the very least admit to the reader that he's making ridiculous assumptions, but the argument will reveal itself with more reading.

</comment><comment><USER20> Oh.. I thought he was going to go on an argument that we need to implement basic income as a method for improving efficiency when his second paragraph included an author who put herself into the one percent by being creative and making a product while being unemployed and on socialist welfare and that by removing a lot of what is effectively the "chaff" of the capitalist workforce the workforce that wants to be part of the workforce improves overall.

I guess since he also included an businessman known for his abhorrent disdain for socialism that he flippantly crams his vehicles into spots designated for people with disabilities, I should have realized the final outcome would be an argument that extreme wealth creates utilitarianism and is more efficient then trying to broaden wealth.

Reminds me of the decay of the Roman empire in the 400's and how the rich started abstaining from the government and society that tried to represent and assist everyone to create micro-communities in their villas and start up the process of feudalism. What shall we call our new era of a society that is now 90% capital deprived and rising? Feudalism 2.0? Feudl.ism? Feu.dl?

</comment><comment><USER21> This guy's a professor of economics at Harvard?! ...Actually that explains a lot.

<comment><USER22> Yeah, I was thinking that too... it is really well written, it makes compelling and nuanced arguments and it sets a nice thought framework for the debate. This is really an excellent piece, no wonder he's an econ professor at one of the most prestigious university in the world, that guy is brilliant.

<comment><USER23> Either you way over did the sarcasm or you and I are reading totally different articles. This thing is full of undefended assertions and logical holes. The thought experiment it opened with is so simplistic that it does little beyond revealing the author's bias and assumptions. Assumptions that are absurdly disconnected from reality (such as all voluntary transactions make both people's lives better).

<comment><USER22> I genuinely think it's a great piece, no sarcasm intended (though I obviously playfully ignored the fact that the OP was implying the opposite)

Experiments in general are meant to be simplistic. The goal is to remove as many confounding factors as possible to isolate a single phenomenon and study it.

From there, he builds up to a more realistic model by incorporating more and more factors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Inequality of opportunity is a much bigger problem than inequality of, say, income. An ideal community is a place where every individual's contributions are enabled to the maximum. Capitalistic economies start out that way for a while, and then lock in opportunities to the people who need them the least. Guarantee education, and basic livelihood and the community reaps the benefits.

</comment><comment><USER25> A few years ago some of his own students staged a walkout of his lectures because of his innate desire to laud the American oligarchs:

[http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/2/mankiw- walkout-e...](http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/11/2/mankiw-walkout- economics-10/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Please mark as pdf.

<comment><USER27> No kidding. I never really pay attention to links on HN because I tend to trust the community. I clicked on this one and a PDF started downloading to my horror. I immediately nuked it from my download folder.

[http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability- list/vendor_id-53/pr...](http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability- list/vendor_id-53/product_id-497/Adobe-Acrobat-Reader.html)</comment></comment>


Announcing NGINX Plus R10 - <AUTHOR> https://www.nginx.com/blog/nginx-plus-r10-released/ <comment><USER2> Is it free?

<comment><USER3> To my knowledge, NGINX PLUS is not free, only the base NGINX package is free.</comment></comment>


AWS Aurora with PostgreSQL compatibility: Preview now open to all - d-jones https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2017/04/announcing-open-preview-of-amazon-aurora-with-postgresql-compatibility/ <comment> d-jones Aurora with PostgreSQL support looks really promising. Has anyone had any experience with it from the limited preview? Would love to hear how it went.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Their Summit keynote positioned this as an Oracle killer.

I'm on board if they've worked the data losing kinks out of their migration service.</comment>


Google, Facebook: "do not track" bill a threat to California economy - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/#!/tech-policy/news/2011/05/google-facebook-fight-california-do-not-track-law.ars <comment><USER2> I'm of two minds about this. I want my browsing habits to be a closed book to _everyone_ , period, and I doubt I have the necessary technical savvy to achieve that goal. I'd therefore love to dump the responsibility on the government, and damn the consequences to the California economy.

I am afraid, though, that letting the government get a regulatory foot in the internet's door will send me out of the frying pan and into the fire, privacy- wise.

<comment><USER3> Why is that (that you want your browsing habits closed)? Would you expect your flying habits to be closed as well? Every business keeps a record of their customer, why do we attribute special derision to the same thing happening online? The perceived anonymity?

<comment><USER2> The short answer: I don't fly anywhere to look at porn.

The long answer:

There are laws that tell the airlines and the railroads to whom they are not allowed to sell information on my travel habits. Restrictive ones. There are certainly laws against wireless companies selling information on my whereabouts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Second, the letter points out that the four leading Web browsers—Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, and Google Chrome—already offer various means of preventing advertising companies from tracking users._

Perhaps I'm wrong, and please correct me if I am, but I don't think this is true -- is it? I thought that features like Private Browsing (Safari) and Incognito (Chrome) only prevented the browser from recording page and search history (or using form autofills) on your local machine. This is the first I've heard that it affects user tracking by advertisers in any way, shape or form.

EDIT: And the more I think of it, the stupider this "solution" becomes -- basically, they're asking users to forego recording their own browsing history to avoid being tracked! Well, where do I sign up?

<comment><USER5> They also don't store regular cookies. But that doesn't prevent other techniques such as evercookie to track the user.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I found the most interesting part of this article the following quote: "... and would make them more vulnerable to security threats." Allowing users to opt out of tracking _increases_ their security threat? I'd like to see more detail on this.

<comment><USER7> Sites such as a banking site, track user location to help determine whether it's actually you logging in, or some account phisher overseas.

Allowing users to opt-out of such tracking would make those sites less secure.

<comment><USER8> or it might make it more secure by opt-in to being tracked where you are accessing it from.

<comment><USER7> Can you try rewording this? As I'm having zero luck trying to figure out what you meant to say. :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "... and would make them more vulnerable to security threats."

This claim has nothing behind it. Is it just FUD? If not, what's the argument?

<comment><USER3> Fraud identification becomes much harder. Gmail, for example, logs which IPs you log in from and warns (locks out?) if the timing of log in locations is suspicious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> They are absolutely right. And last time I checked the internet was global and not micromanaged on state level.

<comment><USER3> That era is slipping away. More and more the internet is becoming like everything else; controlled by people who's job security depends on having something to crow about.

There are already several means of stopping tracking: clearing your cookies and cache, using private mode, not visiting the sites that record this information.

<comment><USER11> _clearing your cookies and cache, using private mode, not visiting the sites that record this information_

I don't necessarily support this bill, but those methods are not nearly sufficient.

<comment><USER12> "not visiting the sites that record this information"

is, in fact, perfectly sufficient

I have to run, so: @falconas: of course this is a sacrifice. But if sufficient people feel similarly, over time, one would expect companies to act accordingly.

@nobody_nowhere: damn, I totally forgot about cdns. But I can't imagine cdn contracts allow the cdn to use visit information from clients... or do they?

<comment><USER13> Let's pretend, for a minute, that you did not want Google to have your surfing habits. How many sites would you have to avoid in order to prevent them from getting any whiff of your information?

I believe that "any site which uses adwords, google analytics or links youtube videos, or ..." is a good definition of insufficient.

<comment><USER10> Google offer opt-outs for their stuff.

Bu that's not the point, the point is that if people are really that concerned about internet privacy they could install privacy software the same as with parental control software so their is no need to pile more restrictive innovation stifling laws.

<comment><USER13> Privacy software doesn't help when your information is directly sold to the highest bidder (which can be the government, see the latest TomTom kerfuffle).

There are technical steps we can take to minimize our publicly available footprint on the internet, but there's no way to completely control it, short of oversight on the corporations that mine our data.

Perhaps this is lack of imagination on my part, but how does offering people the ability to opt out of invasive data collection stifle innovation? Sure, it's another hurdle for any company to overcome (one amongst thousands, if you run a for-profit site), but it doesn't stop new software from coming about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why pile new laws? if people are really that concerned about internet privacy they could install privacy software, the same as with parental control software.

There is no market failure to justify new regulations and advertising is what pays for the internet, new laws will just increase the barrier to entry and stifle innovation as everyone will need their lawyers present before launching anything.

Also this do-not-track concept doesn't make much sense, with phone marketing people didn't get anything in return here they get free content.

</comment><comment><USER14> Unless the bill prohibits loyalty cards at VONS, too, this is just old business astro-turfing against internet businesses.

<comment><USER15> Loyalty cards at VONS are opt-in. Which means you, the consumer, have to sign up for the card, and then choose to use it when you make a purchase. This law is targeted against the equivalent of walking into a store, someone putting a tag on you, and tracking what you do now, and forever after you leave the store, _without your knowledge_.</comment></comment>