One Man's Quest to Rid Wikipedia of Exactly One Grammatical Mistake - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/backchannel/meet-the-ultimate-wikignome-10508842caad <comment><USER2> I looked this up, because I was confused about what authority deemed this part of the English language a "grammatical mistake". Meriam Webster notes

>Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.

So it's not even an issue of grammar, it's just a meaning of "comprised" that some people reject. And it's a usage which is clear, widely used, and doesn't have logical issues (like "could care less"). Go figure.

<comment><USER3> It's yet another fight between prescriptivists and descriptivists over what defines correct language usage. English is full of examples where incorrect usage became pervasive enough to become accepted as correct. But some people fight that process because they don't like that the language changes as a result of people using it ignorantly.

For me, it really comes down to how you view the purpose of language. If the purpose is to convey meaning as accurately as possible, then these changes devalue the language since the usages that result from ignorant speakers are, by nature, less precise. The oft-cited "begging the question" has a very precise meaning that's difficult to convey in other terms. When ignorant usage widens the meaning, we lose the ability to easily refer to the more narrow meaning.

On the other hand, you can view language as a shared cultural identity that's always shifting and evolving organically. In that light, these minutiae are pointless because the majority of speakers don't understand the subtlety and never will. You can try to educate people, but you'll just end up alienating them. As humans, we're evolved to learn language from our environment and the people who talk to us, not from a textbook. So why would we consider the textbook version to be the canonical version?

These two viewpoints are diametrically opposed and yet are both reasonable and there are many well-educated people on both sides.

<comment><USER4> I have to say I find myself on both. In general I find the descriptive view of language to be far more flexible, pragmatic, and realistic. But certain phrases such as "all intensive purposes" evoke such a strong response from my gut that I just cannot abide it.

<comment><USER5> Are people defending "all intensive purposes"? I think descriptivists get a bad rap sometimes for "anything goes" but that's not true either. All intensive purposes is clearly a mistake.

<comment><USER6> "Intensive purposes" (and "intense and purposes") is an eggcorn, so it's started the long walk to acceptance.

[http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/32/intensive- purposes/](http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/32/intensive-purposes/)

Edit: this is a nice article about it [http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/23/magazine/on-language- retur...](http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/23/magazine/on-language-return-of- the-mondegreens.html)

<comment><USER5> Do eggcorns inevitably become standard usage? Usually the replacement has some advantage, but here the original phrase is neither awkward not obtuse, and it makes more sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > About 8 million English Wikipedia articles are visited every hour, yet only > a tiny fraction of readers click the 'edit' button in the top right corner > of every page. And only 30,000 or so people make at least five edits per > month to the quickly growing site.

You know, I used to make edits all the time. I stopped doing it because _every single one_ was reverted. I'm willing to accept that maybe a few of the edits were possibly incorrect, but I know for sure most of them were correct. And yet the "owners" of the page are so uppity that they revert them anyway, so I gave up.

<comment><USER8> What kind of edits did you make? I fix grammar and spelling stuff semi- regularly, along with sometimes more substantial edits, and haven't had that experience. Fairly often when I fix a typo, the author whose typo I'm fixing even clicks the "thank" button next to the edit. I recently had a minor hobby of tracking down a/an mixups, like "an member", and I got no flak for that.

<comment><USER9> Spelling, minor grammar errors, and graffiti is all I'll fix nowadays. I won't bother rewriting awkward sentences or the commonly encountered repetition of the same facts in different paragraphs. I sure as hell won't add new content. That consumes too much of my time for something that will likely be reverted by a pedant who can't stand for their precious to be touched by someone else.

<comment><USER10> The problem with that approach is that if everyone does this, Wikipedia will be dominated by pedants who discourage everyone else from contributing.

Wikipedia is a unique resource, it is everyone's resource, we can't afford to lose it like this. Of course, given the scale of the project, some time has to be sunk in the unpleasant task of dealing with users who don't understand how the project works. It will be problematic if no one has the courage to do this any longer...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > "He has, like, 15,000 edits, and he's done almost nothing except fix the > incorrect use of 'comprised of' in articles."

Oh man, truly that is God's work. It's likely too late, but it would be nice to save "to comprise" as a distinctive word with its own shades of meaning and differing usage from "to be composed of". Should one become a perfect synonym for the other the English language will have suffered a loss.

<comment><USER12> "to comprise" is distinct from "to be composed of", because the latter is actually "to be", with a past participial phrasal verb.

"to be comprised of", on the other hand, is not distinct from "to be composed of".

<comment><USER11> > "to comprise" is distinct from "to be composed of", because the latter is > actually "to be", with a past participial phrasal verb.

This is like writing that the company "Apple" is distinct from "John Deer" because one name consists of one word and the other of two, in that it's both true and beside the point.

I don't think that fact had escaped anyone, and they are distinct for more reasons than one being a verb and the other being a verb phrase.

> "to be comprised of", on the other hand, is not distinct from "to be > composed of".

The people choosing the former over the latter—to whom we are clearly deferring if we accept the spirit of your statement, which I take to be that one may be replaced with the other in a sentence with exactly no modification of meaning—seem to believe they are not quite the same. If I may venture a guess: they think the former is a smarter or more formal but _otherwise_ perfectly identical version of the latter. Still, that is a difference not without significance, and one I trust you did not intend to dismiss.

Further, they differ in a way that the people committing the (if I may) error do not anticipate: to a good portion of those who understand how to use "to comprise" in the ordinary fashion, its use in this manner is a sign of poor writing, of the sort a well-intentioned but inexperienced high school student might produce. This is the exact opposite of what is intended in the typical case, I expect.

(Apologies in advance for any grammatical, word usage, or spelling mistakes I have undoubtably made, to preempt posts about that.)

<comment><USER12> Note that "to comprise" means both "to contain" and "to constitute". These meanings are exact opposites.

<comment><USER11> A good point. I'd say it's more that the relationship expressed by the verb may go either from subject to object or object to subject, depending on context, and with a subtly different meaning depending on which direction it goes. I certainly don't see it as its own antonym—either way, it means some sort of inclusivity.

It's a really useful and economical word, which is why I'd hate to see it fall (even farther) out of use owing to fears that it will confuse the "to be comprised of" crowd.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Obligatory xkcd: [http://xkcd.com/1108/](http://xkcd.com/1108/)

Age old argument of whether grammar is prescriptive or descriptive [1]. Anyone who has seen or read Shakespeare should be aware of how English has changed in the last few hundred years. Go back 1000 years and Old English would be utterly unintelligible to any modern English speaker.

Often I encounter people who get a bee in their bonnet about using nouns as verbs or people who are too persnickety about "less" and "fewer". Or the New York Times getting a bug up its posterior about "tweet" [2].

I find the effort some people, including the "comprised of" guy here, spend on this kind of thing somewhat bizarre and a little sad.

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

[2]: [http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/the- tweet-...](http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/the-tweet- debate/)

<comment><USER14> I'm of the ilk that grammar should for the most part be prescriptive while dictionaries should be descriptive. And this is actually not a grammatical problem but a semantic one.

"The book is composed of many pages" "The book is comprised of many pages"

If one of these is incorrect, it can only be because of the meaning of the adjective phrase "comprised of". The actual structure of the sentence is fine.

In my opinion, I think either one is totally acceptable, as long as the meaning is clear.

<comment><USER15> Doesn't work in english which doesn't have a regular grammar in the same way latin does

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The mistake:

>Although "comprise" is used primarily to mean "to include," it is also often stretched to mean "is made up of"—a meaning that some critics object to. The most cautious route is to avoid using "of" after any form of "comprise" and substitute "is composed of" in sentences like this: "Jimmy's paper on Marxism was composed entirely of sentences copied off the Marx Brothers Home Page."

>There's a lot of disagreement about the proper use of "comprise," but most authorities agree that the whole comprises the parts: "Our pets comprise one dog, two cats, and a turtle." The whole comes first, then "comprise" followed by the parts. But there's so much confusion surrounding the usage of this word that it may be better to avoid it altogether.

[http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/comprised.html](http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/comprised.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> Language is comprised of rules that change over time. If everyone understands a sentence, how can it be incorrect? I suppose I'm just confused by crusades like this.

<comment><USER18> You're right, of course, but it would be nice if "comprise" didn't have to have two opposite meanings.

<comment><USER19> "comprise" would be currently going through a transposition of meaning if English was an oral language. This should be perfectly fine and English would be the richer for it, i.e. we'd have a new useful way of 'aggrandizing a sentence' (as he mentions as a negative in his 6,000 word essay). Instead the 'hero' of this article is contributing to the fossilization and stagnation of the English language, making his case by appealing to etymology and notions of logicity [1] and precision more suited to a formal grammar. He specifically calls out its' novel usage (post 1970!) as being a negative.

I think his efforts are generally good, in so far as the phrase 'comprised of' might be a good signal that a new wikipedia contributer is trying to aggrandize their contributions over and above their knowledge, but I think he is misguided in dictating how language aught to be used.

[1] made up word, perfectly understandable

<comment><USER20> Oral language does not require as large of a vocabulary. You can color the meaning of any spoken word by intonation and diction. If, for instance, you chose to speak only the word "dude", you could probably still make yourself understood to any native speaker.

As English lacks punctuation modifiers for altering the context and intent of a written sentence, we accomplish that end through an expanded lexicon, wherein several is more than a few and less than a buttload, despite each word representing an unspecified quantity.

English is far more likely to invent a new word, filch one from another tongue, or reuse a previously disused English word with a new sense or different part of speech, than it is to recalibrate the ordering of synonyms on a continuum of intent.

"Comprise" and "compose" are inverse terms. Using one when you mean the other initially generates confusion, and subsequently destroys the language model around composition. The whole comprises the parts, and the parts compose the whole. Passive voice is an inverting structure, so the whole is composed by the parts, and the parts are comprised by the whole. Include is a weaker form of comprise, without the implication of completeness (except in legal writing, where that implication is the default, and comprise is not generally used). But as the inverse of include is exclude, inclusion is more about membership in the set than about a level transition in the composition hierarchy. A league comprises teams, and a team comprises players. Yet a league does not comprise players; the league includes players. This is how we describe things precisely and concisely.

Oral use is much more forgiving of misuse, as it has error-correcting code in the form of context and intonation. Written use has a greater need for correctness, especially when such use is read by many, any of whom may repeat and propagate the error.

And I think parent post is incorrect. When you transpose or rotate the meaning of a word onto the meaning of an existing word, English is poorer for it. Once those meanings overlap, it is as difficult to separate them into different shades of meaning as it is to unlock gimbals. Also, "aught" is the shortened version of "naught", or zero, whereas "ought" is the synonym for "should" with a greater implication that the actor is obligated to perform, but not quite to the extent that he "must".

Logicity is perfectly cromulent, though someone should elucidate the conditionals for when it would be preferacious to logicality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I went on this crusade once, and it was completely unrewarding. I failed utterly to either stomp out the error I was targeting, or to piss anyone off.

The best way to enjoy Wikipedia is just to log out and read articles.

<comment><USER6> What did you try to change?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Filing this away in my memory for future reference. It will be interesting to see if one man can change the direction of a language, even in a small way.

Language is a fluid thing, and the phrase "comprised of" seems perfectly natural to me (and probably most people). Once something like that happens it's usually on the way to becoming grammatically correct, regardless of what the current grammar rules state.

<comment><USER23> 'Correct' because people favor an irregular usage is a weak form of correct. I favor the effort to try and keep the language regular. Following rules makes it easier to learn and teach.

<comment><USER24> Something that bothers me is the recent (past few hundred years) effort by (English speaking) humans to stop the development of the language. When did it stop being okay for the language to evolve? Isn't part of the beauty of it that it changes, that people use it differently, that words have new meanings?

<comment><USER25> That assumes that evolution is always good. It isn't.

Consider the recent acceptance of the ironic usage of "literally" to mean "figuratively". If it wins, there will no longer be as precise a word that means only "literally", and the English language will have suffered a loss.

I am all for the evolution of language where it creates new words, adopts and embraces portmanteaus, or embraces the use of easily intuited non-words into the common parlance, but not every change is an improvement, and where a non- improvement exists, it should be resisted.

<comment><USER5> Have we recently changed the definition of recent? You know how far back _literally_ meaning _not literally_ goes, right?

<comment><USER25> The Merriam Webser and Cambridge dictionaries began accepting the change as canon circa 2013.

I consider that recent, especially given its long history of misuse.

<comment><USER26> Perhaps Joe Biden being vice-president was the tipping point. He is an egregious violator, using 'literally' to amplify how much he means 'figuratively.'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Sadly there is just no way to prevent a language to evolve, even with an official language body. As a French speaker, they tried that with a very conservative body which is deciding what is good and what is wrong (Académie française).

The result is that the written language is now separated from the spoken language and both evolved separately. (that's also why the vocal recognition in French does not work well but that's another story). So the alternative is much worse than just accepting that the language is changing.

</comment><comment><USER28> I have a lot of sympathy with this guy and his hopeless quest. But when he says, "It's illogical for a word to mean two opposite things", surely he knows that never stopped anyone: [http://lee- phillips.org/literallyEgregious/](http://lee-phillips.org/literallyEgregious/)

</comment><comment><USER29> _> Henderson was born in Olympia, Washington, the middle child of a father who worked for the state government and a mother who taught math in middle school..._

Is it just me or do other people have this curious fascination with the manner in which reporters describe the obscure everyman subject? It's kind of a unique thing, when you think about it, boiling down an entire _person_ to a few superficial data points. It shares something with minimalist Eastern art, you know, the sort that uses like two brush strokes to represent a lion. And yet these reporter "brush strokes" inevitably seem far less descriptive than the art, and far less expressive of the reporter's "artistic" intentions--it's like there's an algorithm somewhere that generates these descriptions (perhaps described in a handbook of reporter style?).

</comment><comment><USER30> The article doesn't even properly explain the mistake. Though it's easy enough to look it up in a dictionary and see that the "of" is superfluous.

<comment><USER31> The user's wiki page does explain what is wrong with "comprised of": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giraffedata/comprised_of](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giraffedata/comprised_of)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This bizarrely obsessed gentleman is very wrong.

The alleged mistake is exemplified in the article like this:

> _The Wikipedia editorial community is comprised of many interesting people._

Supposedly, this should be "composed of" or "made up of".

However, that is incorrect. The verb "comprise" is simply being turned into a passive form according to an established pattern which generalizes over many, many English verbs:

        subject verb+tense object
        -->
        object "to be"+tense verb+pp preposition subject

For instance:

        A eats B       ->   B is eaten by A

        A includes B   ->   B is included by A

        A included B   ->   B was included by A

        A had included B -> B had been included by A

        A makes up B   ->   B is made up of A (composed)
                       ->   B is made up by A (invented, tidied)

Under this transformation, the preposition has to be suitably chosen to match the verb. It is related to its semantics. For instance "of" doesn't go with "include". And the "make up" example shows that multiple prepositions are possible, depending on the semantics.

To insist that we may not apply this pattern to "comprise" is a very bad case of prescriptivism. It's right up there with insisting that a diaeresis be used in writing words like cooperation, that sentences may not end with prepositions, or that infinitives may not be split.

 _Here is the real issue:_

In modern English, "to comprise" has two meanings which are _opposite_! It means both "to constitute" (be a part of some whole: to make up) and "to contain" (be a whole, containing something else: to be made up of). The passive construction "to be comprised of" applies to only one of these meanings. It does not work with the "contain" meaning, regardless of what preposition is chosen. For instance:

        This country comprises twenty states. (contains)

        * Twenty states are comprised {of, by} this country.

Whereas:

        Twenty states comprise this country. (constitute)

        This country is comprised of twenty states.

We cannot indiscriminately wage editorial war on "comprised of" based on the assumption "comprised" always means "contains"! "The Wikipedia editorial community is comprised of many interesting people" is simply the passive form of "many interesting people comprise (constitute, not contain!) the Wikipedia community".

<comment><USER32> If we applied the pattern to "to comprise" (which means, roughly, "to made up of exclusively"), then the sentence would be something like "Many interesting people are comprised by the Wikipedia editorial community" because the "A _active verb_ B" form is "The Wikipedia editorial community comprises many interesting people", so the "B _passive construction + preposition_ A" form would have to be "Many interesting people <appropriate form of "to be"> comprised <appropriate preposition> the Wikipedia editorial community".

<comment><USER12> I am not seeing the exact issue you're trying to explain, but let me attempt to write a correct sentence, and its passive reversal (allegedly incorrect):

"Interesting people comprise the majority of the Wikipedia editorial community."

"The majority of the Wikipedia editorial community is comprised of interesting people."

Note that, in modern usage, "to comprise" has two meanings: "to constitute" and "to be composed of". These meanings are opposite!

That is the reason for the contention. The "be comprised of" reversal only works for one of the meanings.

<comment><USER33> The problem dragonwriter was moving towards pointing out is that, for example, if the active voice version of a sentence is "John eats food", then the passive voice version would be "Food is eaten by John", not "Food is eaten of John". In the same way, active voice "Interesting people comprise the majority of the Wikipedia editorial community" would have passive voice analogue "The majority of the Wikipedia editorial community is comprised by interesting people", not "The majority of the Wikipedia editorial community is comprised of interesting people".

You claim that "B is made up of A" is a passive form of "A makes up B", the preposition being chosen to match the semantics. I think this is incorrect. The preposition used to introduce the agent in a passive construction is always "by"; "B is made up of A" is not the passive form of "A makes up B", but rather, the passive form of "__ makes up B of A" with agent omitted. Analogously, "The soup is made with love" is not the passive form of "Love makes the soup" but rather the passive form of "__ makes the soup with love".

(More examples: "Cereal is eaten with milk" is not the passive form of "Milk eats cereal", but rather, the passive form of "__ eats cereal with milk". "Tea is drunk at noon" corresponds to "__ drinks tea at noon", not "Noon drinks tea", and "Tea is drunk in the kitchen" corresponds to "__ drinks tea in the kitchen", not "The kitchen drinks tea". And, for examples using "of": "John was relieved of duty" is not the passive form of "Duty relieved John", but rather the passive form of "__ relieved John of duty", and "Lance was stripped of his medals" is not the passive form of "His medals stripped Lance", but rather the passive form of "__ stripped Lance of his medals". "The dreidel was made out of clay" is not the passive form of "Clay made the dreidel", but rather the passive form of "__ made the dreidel out of clay", just as "The dreidel was made out of clay by me" is the passive form of "I made the dreidel out of clay". Etc., etc.)

I would say this scuttles your claim that what is going on here is simply an active to passive voice switch, even though I think I am of a different mindset than dragonwriter as to the acceptability of the construction of interest (I'm perfectly fine with all the ways people find themselves naturally using "comprise", as I am in general a staunch descriptivist. I just happen to also think you've mis-described the syntax of the English passive voice construction.).

<comment><USER12> This topic tires me -> I'm tired of this topic. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I feel sorry for this editor now that these edits are known.

It'll be interesting to see if their edits start attracting reverts and discussion.

Perhaps someone with skills could do before and after charts of edits that stick and exits that got reverted?

</comment><comment><USER34> Yeah, well, I keep removing apostrophes from (most) plurals. It's a plague. Except I'm not proficient enough to make any software that could help me, so I do that only when I happen to stumble upon it, heh.

</comment><comment><USER35> Let's leave aside the current crop of folks who're still reclining in the easy insight of "there is no objective truth".

If you don't want to seem like an idiot, then don't write like an idiot just because recent descriptivist dictionaries were pleased to take note of the increasingly widespread misuse. You will be judged and you won't always have time to explain your principled write-like-an-idiot stance.

Unless you couldn't care less how you come off, because you already care the minimum possible amount.

</comment><comment><USER36> Am I the only one extremely bothered by the "By hand, manually. No tools!" line?

Read the article, tools everywhere!

"He begins by running a software program that he wrote himself"... "he used Google to find the 15,000 or so instances of the phrase"

Surely in the very, very beginning he was doing it "manually" but it seems he's built his own tools, and is blurring the lines between bot/human.

</comment><comment><USER37> We need a GNU Grammar Compiler for the entire English language. Then all we need to ask is, "Does it compile?"

</comment><comment><USER38> This looks very similar to a question I asked yesterday about enthuse :)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985364](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985364)

</comment><comment><USER39> It is pretty funny that if squash "it's" to "its" 100% of the time you get superhuman performance compared to average people.

</comment><comment><USER40> If Webster added an additional meaning of comprised to actually make this phrase grammatically correct, I wonder if his world would fall apart? ...

</comment><comment><USER41> reminded of the brilliant David Foster Wallace essay "Tense Present" which is THE BEST

[http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html](http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html)

</comment><comment><USER42> Why doesn't the wikipedia have a style guide to address language issues such as this?

</comment><comment><USER43> Are we looking at the next winner of the Ig Nobel prize for literature?

</comment><comment><USER44> Legally, he should be permitted to beat people with a crowbar if they protest his edits.

</comment><comment><USER45> On the one hand, it's dedication. On the other, it looks a little like Aspergers or something on the Autism Spectrum. The man is so strict in a routine that he wears the exact same clothes and follows the exact same schedule every day. He's obsessed with an incredibly minor detail to the point of making a life commitment to change it.

</comment><comment><USER46> One Man's Quest to ensure that his way is the only way. This illustrates a serious problem with Wikipedia.

It does not allow diversity of thought or opinion - here, it doesn't even allow natural evolution of language over time - if a "wikignome" has decided something is canonical for Wikipedia, then it is. No argument.

No matter how many people believe this is now acceptable usage, one person - typically one white man - has the right to _sanction_ every single one of them.

We are supposed to tell wikignomes that their work is valued ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiGnome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiGnome)). But I don't think this work should be valued.

<comment><USER47> Encyclopedias should be information, not opinion. Reality isn't democratic. Mind you an article such as the one on global warming or the global warming controversy does address the diversity of thought or opinion.

However, there is no good place to store controversy around the meta-structure of wikipedia: the grammar and phrases we use. Perhaps what we are missing is an article discussing the use of "comprised of".

There is an argument, both illustrated in the article and some comments here - and both those who argue for pedantry and laisez-faire have valid points.

<comment><USER6> Village Pump or Manual of Style would be the normal places for meta discussion of mass changes of "comprised of". If the editing is problematic it goes to ANI and then amybe RFC and eventually Arbcom.

Edit: and some Wikipedians really do like talking about this stuff. Look at hyphen, minus, en-dash, and em-dash for an example of discussions spread out over several article talk pages, several meta spaces, with some Arbcom action. There are easily 500,000 words just on different dashes.</comment></comment></comment>


Secret to Justin.tv's Recent Traffic Surge - <AUTHOR> http://petersnetpipe.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/secret-to-justintvs-recent-traffic-surge/

<comment><USER2> I really think that this is going to end up showcasing J.TV's biggest strength. Media companies have had a hard time doing live video streaming right.

The advantage of streaming live events like sports games, is that by the time the copyright owner is aware of what you're doing and sends to a cease and desist letter, the even has been over for weeks.

There's also a huge advantage in serving ads over live video streams: You control the video content that the ads are playing next to. The reason that advertising on online video hasn't taken off is because corporations really don't want to play their commercials next to a video of a teenager lighting a fart on fire. You can avoid that problem by streaming live.

Any thoughts on streaming live events like Startup School? I'm sure that you'd have tons of viewers. It'd be a great service to people on hacker news. And, I'm sure it would be great exposure for you. Just a thought.

</comment><comment><USER3> So? All the power to them.

If they're close to getting acquired, this could be a very good strategy, and could even be a catalyst for an acquisition altogether. This is a VERY nice end game move.

Those "big" lawsuits don't happen till normally later in the game. Those "big" lawsuits also take a very long time, and in the mean time traffic would continue to skyrocket (it already has past ustream.tv by far). I think this is definately a winning strategy, and predict the lawsuit will either A) never happen, or B) will happen far too late to put them out of business.

If jtv had started pimping out pirate traffic a year ago when they first started, things would be different. They're going to make bank off of this. Just watch.

<comment><USER4> So? The reason this kind of thing is a problem is ethics. The blog post this refers to made strong opinions on the ethics of this situation - negatively.

If the speculation that JTV guys are consciously allowing this to happen is true, then it is a failure of ethics and breaking of rules.

The attitude you reflect may win publicity but at the cost of ethics.

<comment><USER3> Hosting content that users submit, that is actually the property of massive media conglomerates, is not my idea of breaking ethics.

Look at myspace -> started as a full blown illegal spam operation. facebook -> supposedly started sending spam to get initial users and a stolen database. + privacy issues. slide -> "spammy as hell" apps, plus was recently caught posting fake reviews. youtube -> massive trademark infringement. microsoft -> don't even get me started.

The list goes on and on. I don't even consider posting up "baseball" games to be unethical at all. Look at Sean Parker. Would he of gotten in with the facebook crew early on if he had not founded Napster, which was just basically a user friendly warez app? He's doing quite well these days I'd imagine.

The majority of startups out there do some shifty stuff, especially in the early game, before new funding cycles, and end game. From purchasing Chinese traffic before a funding round to prop up growth, to spamming for initial users, to pirate content, there is a lot going on out there that you might not know about.

I'm not promoting unethical practices in anyway, just pointing out that pirated content is not especially gruesome as you make it out to be, and also point out how wide-spread such activities are.

About 99% of the people here would do the same thing in the same situation.

<comment><USER4> first you say its not your idea of breaking ethics, then you say how so many startups have (my word here) unscrupulous practices.

the fact that people are doing it does not make it ethically sound.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


DataStickies: USB drives as sticky notes - <AUTHOR> http://datastickies.com/ <comment><USER2> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Apparently adverts for products which don't exist and never will exist are also nearly indistinguishable from adverts for advanced technology.

<comment><USER3> i do not understand the negativity in here. literally the very first line of their copy is

> dataSTICKIES: A design concept conceptualised as graphene-based flash drives > that replace USB data drives.

i see this as an appealing visualisation of "if technology gave us storage materials of this form, how might we design a product based around it?", in much the same way that science fiction extrapolates tech advances and tries to imagine devices using them.

<comment><USER4> I don't think there's anything misleading here, but there's still something irritating about it. These people spend loads of time and money designing futuristic stuff and giving each other awards for it. In the meantime, we mere mortal engineers are wallowing in the pits of reality, solving actual problems like the plebs we were born to be. I know it sounds horribly bitter, but I really do sympathise with the negative responses to things like this.

<comment><USER5> "I don't think there's anything misleading here, but there's still something irritating about it. _These authors spend loads of time and money writing stories about the future, and giving each other awards for it_. In the meantime, we mere mortal engineers are wallowing in the pits of reality, solving actual problems like the plebs we were born to be. I know it sounds horribly bitter, but I really do sympathise with the negative responses to things like this."

<comment><USER4> But when I read Sci-Fi, I'm consuming:

\- The author's creativity and intelligence in extrapolating the technology's wider implications

\- A good story, including character development

\- Often some incredibly clever prose

\- Possibly, _as a very secondary thing_ , elements of "Hey, imagine if AI was complex enough to form human relationships!" (for example)

Here, I'm being offered the content of "Hey imagine if USB sticks were really cheap and you could just stick them on your computer like a post it!", but with the tone of "I created this thing: look how clever it is, here I am receiving an award for my ingenuity.

<comment><USER5> I understand where you're coming from; I get similarly annoyed when people that are not UX experts design UI mockups that look cool but have no consideration of usability, feasibility, maintainability, etc.

On the other hand, I love concept videos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ok so ignoring the fact that this relies on magic...

I think there is something to using physical locations to keep references to files. I can remember the shelf that I stored a notebook and the rough location in the notebook of a sketch for a project from 2005. I can't say the same about my filesystems even with the help of "cloud" services of more recent years.

Our brains are definitely wired to get clues from lots of context, and just sitting at a similarly layed out UI doesn't take advantage of that.

So drop the crazy magic... add rfid tags to the stickys ... replace the optical(??) strip thing with an rfid reader that just maps the stickies to my cloud files, and that might be relatively useful.... pretty sure rfids aren't quite disposable yet though.

<comment><USER7> I'm currently working on a project for uni that does something like this. It let's you "tag" items in the world. So, for example, I can leave a message on the painting on the wall. Next time I take a picture of that wall, it will show me my messages again. You could also use it to send messages to other people. "I left you a virtual message on the fridge." The other person walks up to the fridge, takes a picture, and gets the message. I think it has some interesting potential.

It's on github [1]. Though I haven't created any video or documentation yet.

[1] [https://github.com/Alexander- Dhoore/tagTheWorld](https://github.com/Alexander-Dhoore/tagTheWorld)

<comment><USER8> It is a very good idea. If the tags are visible and pleasing it might take off!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't get it. How the hell do i put this in my computer? The second image block implies not the usb port. And even if it were to be put there, i wouldn't want to put glue in there, and have no idea how a thin sheet of material is supposed to maintain contact. Maybe i need a special drive for it?

Note, i don't actually care for the answers at this point, just wanted to lay out for the guys who made the page how its very confusing and useful for getting me to want it.

Edit: So as it turns out that this is in fact a fake advertisement for a non- extant product i feel compelled to point out this irony: I assume some ad company or group made this in order to attract customers, likely because they have a hard time getting real customers. Now the ironic part is that my confusion when faced with it demonstrates perfectly why they have such difficulties.

<comment><USER10> With graphene + imagination you can do anything ... in your imagination.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for pointing out the obvious. I have too much faith in people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Obviously this isn't feasible right now (and probably won't ever be), but this is great out-of-the-box thinking.

I think it's super important to have creatives like designers and science fiction writers conjure a wonderful future as it is exciting and inspiring. Not all of it will make sense (flying cars anybody?), but it capture the imagination.

Full disclosure - I'm not a creative (I wish I was more creative), but just think it's important to have perspective

</comment><comment><USER12> I can see this being really handy in a small size for storing an album (25-50) worth of photos, a CD of music or a paper or presentation.

If they were cheap enough they would be nearly disposable. I can also see them having the same problem as disposable information storage.

Like their namesake, sticky-notes, they might be great for quickly storing an idea but terrible for retrieving them because they end up getting misplaced or lost among a big pile of paper.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why are so many people naysaying this? We have NFC, we have super slim (and super thin) consumer-accessible memory cards. The magnetism bit might be a little tricky (getting the object to stick to the data reading surface), but why is this so far-fetched? What they say aside (it seems that they are designers, not really engineers) -- saying this could never exist is an over- step

<comment><USER14> I agree. I really don't understand the negativity here, and it reminds me of the immature and close-minded lambasting that the 3Doodler received. It's very disappointing to see the HN community act this way.

The majority of the negativity seems to stem from it not being an existing product, which is a silly thing to be indignant about, especially considering the first two words on the page clearly state "design concept". Even if the optical transfer strip isn't feasible, there are certainly other options to transfer data in a similar fashion. To see such a large group of knowledgeable people completely disregard an idea for no legitimate reason is.. baffling, to say the least.

<comment><USER15> I believe I had a legitimate complaint about the 3doodler back then: the assholes were trying to patent it even though publically documented and dated prior art from years before they claimed to have started working on it existed. Said prior art had been around on various 3d printing and tech blogs and yet these disgusting people tried to rob the world of this toy by trying to patent it. This is not a matter of "this is a bad idea" it's a matter of them going "we made up this shit, everyone bow to us and there'll be hell to pay if anyone makes it without paying us ransom" even though it's not original.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> it unclear what these guys have to offer. If it's just the design, they just repeat the idea from 2011 ([1]). If they have a technology to produce these things, why don't they have a video demonstration of a prototype?

[1] [http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/flashkus/](http://www.artlebedev.com/everything/flashkus/)

</comment><comment><USER17> There's nothing to indicate that this is a real product. There's no information about availability, and given how everything is just a bunch of slides, I think this is more of a design exercise than a real product.

<comment><USER18> It looks like a particularly good design semester project, yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not to poke holes in the implementation but even one-wire requires two connection, [1]Data/Power [2] Ground. Even with their optical mumbo jumbo how the hell can they actually transfer data?

On one hand they talk about optical things, and then on the other hand they're talking about 'conductive'. Seriously? Regardless, you do not bypass the laws of physics. You need atleast a complete circuit for it to be powered. And if their cop-out is that it's got a super-micro-pico-tiny-high-density-capacitor then I'm not even going to bother poking holes anymore.

Well, there _is_ a way but it's pointlessly slow - inductive power.

The whole concept is quite flawed in my opinion [EDIT - unless their plan is to showcase a theoretical ultrathin USB flash drive.]

<comment><USER20> if the surface you stick it on is actually full of (conductive) dots:

      . . . . .
       . . . .
      . . . . .

and your sticky thing has two panels for data/ground with dimensions larger than the width between the dots then wherever you stick it you can be guaranteed of two separate connections

<comment><USER21> More like two connections plus a ton of short circuits...

<comment><USER20> I was anticipating a very smart connecting board that can determine two working connections and disable the others. I wasn't arguing it's completely viable but simply that it's not beyond the laws of physics as OP suggested :)

<comment><USER19> I'm sorry I don't understand your description. You said a grid of conductive dots right? You'd need two separate grids of dots if you're going to use one- wire. Would you superposition both grids? Then it would short. If you have one 'band' on top and one band below, then it's just a rail setup.

<comment><USER20> There's nothing special about ground, it's the same as a digital pin set to low (from an M/C perspective). You don't need to have two separate grids. Just try out combinations of pins as data/power and ground until you get a set that works and float (disconnect/set as input) the others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Can't say I've ever found a USB stick to be too large physically. Interesting concept, but I wonder if it's solving a problem that doesn't really exist and adding a required transfer surface along the way.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is bad science self-congratulatory wank.

Graphene organs, stick them to your face and let them compensate for your bad health via sound.

</comment><comment><USER24> Quite an elaborate trolling, this.

<comment><USER25> Hey, now they can add "Hacker News" to their "Buzz" page. Well done, everybody!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> As someone who tries to keep a clean desk, and actively dislikes having post- it's on her monitor bezel, this design exercise gives me the heebie-jeebies.

I actively leverage my dislike of visual clutter on my desk by putting things I don't want to do, but have to, on a post-it on the edge of my monitor. That photo of a bunch of these things cluttering up a monitor is just one big NOPE.

Personally I feel like the form factor of the USB drive is getting close to the bare minimum size as a physical token to put files on. They're small enough to embed in a wide array of whimsically-shaped objects.

Hell, take this magical "optical data transfer surface" and cover your desk in it; build these in small modules that an end user can put into ANYTHING. Put one in the bottom of that action figure you have on the desk, that cool traditional craft piece an ex sent back from their trip to Foreign Parts, whatever - if you want to replace USB drives, I feel like there's a much wider array of things sitting on your desk to put data into than post-its.

</comment><comment><USER27> A fantastic example of projecting our fears and anxieties...

(we all wait in fear of how powerful, potent or dense each new material technology can be)

(we all fear that our world is not easy or colorful enough)

(we all fear that we missed out on something profound and sweeping)

(we all fear that we're being lied to)

(we all fear that others will lie to the ones we love ( and that we'll have to fix their windows 8 at christmas ) )

</comment><comment><USER28> tl:dr; there is a surface (called ODTS) that you stick the drives to. The surface itself connects to your computer via USB, and its through _that_ the drives' content can be browsed.

Not a bad concept. I just fear that the adhesive might not last very long. Unless, if it uses another form of adhesion, such as magnets.

<comment><USER29> You could use Van Der Waal adhesion, like Gecko feet, we might as well throw it in. Although changing the adhesive will undermine the technology proposal, after all 'The special conductive adhesive that sticks the dataSTICKIES to the ODTS is the medium that transfers the data.'

It's both optical, and conducts data via some plastic adhesive. You can't say they haven't thought things through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I ordered some via Amazon Prime Air and am convinced they'll arrive by 2037.

</comment><comment><USER31> I know the general conception on here is this crap, but I disagree. I think a version of this is exactly where we are heading. It's useful, simple, minimalistic and I could definitely see all of my college colleagues keeping there most recent project on a data-sticky in their notebooks on the page with all the project notes. This concept is most definitely where we are headed. Development needs to be correct and something manufacturers build with congruity (like the USB standard), but a measure of this is most certainly going to happen.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is actually totally possible with qr codes.

(1) Print 100 qr code stickers that go to unique urls on a web service (2) web service serves "upload form" on first render (or enter url form, whatever the user wants to "save"). (3) web service redirects to file download (or url) on all subsequent visits, no longer allowing upload.

Sticky data you can put inside a book and retrieve later by scanning (or typing in the url, which was also printed on the sticker cause no one will actually use QR codes).

<comment><USER32> I actually built a business trying to sell these --- but couldn't explain the concept to anyone ... and slowly realized that not being able to explain a concept means it might not be such a hot concept.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> We have arrived at the future as predicted by Saturday Night Live.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q-BH8j06pM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q-BH8j06pM)

</comment><comment><USER34> And when the stickiness wears out, you're just out of luck?

</comment><comment><USER35> Ummm...hate to break the bad news, but floppy disks (and the rest of the removable storage ilk) was killed off years ago by the Cloud. Better luck next idea.

<comment><USER36> A quick transfer of data to someone where there are:

        Too many files to be cloud managed
        Business secrets you don't want on the cloud
        Files too big to quickly transfer

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Interesting concept, take it to the next level:

        Have a stack of "stickies" stuck to your monitor.
        Drag files to the "drive" or "stack of stickies".
        Files automatically go to the top "sticky" on the stack.
        Peel off top sticky and use.
        Drive IT at your office insane with all the frivolous unchecked data transfer. ;)

</comment><comment><USER37> Pretty sure unclean unmount potential just rose immensely. Whoops, the sticky note fell off… just lost data / corrupted my filesystem.

<comment><USER38> Why not use file system that can handle such misuse? Aren't there transactional file systems?

<comment><USER39> There is no transactional filesystem that works cross-platform. And even if, say, you stick to ntfs, no filesystem in the world can protect against data loss in the event of accidental disconnect.

<comment><USER38> > There is no transactional filesystem that works cross-platform Frankly I > don't see how this is a problem for a project that wants to implement 4GB > stick-it notes, doesn't seem to be the greatest challenge. > no filesystem > in the world can protect against data loss in the event of accidental > disconnect If note falls off and copying didn't finish, sure you'd expect to > lose data. Otherwise if cache is disabled there shouldn't be a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I know it's not real, but really, "finances 2013.xls"? You want to put all that data on a post-it note?!

<comment><USER41> Would dragging a huge hard drive around make you feel better? What's wrong with a sticky note?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Wow, this honestly seems like a terrible idea. Not only do I really not want to get glue everywhere (and also have them loose stickiness over time) but also they look very breakable? I don't understand why I would need that many flash drives either? Generally even now I only use one USB stick for my general stuff. I don't think I could write everything that was on my usb stick on a label like that.

They complain that usb ports are hard to get and instead we should add a sticky surface the transfers data to the bottom of our monitors? Why not just buy a monitor with a few usb ports on it if you really want that? It already exists and is far more useful as it can be used with the wide range of usb products that already exist (phone charger, mouse etc). I can see no advantages that this has over buying a usb stick (unless I'm missing something big?).

Here's my equally pointless take on modern data transfer. We all have phone that store our data. They connect via bluetooth when near to a computer (Much like wifi the first time it pairs with a computer you must enter a pin). It then acts like a usb data storage. And huzzah, never again will you have to reach down and plug something into a usb port! Huzzah, never again will you have all those issues with usb ports wearing out or your usb stick getting knocked out while you were in the middle of a presentation! Never again will you struggle with not knowing which way around a usb stick should go! (This is actually kind of useful I guess?). If they don't have bluetooth then you can just connect your phone with a usb wire (as you will be doing 99% of the time). I'm not sure if it's clear here but my point is that they seem to be solving a problem (and using magic to do so) but no one actually has that problem.

<comment><USER43> phones have seriously limited space. 16 or 32 gigabytes won't even hold one uncompressed movie that you need for work. With everything moving to remote servers, streaming etc, I don't see that changing sadly.

<comment><USER42> True but it's still more possible than this. You can actually buy SD cards with much more than 32 gigabytes. They are pretty rare though.

<comment><USER44> And expensive, and very easy to lose. I like how this kind of storage almost seems disposable.

<comment><USER42> Few people lose their phones and the problem is that my files are not disposable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Idea for improvement:

Add an e-ink display and show the contents of the "readme.md" located on the stick.

</comment><comment><USER46> Anyone who describes graphene as "paper thin" has no idea what they are talking about.

</comment><comment><USER47> cool! I haven't seen a visitor counter used in a really long time.

<comment><USER48> It's just counting requests too. I just added 45 to the count.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> You can already do something like this with smartcards (stick them on a reader/writer), although the data transfer rate and capacity is much lower...

</comment><comment><USER49> Cute.. that's about it. Good design execution and a concept idea.

also it would be great if they are chewable.. looks like pack of juicy fruit gum

</comment><comment><USER50> Is there any graphene prototype that suggests this could be sold in the near future (next couple years)?

<comment><USER51> I wasn't previously aware of it, but apparently non-volatile graphene storage is indeed a topic of research: [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl101902k](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl101902k) [http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn3059136](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn3059136) I would assume it's over a decade out, though.

<comment><USER50> Thanks, especially for the link to a paper that doesn't need payment. I'm looking forward to reading it over lunch!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> This is just a proof-of-concept, correct?

Well designed, but, don't they know USB sticks are on their way out?

<comment><USER53> It's proof that there is a concept.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> this is almost as bad as phonebloks

</comment><comment><USER55> Great, all the value of a USB drive with all the disposability of a Post-It note.

This is a waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER56> Bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER57> That's cute. Too bad it's not 2004 anymore.

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm really confused...

</comment><comment><USER39> Even though the concept as shown is impossible right now, you can make a USB flash drive that's under a mm thick. Then just glue some paper to one side and you're practically done.

<comment><USER59> The bit that I liked in the OA was the way you could mount the data sticky by popping it on the bottom bezel of the computer like a fridge magnet. I imagine wifi and some processing capacity in the sticky, perhaps power over radio from the PC?

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> anyone who finds usb sticks cumbersome must have the motor skills of a walrus

<comment><USER61> It's not that they are cumbersome, it's the cost. Currently you would be hard pressed to find USB sticks in bulk for less than $1, $1.50. Retail is much more. They are not disposable yet. It's too bad this product is vaporware. 2 gb (even 512 mb) disposable USB's would be great.

<comment><USER62> Great for what?</comment></comment></comment>


Which frontend framework do you chose? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
I'm a master student doing my dissertation on frontend web frameworks (like bootstrap), and was wondering if you could answer the following questions. first what criteria would you would use to chose a framework, and secondly which framework you chose?
thank's for the reply <comment><USER2> The lazier it allows me to be the better. Bootstrap is a good bet because you can Google really stupid things and it comes up with trivial code snippets and examples.</comment>


Lockitron (YC S09) Lets You Unlock Your Door With Your Phone - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/13/lockitron-lets-you-unlock-your-door-with-your-phone/ <comment><USER2> I love the idea, but I don't think I could trust myself with it. Generally my phone will still have a healthy chunk of battery left at the end of the day, but fairly often, if I'm out of town for a day for meetings or whatever, by the time I'm back home I will have spent so much time on calls that it will have completely drained my battery.

One feature I'd love to see is connecting it with the doorbell, then I would forget about my battery worries and go straight for it. Would come in occasional use for if someone you're happy to let in arrives while you are out, but would also be great for day-to-day use. They press the buzzer, you get a phone call to talk to them followed by the option to let them in or not. (Where I live right now, my office is two floors up, it's pretty rare that I can hear anyone at the door.)

edit: The FAQ page is a bit vague about international orders due to "latency issues", any chance of some expansion on that? To my mind, a long distance (say, UK to California) is adding less than a second of latency, and I wouldn't have any problem if the door took a couple of seconds to unlock. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the problem latency causes?

<comment><USER3> Stash an extra charger cable outdoors? I wonder if that could eventually be worked into the product somehow; i.e. a DC current where there's a recessed spot for an adapter...

<comment><USER4> Hm, but phones still break a fair amount more often than keys...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Neat idea, but it seems to me that you absolutely must hide the backup key on your property for this to be safe. There are way too many points of failure between the phone and lock.

Why not have the phone talk to the lock through the local wifi? Or put a wifi/bluetooth radio right in the lock? That should be more dependable and faster. Is that what you are talking about here?

 _"if you would like to access Lockitron only via your local network, then we welcome you to flash your base-station with a new image that gives you full access to develop as you see fit (coming soon)"_

Or, you could communicate via QR code on the screen, using a camera in the door (that doubles as a remote peephole).

Or, you could encode the data as high-frequency sound and use the speaker/mic for two-way comm.

There are all sorts of possibilities that beat going over the internet.

<comment><USER6> >>Why not have the phone talk to the lock through the local wifi?

The easy way to do this was susceptible to a number of different attacks so we disabled it. The hard way is being sorted out.

>>Is that what you are talking about here?

Sort of. If you buy the equipment, it's yours to hack...this includes expanding functionality to support eccentric authentication mechanisms. I'll post some stuff to our blog in the coming weeks to give you an idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Really killer for things like providing access to Airbnb guests without having to be there.

<comment><USER8> They should add a keypad as well for people without a phone. Keypad code gets set automatically for each Airbnb guest and expires automatically. This of course requies the Airbnb space to have an internet connection.

<comment><USER9> How many Airbnb users do you expect to not own a mobile phone?

<comment><USER10> I often don't have a mobile or mobile number when I enter a foreign country.

<comment><USER11> We don't have the perfect solution to this yet, but we've been mulling the idea of key code locks for a while.

Current users who encounter this usually find some way to unlock their door for their guests after a phone call, leaving keys inside. The prevalence of affordable prepaid phones is helping to alleviate this issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > While the Lockitron locks do accept traditional keys, the main advantage of > using the same technology as found in car key fobs to open your front door > is that everything is in the cloud (your data is encrypted).

> main advantage [...] is that everything is in the cloud (your data is > encrypted).

What? Someone is trying to feed me buzzword soup again.

<comment><USER13> Buzzword soup yes, but it's oversalted (once again).

I fail to see any advantage in having my front door "keys" stored in the "cloud".

<comment><USER14> The advantage is that (theoretically) you can't lose them, you can grant and revoke access permissions at will based on time limitations and you can share them very easily. See other comments on the thread about airbnb for example.

<comment><USER2> Really you could have that benefit without using remote servers at all, just run a local server at home. After all, if your home connection dies, your door can't be unlocked by 'the cloud' either.

<comment><USER14> That's true - but you probably don't grind your own flour, service your own car, run your own bank or make your own furniture. Why run your own server?

<comment><USER2> Awful examples. Running your own server for this wouldn't have to mean learning to code your own firmware for their hardware, it wouldn't even have to mean being tech-savvy enough to install something like apache.

Lockitron could chose to release their hardware with that already done, so it plugs into the router and is ready to go. In that case, there are no benefits of the cloud, and the downside that it adds an extra possible point of failure. An example that would fit your comment, but not your theory, better is "you probably don't run your own router control panel web server". How many routers want you to control them through their manufacturer's remote servers, rather than just having an HTTP server built in? And is that in some way as time-consuming as grinding your own flour or making your own furniture?

Sure, as it stands right now, you might not be able to buy a Lockitron device and run it yourself quite as easily as using their servers. But this chain of comments isn't discussing "which choice should buyers make", it's "is their use of buzz words justified when they say _'main advantage [...] is that everything is in the cloud'_ ", and frankly I don't think that's an advantage over a system where all devices run their own servers.

<comment><USER14> Sure there are benefits. The keys are backed up remotely and you have access off-premises. If anything goes wrong, presumably you can call up tech support and they can access the system without your opening ports on your router or messing with a firewall. It could make administration (and reliability) much better.

They may not be benefits that you want, but they're the benefits that Lockitron are stressing.

(Personally, I'm happy with a key and, FWIW, my parents don't run their own control panel on their Vodafone local cell-network box - they call up the service people and they access the box remotely. So I can happily agree with your comparison too, if you like.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm not that happy that the lock has to communicate with a central server. For one, that adds all sorts of dependencies (the internet, central service, etc. have to be up for the unlock command to work). For another, what if there is a security compromise of the central server?

I'd much rather have a system where the lock uses an NFC sensor and a CPU, and it works with phones that have NFC. Yes, you wouldn't be able to do remote revocation (you'd have to be standing in front of the lock to send an updated CRL), but it would be a lot more secure, and it avoids dependence on a central server.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is great (and would be nice if it did cars and worked with HID office keys, too).

I would be a lot happier with a single RFID tag per user (globally; it could be your phone with NFC, or a $0.05 tag) which could be remotely added or removed from the ACL on doors (use zigbee or even a 3g chipset built into the door; it only updates infrequently).

That way you don't need to pull your phone out in a dark alley and hit a button to unlock the door, and if your Internet connection is down (or power is out), the door can still unlock.

You could hack this up with the Schlage locksets and new firmware.

I guess it's a question of feature prioritization: no keys at all but a clunkier UX with less features, or a single RFID tag with lots of other benefits.

<comment><USER17> Austrian RFID (ISO 14443) company Legic has had a deal with Schlage for a while. And Swedish lock company Assa Abloy ($B conglomerate) also owns HID (and its numerous subsidiaries), which pretty much dominates RFID-based access control, and has had a solution in place for at least 3 years that I know of.

Edit: Legic is Austrian, not German. Fixed.

Edit 2: I was obsessed with this topic in '06-07 as the RFID startup I worked for struggled to maintain relevance as each use case for RFID proved pathetic ROIs vs existing solutions. I left when it was clear NFC/ payments was the only viable strategy and the startup was unwilling to drop the other verticals and pursue NFC (which is only now about to become viable).

<comment><USER16> Yeah, the value is in having a decent API, easy self-install lockset for homes and small businesses; HID type stuff is almost always professionally installed, requires wiring to the door, etc. The legic/schlage system has really bad software, and the service is lame, too -- bad enough that I bought one and didn't install it on an exterior door.

I like the hacker aesthetic of lockitron, but want the robustness of the pro stuff too. Although if they do NFC tag reads in the lockset, it wouldn't be too hard to work as a simple internet-programmable RFID lock.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the idea! I wouldn't be surprised if we move in this direction. People love their fobs, but provisioning for temporary access on the big access control systems is a pain with current panels.

The big issue is, of course, hardware development cost in getting active NFC into the locksets. Some of the high end hotel & commercial locksets from Assa and Schlage are adding NFC capabilities, but I suspect the software is plagued by the same, traditional problems.

<comment><USER18> The current software is bad, but you must realize that we don't want off-site "cloud" software for our office doors. What happens when your servers go down (or our internet goes down) and we ... what, send people home? Prop the doors open because our door unlocking service provider is down?

What we want is reliable software that we can own, run locally, _integrate into our existing systems_ , and maintain in the event of failure.

<comment><USER16> Actually, for commercial users, what would rock is something which could do LDAP and integrate with real-ldap or Active Directory for access control; taking it away from a weird outsourced system or standalone old windows PC and integrating with the regular IT infrastructure.

This already happened with PBXes; next, it should happen with access control, and then with building management (HVAC; imagine if logging into your workstation allowed you to have programmed lighting/heating controls for your work area happen automatically; especially useful if you work at night or on weekends in a big office)

<comment><USER18> I very much agree. Having something that could drop into our existing directory system is exactly what I was thinking; the standalone Windows PC is what needs to be retired.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I live with the founders so I've had Lockitron for about a year. in my unbiased opinion: it's absolutely amazing especially if you have a lot of house guests (hacker sleepovers).

<comment><USER20> I'd be interested to hear what kind of backups the founders have. My biggest worry would be what do I do if something happens to my phone while I'm out: broken, mugged, or even just the battery died. It would suck if on top of that I couldn't get into my own house. Do you guys still take your keys with you, or keep a spare around?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Hmm this seems to me even more annoying than keys - why phone is bigger and more difficult to get out of my pocket.

On the other hand the little RFIDs are absolutely awesome to open doors with, try to use them instead (they are cheap enough that it doesn't matter).

<comment><USER22> I'm not looking at it that way. Keys are just another thing to keep in your pocket, but your phone is always with you. The way I carry stuff in my pockets, my phone is always more readily available than my keys so taking it out is a natural motion.

You can, however, argue that taking out your phone, launching the app, and clicking a button is as an aggregate action more involved than just inserting and rotating a key. I think the real benefits become apparent when you realize all the stuff this enables you to do: your spouse/friends no longer get locked out, you never have to do the "did I lock it or not?" dance, and if they provide an API, you can sync a lot of stuff when your door opens, like turn on appliances, trigger a network setting, boot your computer, text your friends, anything really.

<comment><USER21> Yeah but all of that could be done from a phone if the house was locked with an RFID tag (and they are cheap enough that you can hand them out more or less like candy, since they are about that price).

As for not locking the door, that is definitely a problem (as is, as I have also done, unlocking the door and leaving the keys in it) but I have never really been in doubt that I locked the door, even if I hadn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Another idea that will fail based off the user interface. Keys are too slow. Opening the door with your phone is even slower. I prefer to carry a second faster key than have this in my pocket and then click slide, start the app, wait for it to connect, then open the door.

<comment><USER24> You are missing that this is not necessarily aimed at regular home owners. Imagine offices, rented accommodation or as a secondary lock for homes. Being able to offer and revoke keys over the air is huge.

This isn't disruptive to household locks, but to the high ticket price door entry systems.

<comment><USER23> But then why mobile? Why is it not just a web based app if it's meant to manage a large number of locks? Mobile is not a convenient interface, apart from things that need to be mobile.

<comment><USER24> What other devices would be an appropriate replacement for a key other than a mobile phone? (or do you mean a mobile web app?)

eg: using keyfobs = a) regularly lost, b) regularly forgotten, c) small expense every time you give to people, d) never get them back.

<comment><USER23> It's still pointless. The current key-system is a low tech, simple system with few associated costs and no major pain points. It's also a system that is strongly in place already. The Lockitron is a complicated system with many moving parts that will break every now and then, and that has no clear target market, and it's more expensive than current systems.

If the makers get it to work, I'd be happy for them, but my estimation is that it's going to be dead in a couple of years.

<comment><USER24> You're being remarkably negative ;)

There are numerous problems with the market, that IMHO, Lockitron is attacking (which is not the residential market)

Why wouldn't ever office to lease use this over elaborate and expensive key entry systems?

<comment><USER18> Offices use RFID key fobs with local, dedicated hardware. An internet connected mobile phone based entry system is too complex, and will have particular difficulty integrating into the existing supply/service chain for these kind of systems.

We really, really don't need mobile phone based key unlock systems. I een considered building one for our home, but diacarded the idea due to the user experience complexity of having to use my phone instead of a simple key (but still carrying a key in case of failure).

As for Airbnb users, all you need is a programmable keypad (or an RFID entry system.)

This is a solved problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I like the idea, but I'm not paying a subscription fee for the doors to my house.

<comment><USER26> Read the article: "a one time fee of between $295 to $500."

And from their website: "starting at $295 with no monthly fees for our basic service."

<comment><USER27> Though if you want the text option it's $5 per month.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I bought one for my father, who tends to be OCD about locked doors, and he absolutely loves it.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is great feature for the fact that you could potentially lock ALL doors in your house at once. For people with 10k square foot house, this could save a lot of footwork before heading out to town.

</comment><comment><USER29> Anyone know if there's a similar internet (wireless?) connected deadbolt with a keypad -- such that you can create multiple valid keycodes on a schedule, and receive logs back regarding accesses?

<comment><USER30> AFAIK Schlage offers this kind of service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> We use one at the office - couldn't be happier with it. Great product!

</comment><comment><USER32> So... What about security?

Would it unlock the door if I captured packets sent by the phone, then replayed them later? (Would that be difficult to do? I've never done it.)

<comment><USER6> >>Would it unlock the door if I captured packets sent by the phone, then replayed them later? (Would that be difficult to do? I've never done it.)

The short answer is no. The long answer depends on how many packets you capture. See also: [http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/ssl/draft02...](http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/nss/ssl/draft02.html#D.3) (Section D.3)

We've gone to great lengths to ensure any additions are pareto-secure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Really cool idea, but I think any system like this needs to have a fail-safe option, for when your phone runs out of batteries.

<comment><USER34> Uhh, it uses a standard key as a failsafe.

<comment><USER35> What's the point of unlocking with my phone if I have to carry my key around in case my battery dies?

<comment><USER36> Hide the key on the property or in your car. You don't have to carry it around with you.

<comment><USER12> > Hide the key on the property or in your car.

I thought enough people knew by this time that storing all your passwords in plaintext file on desktop is insecure. Why do you even need a phone if you have a key somewhere on the property.

<comment><USER36> You need a phone to make and receive phone calls, among other things. That's why you already have it. You don't need the key for anything but opening your front door. The point of this device is to obviate the need to carry that key all day for that single moment it's needed.

Nobody's going to find your emergency spare key if it's left in a non-obvious place; there are no rings of thieves with metal detectors scouring half acre properties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This works if you need to give friends or family access, but what about taking it one step further by using a finger print scan + security PIN? Trying to fiddle with your phone from your pocket and opening an app or sending a text message can be just as cumbersome as looking for your keys.

</comment><comment><USER38> My gut reaction was "this is useless."

Then I actually thought about unlocking my door with my phone. This is a great idea.

</comment><comment><USER39> This app is brilliant! Congrats guys.

</comment><comment><USER40> Wonderful gadget. Once the hardware evolves into something prettier I am all in! I am excited for a future when my phone, or just simply my presence, unlocks all my doors...especially my car door.

</comment><comment><USER41> This the kind of idea that sounds so obvious in retrospect. Now that everyone carries around a phone at all times, bringing a key as well is just redundant. Can't wait to see this get adoption.

</comment><comment><USER42> Anyone think this is a bad idea? What if your phone becomes comprised or stolen? Then they have access to your house? Its easier to forge a bunch of bits than a key.

<comment><USER43> Not really.. Lock picking, particularly home-locks, isn't very hard at all. Many people attend Lock Picking competitions, and it is a somewhat popular geek-sport.

I'd much have a 4096-bit public key, than a flimsy piece of metal.

See Also: <http://www.capricorn.org/~akira/home/lockpick/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Cool! Where could I inspect the source code for this?

</comment><comment><USER45> another good thing is that you don't have to make copies of physical keys.

</comment><comment><USER46> Will this also SMS me whenever someone opens my door? I think I want one.

<comment><USER11> We have logging, but alerts are a high priority! If you buy one I will build it for you :)

<comment><USER47> How long do the batteries in the lock last?

Can you tell us about the architecture? What kind of wireless link do you use? Does the lock poll the base station? How do you traverse the home firewall? Do you poll continuously?

<comment><USER6> >>How long do the batteries in the lock last?

Depends on the batteries...a 4 pack of name brand alkaline's from Target should get you between 10,000 and 18,000 cycles or about 1-2 years. I haven't tested with some of the crazier 22,000mAH ones one can get through Industrial resellers

>>What kind of wireless link do you use?

For the residential units, the server talks to the door lock using the same protocols found in car fobs.

For the commercial systems, we use electrical strikes. There is no wireless communication. We manually trip a relay.

>>Does the lock poll the base station?

Receive only.

>>How do you traverse the home firewall?

Encrypted Tunnels

>>Do you poll continuously?

Push

<comment><USER47> Thanks for the info - but I want more info, where is your blog?

How did you come out with 4 different locks at once? Did you partner with an existing lock manufacturer?

You know you have to release an API.

<comment><USER6> We've only just come out of stealth mode after nearly two years of quiet work. We'll be posting some more stuff in the coming days...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> <3 Lockitron

</comment><comment><USER49> Can't wait to buy one of these!</comment>


Why Apple Is Getting into the Energy Business - happy-go-lucky https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-apple-is-getting-into-the-energy-business <comment><AUTHOR> because they have sooooo much money and they need to 1) diversify into markets large enough and 2) offer them the highest return on investment potential while minimizing risks.</comment>