California Has the Jobs but Not Enough Homes - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-has-the-jobs-but-not-enough-homes-11553007600 <comment><USER3> The biggest problem I saw with the High-Speed Rail plan wasn't the outrageous cost, but rather that it was a plan to spend 60+ billion dollars to solve the wrong problem. The state should have been working on some plan to give high- speed access from the SF Bay, where property is really expensive, into the Central Valley where it's really cheap.

Not many people need to travel the 400 miles between LA and SF at 220 miles an hour. On the other hand, if you can travel 60 miles or so from San Francisco (or the mid-peninsula or even San Jose) at 120 miles an hour, that's a big deal, because that opens up a bunch of low-cost real estate for local workers.

<comment><USER4> Or speed and augment existing infrastructure. Spend a billion dollars on feeder light rail to Caltrain. Run twice as many cal trains. Oops, neighbors complain about traffic wait times. Bury five of the crossings. Now you can speed up the cal train. Nice. Now run more trains, connect the stops to the places people actually live and work. Do the same in and around Sacramento and LA. But don't build a bullet train to nowhere. There's so much more good we could have done with billions in transportation funding.

<comment><USER5> > _Run twice as many cal trains._

My understanding of this is that CalTrain is _already_ running at capacity. Trains are, essentially, back to back. Part of the electrification project is that the electric engines should have better acceleration than the current diesel ones, allowing tighter packing of trains on the tracks. (And thus, more trains, and thus, more capacity.)

We really, IMO, need 4 rails from SF to SJ, but if Atherton doesn't want to give up a few trees, I can only imagine the hell that would get raised for more _space_. That, and funding.

> _Bury five of the crossings._

AIUI, Mountain View considered this (grade separation) w/ the Castro/Moffett/Central intersection, but decided against it, opting instead for simple removing the crossing. (The wrong decision, IMO. I'd bury the train, but I think the (canned) plan was to bury the road, as it would be less disruptive.)

<comment><USER6> That was my understanding as well. Someone did an analysis when I was at Google and concluded that there was basically no way to optimize the rush-hour schedule further and pack further trains in, given reasonable acceleration/deceleration constraints and station boarding times. I've also had the experience of sitting at the Castro/Moffett/Central crossing for 20 minutes as 3 trains go by and block every opportunity for a green light.

"AIUI, Mountain View considered this (grade separation) w/ the Castro/Moffett/Central intersection, but decided against it, opting instead for simple removing the crossing."

Wait, are they getting rid of the Castro crossing? This seems...strange, given that that crossing is the primary highway access to downtown (via 85), one of the primary routes between the Googleplex and downtown/Castro, and also links a densifying residential neighborhood to downtown. Are they getting rid of the bus service between Caltrain and the Googleplex as well?

<comment><USER5> > _Wait, are they getting rid of the Castro crossing?_

That's my understanding. See [https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/pw/transport/services.asp](https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/pw/transport/services.asp) — specifically, the section titled, "Transit Center Master Plan" and the diagram on that section. See also the link in that section that points to [http://www.mountainviewtransitcenter.com/](http://www.mountainviewtransitcenter.com/) and the images on that page, particularly [http://www.mountainviewtransitcenter.com/images/Castro%20Vie...](http://www.mountainviewtransitcenter.com/images/Castro%20View.jpg).

I originally just heard this through a friend who is more active in MTV politics that I am, but that seems to be the official info/site for it.

<comment><USER6> Oh. There's actually a bunch of really good stuff in that plan - the rail crossing is being replaced by pedestrian/bike undercrossings, Evelyn is being extended to Shoreline, and a protected bike lane goes from Steven Creek trail to the transit center.

IMHO they should just get rid of the 101 & 85 Moffett interchanges. It's close enough and low-traffic enough that residents can just use Shoreline/Ellis/Whisman. That would make Moffett a prime bike boulevard between downtown & Caltrain and the Googleplex via Stevens Creek Trail, which would make Caltrain + bike into Google (and the Ellis office park area) very attractive, which would take cars off of 101 & Shoreline, which is desperately needed.

<comment><USER7>
      they should just get rid of the 101 & 85 Moffett interchanges

85? Aside from the SB Moffett to SB 85 onramp, I don't know of an 85/Moffett "interchange".

<comment><USER6> There's a both-directions Moffett (NB has a left-turn lane) to SB 85 onramp, and an NB 85 to both-directions Moffett offramp. I used to live in the area, so this would be my primary highway access (along with 101 <-> Moffett).

Both are kinda superfluous - it's less than 1/2 mile to the Shoreline interchange (with access to SB 85, SB 101, and NB 101), and other than the apartment/condo complexes on Moffett/Cypress Point, the neighborhoods in that area tend to have easier access to either Shoreline or Ellis. It probably made sense when Moffett was an active military base and NASA/Ames was a big employer, but now traffic on NB Moffett is miniscule.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It'll continue being a problem. Housing has become the gold of California and those who have the gold don't want more of it otherwise the value drops. There is no incentive right now for California home owners to want more housing.

<comment><USER9> What about when they realize their children and Grand children are all moving out of state? only to be seen once per year again.

<comment><USER8> From what I've seen the parents stay around, the kids move out of state, eventually inherit their homes, and then either rent the homes or cash out but face a huge tax penalty.

Older people have a community and time invested living in a place, it's hard to motivate them to move or want change. They would also rather their kids get their financial investment (gold) and have comfort knowing they'll be taken care of when they're gone.

<comment><USER6> Most seem to be selling their homes (or the kids are selling their homes). A majority of the open houses I've been to have been older parents selling their homes & moving to cheaper regions now that the kids are grown, or dead parents passing their homes to adult kids who sell them. Few people want to be absentee landlords in California, where tenants have all sorts of rights & protections.

Don't really blame them, $2.4M for the house that your parents paid $200K for isn't bad when you can still buy that $200K house in much of the rest of the country.

<comment><USER10> There is no sense in renting them as well, I rent a 1.6 million dollar house for $4200/month. Of course, the owner bought it for way less, but I would rather sell, take the money and invest it elsewhere and get a better return.

<comment><USER11> It makes sense if you think that property values and rents increase over time.

Also if there's any likelihood you move back.

<comment><USER6> Only if you also believe that the other assets you could be investing in (stocks, bonds, sweat equity in a startup, cryptocurrency, an apartment block in Portland) _won 't_ increase over time.

The money you save in interest doesn't just disappear - if you have any financial sense, you invest it in an asset that yields more than 3%/year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> And yet somehow silicon valley companies are oblivious to this. I have had so many recruiters disappear on me when I mentioned upfront that I cannot move to the bay area. It was surprising because some of these companies have small or satellite offices in the city I live in and yet they want "co-located" team members only.

<comment><USER9> outside the valley, recruiters aren't really needed (or at least not so much as to warrant the enormous bonuses they get for SF/PA). Recruiters get paid big bucks in Palo Alto and SF precisely because there's no housing there, thus it's much harder to convince people to move there and work there.

companies don't care because it's easier to pay recruiters big bonuses than it is to ask VCs or CEOs to get on an airplane a few times a year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Another article about how San Francisco is prohibitively expensive!

I think more mid to big companies should consider investing in moving to some of these areas where there's little to nothing else. If you look at something like Epic in Madison WI, they basically own that town in that sector, so a lot of people end up working there a lot longer than they want to because they've invested in that area (whether economically, emotionally, or something else).

<comment><USER14> The problem is nobody wants to live in Madison WI.

If you're a top performing engineer you're likely to want to head straight to the epicenter of tech innovation. You want to knock heads with the best of 'em, and that isn't in Madison WI or any other small town.

<comment><USER15> As a New Yorker, this comment is hilarious. Madison is about a third of the size of SF. As a polite reminder, SF is a little more than a third of the size of Queens, and fundamentally still kind of a small town compared to real cities. It's about the same size as Hempstead, NY which is certainly a small town. Hell, I bet more people bike to work as a % in Madison than in SF.

Lake Nebagamon WI is a small town.

<comment><USER14> This comment is hilarious. You assumed (incorrectly) that we're talking about just SF. Try the entire Bay Area.

It's also worth pointing out if it's not already clear, that "small" does not always refer to population size, or even geographical expanse. "Small" can refer to accomplishments, and impact/significance in the tech world. By comparison, Madison WI is quite small.

And for the record I don't live in the Bay Area. Nor do I want to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> When I visited SF and the valley a while back I wondered about all the low rise buildings in many areas. Homes with 2 stories max. While I think it's an essential part of the areas' culture I wondered why the space above is left unused. Because of geological reasons? Esthetic reasons?

<comment><USER17> Only one reason: Greed

Homeowners want to see their investment appreciate, plain and simple, and will do anything and make up any justification to impede development so as to reduce supply and increase home values. Pretty much any argument, any rule, that restricts housing ("ruining neighborhood character", "affecting the historic value of the neighborhood", and in almost all cases, "environmental impact") can be understood if seen through the prism of selfishness. Never mind that people's lives are more important than obtuse feelings of 'neighborhood character', and never mind that the reason the shitty silicon valley house you bought in the 70s is worth millions only because of the blood, sweat and tears of all the people who came here and started companies and built things.

As you can probably guess, I'm pretty disillusioned at probably not ever being able to ever afford a place to live in the place I call home. (And I'm a relatively well paid engineer, others have it much worse).

<comment><USER8> This is normal for any investment, why would anyone want their investment to depreciate? I also don't understand why so many people in San Francisco want to own a home. Owning a home in San Francisco is a giant pain in the ass. Everything is ridiculously expensive once you own. These homes are 100+ years old and most need updates and earthquake retrofitting (that's $100k+). You pay an obscene amount in property taxes and have to go through the city to change nearly anything. Once you do get approved you have to find a contractor and most contractors are on giant month long waits because there aren't many in the city. It's a pain, honestly I don't understand why anyone would want to buy when you can rent and be on rent control and not worry about any of these headaches.

<comment><USER18> The problem is housing being treated as an investment, resulting in artificially high prices and limited supply for the people who need to live in it.

We should buy housing to live in, not to extract rent from the suckers that were too late. A land value tax would help lower prices and remove the incentive to treat housing as an income source.

<comment><USER8> So how does this argument convince the population who has invested into their homes to suddenly want to devalue their property?

<comment><USER19> Anybody who thinks they can drop $1.5 million+ into an asset without risk needs reality check on how entitlements don't work. Besides the world doesn't owe any one an insurance for stupid ideas.

<comment><USER8> Once again how does this argument convince the voters and home owners to change their mind?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If more companies would let people work at home 3 or 4 days a week, there would be a lot more housing options.

There are plenty of affordable homes in the San Joaquin valley, close enough to San Francisco to do a round trip on one Tesla charge. Every time I check Redfin, for example, Merced has plenty of 3 or 4 bedroom houses in the 1700 sq ft range for under $300k. Modesto also has plenty under $300k, and is even closer to San Francisco.

Merced or Modesto doesn't have anywhere near the cultural offerings San Francisco has for your off work time, but again, San Francisco is close enough that a weekend trip is not a big deal.

<comment><USER21> I'm sorry but suggesting a 5-6 hour commute round-trip, even once a week, is absolutely not a reasonable solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Clickbait title. 99% of the article is about the Bay Area, where we already _know_ there's a housing crisis.

<comment><USER23> Its in Sacramento too. Just saying. Sure, not Madera, Visalia, Fresno, or Stockton.

<comment><USER24> What is the housing crisis in Sacramento? I only ever read about the Bay Area and occasionally Southland.

<comment><USER25> It's a housing crisis by spillover - all the people in the Bay Area who can't afford houses there are going to Sacramento instead. Here's a particularly pointed and opinionated editorial on the subject: [https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/erika-d- smi...](https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/erika-d- smith/article174139716.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> One of the symptoms of communism as experienced in Eastern Germany and other countries was the scarcity of many things. People formed long queues when rare goods (e.g. bananas) happened to be available and spent a lot of effort to procure necessary items (parts and materials to repair a vehicle or fix their appartment).

Occasionally we find this kind of queue-forming scarcity in western market based economies, even though the laws of supply and demand handle most situations quite well. To me this is not just an irrationality, it's a bit of a disgrace. With all of the shortcommings of capitalism, at least it ensures that a good substitute product is always available.

Be it a job market with affordable housing, a mobile phone or a movie, or a restaurant with friendly service and fair prices: Whenever I spent a few moments to look around, I never fail to find an excellent choice of suitable products and services.

On the other hand, outside of communism, a horde of irrational customers who insist on having a certain scarce thing cannot possibly be satisfied. Prices go up and/or the provided value goes down.

I wish for everyone to recognize the workings of the laws of supply and demand, and a happy life in any of the great tech/startup cities of the world.

<comment><USER27> The scarcity problem is well understood in the Bay Area: government works hard to disallow new housing. Cities here zoning for lots of jobs, but they do not allow residences for those who work at those jobs.

The irrationality is simply bad planning by local governments. They are extremely strict in what they allow, and they do it in a way that maximizes profits for current residents, at the expense of anybody who comes along later (through birth or migration). This is pure regulatory capture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> There are currently 50 development projects in the city of Santa Clara, population ~130,000. Most are residential. Many residential development projects that are active are tearing down light industrial and replacing with apartments and condos. For example, this 347 unit project described as follows:

"Project Description: SummerHill Apartment Communities proposes to demolish three existing light industrial buildings on a 3.06-acre site within the Tasman East Specific Plan area and replace them with one 347-unit apartment building and dedicate 0.4178 acres to be a City of Santa Clara park, which will include a dog park and children's play area. The proposed park also includes walking and bicycling paths which will connect into the broader Tasman East bicycle and pedestrian network. The proposed apartment building will include two stories of above-ground parking, seven stories of residential units with associated building amenities and a community garden. SummerHill proposes a total of 275,000 square feet of new residential area with 396 vehicular parking spaces and 24 bicycle parking spaces. The proposed project will include street and utility improvements and a lot line adjustment and merger to create two new parcels (one for residential and one for city park)."

[http://santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/Bu...](http://santaclaraca.gov/Home/Components/BusinessDirectory/BusinessDirectory/263/2495?npage=3)

Here is the full list:

[http://santaclaraca.gov/businesses/development-projects- stor...](http://santaclaraca.gov/businesses/development-projects-story- map/development-projects-list/-npage-1)

<comment><USER29> Having a project in the city database means little until shovels get put in the ground. Plenty of zombie projects are on the books in my town. Even if the project is active, it often takes years to get all the permits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Random house in Concord CA easily commutable by bart to SF under $600K [https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/18386554_zpid/globalre...](https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/18386554_zpid/globalrelevanceex_sort/37.950642,-122.033351,37.947034,-122.038335_rect/17_zm/)

<comment><USER31> Google maps says it's about 1.5 hours to Market Street arriving at 9am. $600k for a 1,000 sqft house with 3 bedrooms and 1 bathroom in a horrible school district with that commute isn't really a good deal.

<comment><USER32> Horrible School District!? MDUSD isn't all that bad, is it? Granted it's been a while since I was there.

YV isn't College Park, sure, or De La Salle, but it ain't Mount Diablo.

I guess things have _changed_ then.

Also, 600 for that house is a bit of a steal. My folks live across 680 in PH, and the house next door just went for 950 a year ago.

In the end, all these comments are just dancing around the real issue: Prop 13. Nothing will make sense in CA housing until Prop 13 is revoked and the inevitable wild swings in the housing stock then settle down.

EDIT: Ok, that's right, I forgot. YV is like 4 blocks from De La Salle. So, they take all the good students and leave all the rest of the 'poor' students to go to YV. I forgot. If you look at all the other High Schools in the area, they're all 8/10 or 9/10.

<comment><USER31> ==If you look at all the other High Schools in the area, they're all 8/10 or 9/10.==

And this house would be even more expensive if it was in the boundaries of those schools. $600k for a house that size, more than an hour outside of a city, with poor local schools is astronomical.

Prop 13 deserves a lot of the blame. However, at some point the prices reach a point where people will just move to New York, Boston, Chicago, Philly, Austin, Nashville, Portland, Dallas, etc. In Chicago, we have already seen some of this with companies like Foursquare, Google, Facebook, Coinbase and Salesforce opening more engineering-focused offices in the past couple of years.

<comment><USER33> I think prop 13 is 99% of the issue. It disincentivizes moving at an increasing rate the longer you hold on. Taxes rising with market value prevents this acceleration.

Average home value in Palo Alto is 2,901,408. Average Property tax is 0.42%. $12185.88. Thats the equivalent tax bill of a new house worth 1.2 million, less than 50% of the average house value in Palo Alto

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> [https://outline.com/hkanFb](https://outline.com/hkanFb)

</comment><comment><USER35> This is the natural effect of the passage of Proposition 13. When you cannot raise real estate taxes to keep up with inflation, residential real estate becomes a liability for governments, not an asset.

California has had to turn to business development to make up for the short fall. From an economic perspective, the government has a high demand for commercial development, and a low demand for residential development.

<comment><USER29> (Not) looking forward to CA millennials turning into NIMBYs when they inherit properties with super low Prop 13 tax assessments. Passive rental income with minimal property taxes is a hell of a drug..

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Nothing that futuristic mass transit couldn't fix.

Fortunately, China is already building it. Something that travels around 100 mph should do the trick.

[https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/china-driverless- maglev-t...](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/china-driverless-maglev- trains/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER37> How about allowing remote workers? I don't get the resistance to it.

I pay for my computer. I pay for my own coffee/tea. I pay the electrical bill. I pay for my phone/internet. My quality of life goes up massively.

God forbid we work remote and avoid traffic and all the headaches of commuting.

<comment><USER38> I think it comes down to performance measurement being a really weak area for many companies. No one really knows whats real when it comes to output over a 40 hour week, and so bosses are afraid of getting shafted by an employee whom they can't see toiling away at their desk.

It's all but fact that a 40 hour work week doesn't result in 40 hours of productivity. Those non productive hours are seen as acceptable in an office for some reason, but when you're at home and can fire up a video game, it's sacrilege.

<comment><USER39> The fact is that not everyone has the discipline to be productive while working remotely, and a company requires a different way of hiring, operating, and measuring to support remote work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> California also has fixed borders. And limited resources like water and crumbling infrastructure. Failing public education. 40 million people. How many more homes can we build? More homes = more infrastructure, shrinking land, loss of habitat and nature, strained water, over crowding, more schools, more support jobs(low pay), more cars on the same roads, more consumption, more pollution. 45 percent of the state budget goes to public education and it is one of the highest tax collecting states. If we don't think of a way to hack this situation, California will become a failed state and bankrupt. Sooner than most of us fear.

<comment><USER41> What bubble are you living in to think California has no space. If there's one thing California has more than enough of, it's open space. I suggest driving on one of the myriad freeways for a few hundred miles and then tell me there's no open space. It's actually space that is the problem, because everyone wants the low-density SFH that the space affords. No one wants to invest in higher density housing.

<comment><USER42> He is right about the alarming ratio of public school funding to public school failure.

California's problem isn't space. It's NIMBY. CA's gone so NIMBY that regulations stifle the younger generation's ability to build and buy their homes. My wife and I went to open houses this weekend. Young Berkeley professors can't afford to live where they work. Young teachers can't afford to live where they work. This sort of thing is a societal recipe for disaster.

(Long, but consider this a documentary on how NIMBY has affected housing in California, from the POV of a cool landlord.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8x4CWBMsPg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8x4CWBMsPg) )

<comment><USER43> I see repeated painting of this as generational warfare, but it isn't. It's more that younger generations feel entitled to live in one of the most desirable places in the world, at the prices they want, doing the jobs they do. I would like to live on the beach in Hawaii - should I be able to have that no matter what? Should everyone be able to?

It makes sense that the Bay area would be priced high given its tremendous desirability (which may be tapering off now). If people are willing to work there for low wages, then that is their choice - they have opted into a tradeoff they are OK with, and they/others should not demonize those who were already there and want to preserve their culture/way of life/standards of living. There are numerous affordable places to live in the US that are not [New York, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.] - you may not have every big city amenity you want, or maybe even be able to do the exact job you want - <USER2> such compromises are also just a regular part of life, aren't they?

To me the reframing of this issue as a generational war, or a rich versus poor thing, or use of pejoratives like "NIMBY" serves to distract from the plain truth, which is simply that people are acting in their own self-interests. And yes, this includes the folks who believe they have an unalienable right to live in the Bay area.

<comment><USER42> _which is simply that people are acting in their own self-interests. And yes, this includes the folks who believe they have an unalienable right to live in the Bay area._

It's not actually in people's self interest. A society that creates severe divisions courts social unrest. Perceptions of relative status are directly linked to social unrest and lawlessness. This is operating in people at a level below consciousness, and the evolutionary roots of it probably predate human language.

Of course, no one has an "unalienable right to live in the Bay area." This is technically correct. However, it's still pretty crappy if the Bay Area prices- out everyone except for techies living there. Just because you _can_ buy it, doesn't mean you should. Just because you can keep it for yourself, doesn't mean you necessarily should.

<comment><USER40> Exactly. Anyone can buy into Stockton.

But many don't and they chose Bay Area because they want to...see the key word? 'Want'? You are saying that the vulnerable society's 'want' is weighted more than the non vulnerable section of society.

Why? I do this all the time. I call it the 'Five Whys' method. If you can answer five consecutive 'Why's ..issue will clarify.

<comment><USER42> _Exactly. Anyone can buy into Stockton._

(Tangential: One of the best musicians I know took great pains to move to SF, for artistic reasons. He took great pains to move away from Stockton. I think I'll ask him about your observation above.)

 _You are saying that the vulnerable society's 'want' is weighted more than the non vulnerable section of society._

Incorrect. What I'm saying is that causing the de-facto division of society into separate castes is a recipe for social disaster.

[https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an- info...](https://www.wired.com/story/how-silicon-valley-fuels-an-informal- caste-system/)

In addition to markets, there are certain wired-in facts about human psychology. Perceived relative status, if the gap is too wide to let people feel dignified, directly causes social unrest. It's just not smart for the segment of society that controls resources to let that situation come about. That's just how people work. The psychological and social science research on this is clear.

 _Why? I do this all the time. I call it the 'Five Whys' method. If you can answer five consecutive 'Why's ..issue will clarify._

My hunch is that you've strawmanned your particular whys. Judging from other parts of this thread, I would probably agree with all of your answers and conclusions, yet I still come to a different conclusion.

<comment><USER40> I don't see a problem with a fragmented society. It makes for diversity. We should alleviate hardship but it's not our social responsibility to form a homogeneous society on the basis of wealth.

Dignity is not about living in the Bay Area. Those who live in Bay Area and in nice homes may even suffer indiginities at work that facilitated their status.

The psychological and social study is actually not clear. We don't have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relative poverty. Cupertino folks are poorer than those in Atherton. Hayward is poorer than Cupertino. Visalia is poorer than Hayward. There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that tho'.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered.

Making assumptions is easy. None of us can be saviours of others. We can only be saviours of ourselves. It's ok not to be a super hero in our story. We don't even have to be hero's. I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there's that..

<comment><USER42> _We don't have true poverty in this corner of our western world like in India or Bangladesh or in some places in Africa etc. So..yea..perspective. We have relative poverty._

Relative poverty, _specifically,_ is what causes social unrest. (Perhaps here is another hole in your social sciences education?)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE)

 _There will always be hierarchies. There are enough studies to back that tho'.. And hierarchies are important. They are the furnaces from where societies are tempered._

I am also pro-meritocracy. Pareto is as widespread as the normal distribution. Sure. I'm also down with the idea that different groups will know different things and so will have vastly different outcomes in the economy. Thomas Sowell is a personal hero of mine, and I own and am working through something like 5 of his books.

 _I would rather that we aspire not to be villains. But again..that pesky thing called free will. So there's that.._

Octavia Butler's viewpoint in her books generally, but especially in the _Parable of the Sower_ series, is valuable for its observation that much of human conflict is determined below the level of consciousness. Society can't ignore those forces, precisely because they can override conscious rationality and are powerful enough to tear even the most powerful societies apart.

Principles are important. However, we are not creatures of pure rationality. If a society tries to live as such, purely on principles, it will fail. Probably through its elites becoming out of touch. California to a T, through and through.

<comment><USER40> I am familiar with gini coefficient...I don't understand the relevance of the video tho'...if you want to normalize the gini coefficient, then all welfare programs and benefits have to be scrapped. Minimum wages and rent controls have to be abolished. No more affordable housing quota by the state.

So I am confused why you'd bring that up..unless you support the measures above. When free market forces take over, things will fall into place.

Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don't live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don't stay the same for 'thousands of years'.

Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous.

Milton Friedman was my thesis subject in college. I get Thomas Sowell too. I just don't understand your stance.

Octavia Butler didn't finish the Parable series. Writer's block. Maybe there was a reason why..badly plotted.

You say: 'Principles are important'. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently.

We are not rational animals but we are all 'rationalising' creatures. I don't see the relevance either bring to this discussion.

<comment><USER42> _if you want to normalize the gini coefficient, then all welfare programs and benefits have to be scrapped. Minimum wages and rent controls have to be abolished. No more affordable housing quota by the state._

I would be for that.

 _Further, there is also nothing wrong with social unrest. We don't live in a vacuum where everything is frozen. Social unrest leads to paradigm shifting changes in society. This is why things change and don't stay the same for 'thousands of years'._

Sure. The violent kind, no one should need in the USA in 2019.

 _Go attempt to protect society from social unrest is symptomatic of a saviour complex that is irresponsible and dangerous._

Keeping violence out of society is simply a good idea. You can't have commerce and markets without order. Giving people the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness is a good idea. Everything which is the "fabric of life" should be within the means of everyman and everywoman. I think this should be achievable in the free market. The organizations and forces which dominate society have a _practical_ obligation to provide such things. Historically, it's a good way to make money. Also, the disappearance of true everyman/everywoman activities and goods seems to be associated with dying industries trying to hold on by raising prices.

I think you and I would agree that giving stuff away would create more problems than it would solve. That's not what I'm proposing here. Also, saviors are dangerous. The real ones wield power in a more concentrated form than is wise.

 _I just don't understand your stance._

Markets aren't the be-all end-all. They're just a tool. Everyone in business should be biased towards getting ahead by creating delight and avoiding resentment. On one level, that's just good brand management. On another level, the dignity of all levels of society is necessary for a long lasting, healthy society. Powerful people all working together informally and voluntarily towards this end are the hallmark of the healthiest societies.

 _You say: 'Principles are important'. True. But your principles are important only to you. I may define mine differently._

Making sure large swathes of the public don't feel put upon is something to keep in mind as well. Principles may not be important at all, to minds taken by instincts more deeply rooted than rationality. Like the status calculations of young men and women who decide they no longer have a stake in society.

 _We are not rational animals but we are all 'rationalising' creatures. I don't see the relevance either bring to this discussion._

You seem to be biased towards prioritizing only principles, rationality, and markets. Those are great, but they don't cover everything.

<comment><USER40> Ok.

1\. No one is going to get violent because they can't find housing in the Bay Area. 2\. Violence is a very expensive endeavor for human beings. It extracts lives, property and depletes resources. Most human beings avoid violence unless they have nothing to lose. This is what happens in war torn areas. 3\. People MOVE when resources become scarce. That's why America is made of immigrants. From the time it was formed, people MOVED in from places that got too crowded or when resources became thin. Trying to cram everyone into one tiny desirable geographically area in California is exactly the opposite of what to do to avoid violence due to social unrest. 4\. This is a land of opportunity. People TAKE opportunities. Spoon feeding and force feeding after the threat of malnutrition is not the same as offering a plentiful plate of food. There is 'fabric of life' beyond certain zip codes in California. 5\. Asking property owners to give up quality of life and environment for higher density homes with minimal benefit to them is most definitely asking them to GIVE UP something. 6\. There is dignity outside certain zip codes in California. This is bordering on nonsensical now. I fail to understand the import of your communication. We have a hot housing market where people below a certain earning potential are priced out. And there is theatrics all over. News flash: This happens everywhere in the world. Every single decade. Only in California is this about loss of dignity and potential for violence and obligation of retired old folks to give up their homes for high density while on fixed incomes because someone just out of college can't afford a mortgage. 7\. No. We can't cram everyone who wants to live in the most desirable zip codes in California because that means they lose dignity. 8\. And no. We can't make everyone happy. We can't make everyone feel not resentful. We can't control how people feel about their entitlements or inadequacies or whatever. The best we can do is NOT enable it. Bringing this to a conclusion. No. We are built out. Some of us want quality of life. Some of us don't. Some of us can afford to live where we desire. Some of us can't. And there is a whole lot of us in between the book end choices.

Sometimes it's better NOT to act outside one's sphere of influence. If you feel that more people need to move in a low density area, feel free to demolish your home and built multiple dwellings in it. Maybe you can evangelize your position and convince others. Be the change you want to see, but don't expect others to be the change you are unable to create yourself. It doesn't say so in the rulebook of life. It has only three things: Welcome. Live. Die. You can define that any way you want and find meaning in it for yourself only.

<comment><USER42> _1\. No one is going to get violent because they can't find housing in the Bay Area._

More professors are radicalizing kids, and there are even examples of indoctrination of children at grade school levels documented. There are more campus

 _2\. Violence is a very expensive endeavor for human beings._

There is an expansion of the amount of it committed by the Far Left in the US for the past several years. Before Christchurch, the Far Left had doubled the death toll of the Far right for the past two.

 _Trying to cram everyone into one tiny desirable geographically area in California is..._

A part of how cities create wealth. The economic activity of SF would be expanded by taking up the difference in density between it and NYC.

 _5\. Asking property owners to give up quality of life and environment for higher density homes with minimal benefit to them is most definitely asking them to GIVE UP something._

Is not asking them to give up quality of life. They could also move, by your same logic. Having more money, this would be far easier for them than for people working in restaurants and assistant professors and teachers.

Your "Asking property owners to give up quality of life" is actually rich and powerful people manipulating laws to stymie growth and market forces.

 _6\. There is dignity outside certain zip codes in California._

Is there dignity in being forced to move away from one's home? It depends.

 _7\. No. We can't cram everyone who wants to live in the most desirable zip codes in California_

We have historical precedents that indicate we can have about 30% more.

 _We can't control how people feel about their entitlements or inadequacies or whatever._

We can avoid obvious rigged games and broken markets. Those things stick out like a sore thumb as something unfair.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple granted preliminary sales ban of Galaxy Nexus - <AUTHOR> http://www.slashgear.com/apple-granted-preliminary-sales-ban-of-galaxy-nexus-29236534/ <comment><USER2> >According to Judge Koh, "Apple has articulated a plausible theory of irreparable harm" in its argument against Samsung and the Galaxy Nexus, because of "long-term loss of market share" along with "losses of downstream sales."

This is not what "irreparable harm" used to mean. Apple's lawyers are celebrating tonight.

EDIT: If I plan to kill a cat, and you file a lawsuit to stop me, the judge may issue an injunction for me not to kill the cat until the lawsuit is complete. Humanity does not know how to unkill a cat, so if I did so while the lawsuit was pending, I would make the lawsuit moot and evade justice. That is "irreparable harm", at least if it's your cat.

On the other hand, if my actions are causing you mere monetary harm, we know exactly how to repair that: take money from me and give it to you. Injunctions should not be issued in such cases, because the plaintiff can always be made whole later on by simply receiving an appropriate amount of money.

Apple has managed to have a bogus patent issued - the patent, as far as I can tell, covers any sort of "search-as-you-type" system. Any sort. The Firefox awesome bar, Android search (every Android device that exists), Google Instant, any webpage with javascript autocomplete... you're all violating Apple's patent. And if Apple can find judges as friendly as Ms. Koh, all of these products can be taken off the market indefinitely.

And now they're grabbing up that stick and going to town with it.

<comment><USER3> It is irreparable harm considering they can't get back the monopoly/leading market-share effect at this very young stage of the tablet market.

i.e. Sales and profits now is a lot more important than Sales and Money later.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't that just mean _more_ money though? I'd agree that the analysis of the damages would get pretty fuzzy at best if you're trying to account for such factors, but it's still ultimately just a loss of money.

<comment><USER5> That's the problem -- how do you calculate the lifetime value of that? It's not just lost sales, it's a substantial shift in the position of a huge corporation.

Here's another example -- Imagine how different things _could_ be today if the AT&T lawsuits hadn't temporarily paralyzed the BSDs just as Linux was also emerging.

I can't even begin to quantify the cost of what _could_ have happened if the lawsuit hadn't been filed by AT&T.

<comment><USER6> Can you tell some more detail about this AT&T lawsuit against BSD?

<comment><USER5> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi>

This stalled BSD development/adoption for 2 years while the legal status was in question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am absolutely going to persuade my mother to switch to an Android in a few months' time. And then recommend it to every friend of mine who's upgrading their phone, mentioning in passing that Apple has actually gotten Galaxy Nexuses and Tabs blocked in the US. I'm glad Android is actually good enough at this stage for me to do this.

The '604 search patent is a big hot mess of ideas thrown together to cover all sorts of "maybe-this-maybe-that" use cases and potential improvements. It basically means having a unified search system that relies upon "search heuristics" for multiple domains. Like the other allegedly infringing patents in the case, it's another broken patent that IMO shouldn't have been granted. Does anyone know of prior art (prior to Dec '04) for a search mechanism that obtains search results from multiple domains using sub-plugins and combines them into a list? That seems to be the core of the idea, and further ideas are thrown on top of it in the patent application thereafter.

Read it yourself at [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8086604.PN.&OS=PN/8086604&RS=PN/8086604)

<comment><USER8> Well, in the mobile space everyone is suing everyone else. Google is using Motorola for that and are banning in Germany important parts of Apples e-mail and iCloud services.

[http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/04/german-court-extends- pu...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/04/german-court-extends-push-e-mail- injunction-against-icloud-mobileme/)

Because of that and as a German I wont ever buy Android and also telling my friends.

<comment><USER9> > [..] in the mobile space everyone is suing everyone else. [..]

> Because of that and as a German I wont ever buy Android and also telling my > friends.

So you won't ever buy anything ever again? As you say yourself it's the whole industry that is playing this game, so it seems unfair to take it out on just one company. Biased much?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Apple is implicitly admitting Samsung is a huge threat to them.

Apple has intelligent people making these decisions. So they know in their heart of hearts that the patents they hold are overly broad to the point of bogusness. They know that the majority of the tech market is also intelligent enough to come to this same realization. They have an awareness that lawsuits exercising these quasi-bogus patents will have a negative impact on Apple's public image. Therefore, the only logical reason for going through with the lawsuits is because they have concluded that the alternative -- letting Samsung + Google have their way in the mobile market -- would be far more damaging to Apple.

Apple's interests aside, is this good for society at large? Doubtful.

<comment><USER11> You don't have to be a huge threat to be worth squeezing money out of. Huge threat? I don't think so.

Samsung is the only other player making any real profit in the industry, so they are definitely Apple's largest competition at this point. Unless MS does something crazy with Windows Phone 8. They're important.

But I don't agree with huge threat. At this point, Apple may be able to take a year off from releasing a new iPhone (despite not having true 4G) and not suffer significantly in the long term. It's not a good idea, but I bet they could.

<comment><USER10> m.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/27/samsung-apple-smartphone-sales- profit?cat=technology&type=article

<comment><USER12> Exactly right Apple is scared about this. The phone market is slipping through their fingers and they're willing to do whatever it takes to get their grip back.

It turns out their one-size-fits-all approach really doesn't fit all so they go patent nuclear on Android while borrowing a lot of Android's ideas along the way. I'd love to see Google sue the shit out of them for stealing their notification system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm starting to hate Apple more and more.

Apple: Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition?

I think it may be time for high profile developers to boycott Apple till they stop acting like this.

<comment><USER14> _Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition?_

Let's say I invent and patent carbon fibre and start making bicycles out of it. My bicycles are vastly superior to lightweight steel, aluminium, and scandium framed models on the market.

Are my products terrible? Obviously not!

Now my competitors rush out to make carbon fibre bicycles of their own. I sue. Am I saying that my products are terrible and can't compete? No, I'm saying my products are excellent and can easily compete against my competitors' actual products.

But obviously I'm going to be less successful competing against my own product and my own inventions, which is what happens when my competitors simply copy my ideas.

This specific case is one where Apple alleges it is competing against its own innovations. It's fair to argue that the competition didn't copy them. But if we accept the court's ruling that the competing products _are_ infringing on Apple's patents, then Apple is not making "terrible" products that can't compete against its competition, Apple is making excellent products that are obviously going to be less successful competing against itself.

<comment><USER15> Except that isn't what is happening here. If you wanted a bicycle metaphor, apple has invented a wonderful carbon fibre bicycle that everybody wants. Then, despite the fact that bicycles have existed for a hundred years, they got patents on things like "using levers to shift" and "building a frame out of tube-like structures". And now, every time somebody starts to make a bicycle that is even remotely competitive, they get sued.

Do you really think that apple invented search-as-you-type? Did they invent the concept of using a date picker to set a meeting? Do they really deserve a patent on thin rectangular things? No, that is all bullshit and it is shameful that the courts are willing to be bullied (or bought) into playing along with this farce.

<comment><USER14> Those are fine arguments against Apple's business strategies, but not arguments that Apple's products are terrible and/or inferior. Especially not arguments that Apple's products are inferior to whatever-it-was that its competitors were doing before Apple introduced the iPhone.

<comment><USER16> Nobody said its products are inferior. The argument _is_ against its business strategies, which is quite absurd, to say the least. I think the reason why ars advocated a boycott was as a 'protest' to show Apple that it must not partake in such activities. And please please don't give me the argument that Apple is a corporation that exists only for its profits etcetc. There are ways to maximize your profit without being so paranoid

<comment><USER14> I was replying to someone who said: "Are your products so terrible that you have to force people to buy them by preventing any other competition."

I accept that you don't say that their products are terrible. I certainly like their products while disliking the innovation-killing patent-circus. The eventual end-game is an oligopoly, and I think this is a net loss for humankind.

<comment><USER17> I took the less literal meaning of the statement, as more of a "do you have so little faith in your product's ability to compete in the open market" though perhaps I'm being too generous.

<comment><USER14> I took it the same way, although as you can see from my response, my assertion is that Apple do have faith they can compete in the open market against their competitor's original designs and products.

The open question concerns any company "competing in the open market" against companies that simply clone successful products without limitation or restriction. Essentially, the question asks Apple how much faith it has that its products can compete against its products.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Make no mistake - all the major smartphones out there are infringing someone else's patent. If this is the precedent, next thing we'll have iPhones banned for infringing on Motorola, and Windows Phones banned for infringing on RIM patents.

This is bad news for consumers, bad news for innovators.

Everyone loses.

<comment><USER19> I support your comment, but the lawyers are making a killing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> For the last couple of years I have been trying to stay objective about this (I actually do quite a bit of iOS programming in my day job in addition to Android) and have always tried to be more pro-android than anti-Apple, but I am finally done trying to walk the fence. Enough of this bullshit. Its time for consumers to be aware that every time they buy an Apple product, they are damaging the software industry and the spirit of innovation. Its like buying blood diamonds. Sure they are pretty but the cost isnt worth it.

My question: Is there a central point for sending out this message? I would love to see someone setup a messaging page like "Say No to Apple" or something like that that I can link to. Some activity the level of the SOPA blackouts would be awesome (though probably not realistic, but hey, I can dream), with JavaScript popups for idevices etc.What about things like Twitter badges or sidebar widgets that we can install on our blogs, profile pages etc?

I think the normal folks (consumers) don't get how bad this is.

<comment><USER21> For all that time, Apple's iOS strategy has been reducing developers to sharecroppers and selling deliberately crippled appliances instead of human- worthy tools. The average consumer is fine with that; there isn't even a majority of _hackers here_ somewhat troubled like you were. So why would this suddenly be objectionable to them?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Boy, they are getting a lot of mileage out of that regular expression "data tapping" patent, even though people were doing the same thing years before, including a NeXTStep app released with source and published on USENET in 1995 1 year before the Apple patent was filed

[https://groups.google.com/group/comp.archives/browse_thread/...](https://groups.google.com/group/comp.archives/browse_thread/thread/40eec7c07815ae25/68b1e859b82d3a3e)

<comment><USER23> IBM Simon(1993/4) also had the same functionality[0].

Also, it seems that their main patent(8,086,604[1]) for this case describe a metasearch engine, something that have been around at least since the mid 90s(long before the patent was filled in 2004).

[0] <http://youtu.be/wnFsJ9z_caY?t=1m57s> (warning: terrible video quality ahead) [1] <http://goo.gl/jjG1P>

<comment><USER24> Is this kind of stuff not brought up in court? How can you possibly patent something that already existed?

<comment><USER25> IANAL, but as far as I my very limited understanding goes. Prior art isn't verified when a patent application is applied. Only after that, when someone files a suit trying to invalidate the patent. Which is a separate case from the injunction. So Samsung would have to file a separate suit to invalidate the patents. If then win that, then and only then, they'll be able to stop the injunction by saying Apple patents are invalid. Which of course, would cost Samsung a lot of money and time.

So you can file any bogus patent, the USPTO won't verify. They'll only check if all the paperwork is in order. It will only matter if your patents are bogus if someone tries to invalidate it.

Or am I talking crap? Please correct me where I'm wrong, I'd love to learn more.

<comment><USER26> IANAL either but I'd say you've basically got it right that the USPTO is happy to give out patents that a court will invalidate when someone with the money to shoot them down is involved. But I wouldn't go as far as to say "you can file any bogus patent, the USPTO won't verify". They're simply more forgiving with what constitutes novelty and non-obviousness.

I'd also think that the injunction could be removed if Samsung can show that they aren't causing irreparable harm, even if they are indeed infringing a legitimate patent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Does this kind of thing make anyone happy? Does anyone feel better about Apple the company because of this?

It would be nice if supposedly innovative companies could, you know, just keep innovating instead of worrying about copycats catching up on stale technology (in this case, I don't think it's even clear that there is any sort of copycat-like activity).

Apple makes a few excellent products, but this kind of thing lowers my impression of the brand overall.

<comment><USER28> Since everyone is suing everyone else I don't know why people want to single out Apple. They got hit pretty hard by Nokia a couple years ago. I think they learned a hard lesson about how the game really works. I don't know how to draw the distinction between Apple offensively suing Samsung and Motorola offensively suing Apple -- or for that matter Samsung counter-suing Apple. It's all the same game and everyone is playing by the same rules. It seems the biggest difference is Apple (and Microsoft via licensing) are having success while companies who were best known for selling microwaves 5 years ago are losing. I don't mean to mock Samsung because they do make pretty good devices but the time-line is simply on Apple's side here.

<comment><USER29> Actually, IMO the Nokia lawsuit is a great example of why everybody picks on Apple and how Apple has changed the rules of the game.

The old rules of the game were that

1) all the big guys cross-licensed each other's patents 2) the big guys got together to create standards and used patents to monetize these standards.

Note that the old rules of the game weren't particularly fair to the little guys, but at least they weren't the mutual destruction that Apple has started.

Apple is a big player in #2, receiving a fair portion of the MP4 licensing profits, for example.

But of course, Apple being a relatively new phone maker doesn't have any skin in the "phone standards" game, and has to license them from the older players like Qualcomm, Nokia & Motorola. The standards agreement force these guys to license in a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory fashion (FRAND).

Nokia said that a patent cross-license was FRAND. If Apple were good guys, they would have agreed -- they could get these phone-essential patents for less or even no money. However, they were reserving these patents for offensive purposes, so Nokia & Apple couldn't come to an agreement, essentially forcing Nokia to sue them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is particularly sad because the Galaxy Nexus is a brilliant phone running _stock_ Android. I've found the stock Android ICS experience to be much better than what you can find with a version of Android modified by the vendor (at least for the other phones I've seen). I'm pretty sure it's one of the best options for Android phones, period.

<comment><USER31> What other options have you tried? My experience with stock ICS (AOSP based ROMs) are terrible, the GUI is unintuitive, simplistic to the point of being ugly and rather limited in functionality as opposed to older versions of MIUI (not based on ICS). Sense is not only ugly, but slow too, I have not tried touchwiz to comment on that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> What A Patent Hell.

FYI: The patents held against Android:

1\. A means of detecting and marking up data like a phone number or an e-mail address, and then initiating a phone call or an e-mail when the linked data is clicked

2\. A means of searching multiple databases and sources for data.

3\. A slide to unlock feature.

4\. An autocorrect-type function that completes the word as a user types and allows the user to accept or reject the word.

This must be a joke!

<comment><USER33> Seems like the reason the US patent system is so fucked-up is the logical disconnect between the two following concepts:

* The USPTO approves most patents applications without the most cursory examination by a qualified person. * Patents granted by the USPTO are assumed to be valid unless overturned by a court of law.

You can't have it both ways and still expect a logical result.

And seriously, how the hell did #4 up there even get approved? Did the examiner rubber-stamping that mess seriously never in his entire life use Microsoft Word?

<comment><USER34> As to (4), patent attorneys earn the big bucks for writing the patents in as obfuscated a manner as possible. That lets them get the patent past the Patent Office by saying "Look how very narrow our patent is" and its granted on those grounds, but when they go to sue other companies they choose an interpretation that amounts to the text in the grandparent, so that they can sue the maximum number of people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Judge Koh was a Silicon Valley patent litigator from 2000-2008 before being appointed a judge. Makes me wonder what companies she represented.

<comment><USER36> Rather than cast aspersions on her credibility I think this actually bolsters it to learn this. At least she has deep expertise in a (very flawed) system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The Galaxy Nexus is stock Android. Apple is suing Samsung because of stock Android software - not firmware, not hardware, but software.

Is there a legal reason Apple is suing Samsung instead of Google, or is it tactical / political?

<comment><USER38> Because Samsung is shipping a device with the software. Parent law does require that the patent be tied to a physical device. IANAL.

<comment><USER39> Indeed. Source code is speech, and speech cannot infringe patents. (Not saying this is logical, that's just what the case law says.)

That's why you can build an mp3 player from source without paying the license fee, but Debian can't ship you a compiled mp3 player.

<comment><USER40> So if shipping source only is perfectly legal, what's to stop OEMs from simply shipping infringing components as source only and compiling on first boot? Strictly speaking, the user initiated the compile (by powering on the device), so Samsung would be in the clear. Technically legal, but I have the feeling this wouldn't survive court.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This seems to be based on the most bogus of Apple's patents - things like "slide to unlock" (something used on physical door's for hundreds of years, moving it to pixels doesn't suddenly make it inventive) and auto-converting data to links (well documented back into the 90's.

It's a shame that the places where Apple really moved forward are not where they are exploiting their patents. It seems, those ideas were already beyond Apple's ability to patent, so instead they got a bunch of bogus stuff through and are using it anyway. It really besmirches their actual amazing record of inventiveness that they take rubbish like this forward. I hope these all get overturned.

</comment><comment><USER42> Those who can compete, do. Those who can't litigate.

<comment><USER43> Given their profitability, Apple is just doing both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> So this actually _is_ about software patents this time, and clearly anti- innovation. I dare anybody to argue that the patent system as it is does not hinder innovation in software.

<comment><USER45> I don't think it's a software patent problem. But it is a ridiculous patent problem. Who could consider checking two databases is a significant innovation over consulting one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Apple has clearly lost it. Whatever once made them cool and different is long gone and all that remains is a pseudo-legalese ganster, using its giant pool of money to hinder software development at the cost of everyone else.

You cannot be a software-developer and support this monster with your money. As a software developer there should be no way you can support this.

Apple is the SCO of this decade.

</comment><comment><USER47> I guess not every judge can be an Alsup.

<comment><USER48> Koh was a patent litigator before becoming a judge, Alsup is a mathematician who served as a special counsel in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.

Her bias is showing. How embarrassing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I really wish I hadn't read this just as I start the weekend. I've been irreparably harmed by the high blood pressure it has caused within me.

</comment><comment><USER50> Ok, so I just went ahead and ordered a Galaxy Nexus phone. I've been meaning to do this for a while now to see if I want to port my apps to the Android platform, and here Apple just pushed me to do it. :/

</comment><comment><USER51> This actually got me wondering if Google has ever sued someone in the same manner and it does not appear as if they have. I find that very interesting - does anyone have any links to the contrary?

<comment><USER52> Google (like many tech companies, I think?) promises their employees that patents will only be used defensively.

The only related example is that Motorola Mobility recently began a patent suit against Microsoft and then Google acquired them (in that order) so it's unclear whether that promise applies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Irreparable harm seems to imply that this could hurt Apple in a major way.

But it's easy to see what game-changing technology is. Look at what people want in a phone:

[http://mashable.com/2011/10/03/iphone-5-wish-list-starts- wit...](http://mashable.com/2011/10/03/iphone-5-wish-list-starts-with-4g-and- bigger-screen/)

There's tens of similar surveys published online. None of them include "search-as-u-go". In fact Apple doesn't seem to think that it's that big enough of a deal to promote. They advertise tens of features & this isn't one of them. And that's because it's expected (everyone uses it already) or it's not that important to a buyer when choosing a phone to purchase.

It's just not reasonable to assume that the "search-as-u-go" technology could give any sort of significant advantage to Samsung to be the cause of a shift in market share or something with similarly unascertainable consequences, which is precisely what the ruling of irreparable damage relies on.

</comment><comment><USER54> How have we not abolished patents yet? This is ridiculous, and everyone appears to know it except that judge.

</comment><comment><USER55> Especially sad considering how people in the tech industry use and promote Apple products. Sadly, I'm a user of MBP too. All of the "hackers" these days use Mac laptops to write in Javascript/Ruby/other_todays_hyped_language. All to satisfy the consumeristic needs of population. And frankly you can't do much with the platform anyway - Apple disallows JIT and other low level stuff on iOS. They move towards the same restrictions on MacOS X, starting with Mac App Store Apps. I wouldn't be surprised if in few years they disallow installing apps not through the app store. Fuck you, Apple! Your soul interest is to make more and more cash.

</comment><comment><USER56> Apple Corp. sucks as a member of society. As one of the wealthiest and most successful companies on earth they continue to play dirty by abusing the patent system for their advantage. Most of the patents they are "protecting" are describing pretty obvious ideas that any group of good engineers working on this class of devices would bump into, and this behavior does not benefit society in any way. They are clearly protecting a virtual monopoly on tablets by fighting with patents rather than focusing on out innovating the competition. I hope their will one day be real competition in this space.

</comment><comment><USER57> If Apple keeps pissing off all the vendors it needs to work with, pretty soon they'll have to start fabbing their own fucking chips for their phones.

This is getting out of hand. And I'm blaming Apple for most of the lunacy.

</comment><comment><USER58> You are all way to biased about the whole thing. Thing about it. They just freaking copied Siri. Would you feel cool if someone else just copies your innovative product feature. Apple has all right to sue them and get them blocked.

You can hate my comment. You can down vote me. You can hate Apple as much as you like but all of you know before there was iPhone and iPad there was nothing close to any of it. So how can anyone say all other companies aren't copying? Eric Schmidt just stole every inch of the iPhone...

<comment><USER59> > They just freaking copied Siri.

This article is about the Samsung Galaxy Nexus, which doesn't have any integrated voice assistant as far as I am aware.

> Eric Schmidt just stole every inch of the iPhone...

While it may be true that Android has "stolen" certain things from the iPhone, there are also plenty of things that the iPhone has also "stolen" from Android. Saying Android copies everything that Apple does while Apple continues to build everything from the ground up is completely unfair.

<comment><USER58> AFAIK you would voice assistant in Android 4.1 which is damn similar what Apple introduced with Siri. I really can't understand how some people can just ignore the fact that there happens a big stolen product here. How on earth will you argue that Google has now a similar voice assistant like Siri without copying Siri. You don't want to say it is coincendence, do you?

People always claim Apple had stolen from Android too but they never can give any evidence. What did Apple copy from Android which become a major selling factor? Copy paste? No. Multi touch? No. Multitasking? No. App Store? Hello no!

Please just tell me how entrepreneurs all seem to hate Apple because Apple just fighting for there right. The right to say: Hey if you want to make a product, but don't just copy our product!

Apple didn't sued Microsoft over WP7 cause they didn't just copy The iPhone. They found something new. Something different. But Android And Google just trying to copy the hell of iOS as much as possible.

EDIT: This has nothing to do with being a die-hard Apple guy. Everyone should have the right to fight copy cats. Or would like it that your product is getting copied and you as a the creator earn just nothing from it at all. Not even the respect that it was your idea and your product.

<comment><USER60> You can't own an idea. The idea of 'searching with your voice' is not something Apple can own.

They can own a specific implementation of searching with your voice, but that's it. The general concept of "doing this thing" is not something that is protectable.

Also, not that it is really relevant, but selling point Apple copied from Android? Notification center. A direct, 'slavish' copy (to use Koh's own terms), but you're not jumping up to defend Google's 'innovations' in the untamed wilderness of "use part of the screen to tell you what's happening".

<comment><USER58> 5 years of iOS work and the only thing you can find is "notification center"? It's not even a copy. It's not close to what it is on Android.

I just stop here. It doesn't make any sense to argue about this anymore. I just hope this copying just stops and everyone can have it's own innovative feature and not copied crap!

<comment><USER61> Are you 6?

<comment><USER62> So, what else was stolen? And compare Android before iPhone anouncement and after.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Galaxy Nexus is a direct competitor to the iPhone, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 is a direct competitor to the iPad.

Now, if Apple goes after Nexus 7, we will know that they are planning a 7" iPad-mini.

</comment><comment><USER63> Sounds like they managed to get a patent on machine learning 101.

I am sorry, but stuff like that just makes me despise Apple. Maybe the greater public will eventually catch on, too.

</comment><comment><USER64> Slightly unrelated question: where does this "make you whole" language come from? It seems to be cropping up more and more recently, but I hadn't heard it before about 2 years ago. Perhaps it's a term of art that I just didn't know about?

It's a bizarre and clumsy piece of corporate-speak. Money can't make one whole. It could set things right, though.

<comment><USER60> It's a legal term of art. Search around for the "make-whole doctrine".

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> What is the effect of this ruling, if it is upheld? Will Samsung have to disable this functionality? I imagine that they are not doing that immediately because that seems like an admission of guilt. Will they be able to ship their devices without software and have users install the software in question?

</comment><comment><USER66> I picked up my new Galaxy Nexus (phone) today. Loving it so far! Decided to go with the Nexus over the S3. Better price/performance ratio, and of course better support from Google on the pure Android experience. :)

</comment><comment><USER67> This is starting to read like a Rod Serling original.

</comment><comment><USER68> This is a sad news. One that feels me with disdain. The conceptual patent thing is such a farce.

Didn't google just reduce the price of this phone to $349. I am pretty sure it was not due to lack of demand. The phone is beautiful, feels different then previous versions of Android and looks different then Apple's iPhone. The judge involved here is the same judge who did the same thing to Galaxy Tab (which sucked anyway). But doing this to such a good phone which could have brought smartphone to life of millions of people is shameful. Its not the intellectual property , its a anti-competitive move.

</comment><comment><USER69> Hope you felt good upvoting all those articles stating how ridiculous patent law is FROM YOUR DAMN APPLE DEVICES

Time to vote with your wallet is way overdue.

And while you're at it may think about the Sony stuff you own.

<comment><USER30> Sony may be evil, but they're much less insidious than Apple. Why? Simple: Apple is, whether we like it or not, popular. Sony isn't. The real problem is not just Apple's behavior, but also how many people like them _despite_ their behavior.

Of course, I won't claim any moral superiority here. While I don't have any Apple devices, it's not because of moral reasons but simply because I am genuinely unimpressed with their efforts. Overrated, over-hyped and fashionable, but never practical or optimal.

<comment><USER70> A bit over 15 years ago, Sony was extremely popular.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Do anyone here thinks that it will lead to rise in sales of Galaxy Nexus for remaining stock and it will sell very very quickly. Couple of my friends are already ordering one. If this patent battle turns out to be farce for Apple, this could be lightning in dark clouds.

</comment><comment><USER71> Can Google not sue to invalidate that "Siri" patent because of prior art? I thought this kind of unified search existed back in the days of Google Desktop...

<comment><USER72> Back in the day of Copernicus if you want to go far enough (lol, I wonder how many people would actually get that reference... it was an old program that'd search for your terms in a bunch of search engines and display the results in a unified interface)

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Maybe if a big enough amount of people gave them some bad PR they would stop doing this monopolistic and unethical actions. I propose to make #AppleIsAnUglyTroll a trend on Twitter (for the masses "Ugly Troll" is more appealing than "Patent Troll")

</comment><comment><USER74> There is no abuse of the law, there is law, and there is not law. Using the law is not an abuse, regardless of what it may seem from the cheap seats where we are all sitting.

If you don't like it, fix the laws.

<comment><USER60> The law is intended, in the Constitution, to 'promote the progress of [technology]'.

Using the patent system to browbeat your competitors out of business by wielding bullshit imaginary software patents does not promote the progress of anything but Apple's business.

Therefore, it is clearly an abuse of the law.

<comment><USER62> Well, fix the courts then. They should make sure laws are applied as intendend, shouldn't they?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> I will never buy an Apple product again.

Their tactics are pathetic.

</comment><comment><USER71> When will Anonymous take down Apple?

</comment><comment><USER19> I got annoyed when this happened to HTC, but Samsung is a different story. Their entire business model is based on dumpster diving at 1 infinity loop. I agree that these patents look silly on their own, but when you add them all up you see a concerted effort to copy apples products, and in some cases deceive the ignorant.</comment>


Ruby 2.6.0 Released - sahin-boydas https://www.ruby-lang.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18751823](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18751823)

</comment><comment><USER2> What's Ruby's popularity these days? Genuinely curious to gauge the trend for this language over Python and Javascript.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice christmas present. Bundler is now finally a default gem :)

</comment><comment><USER4> Which should someone learn first, Ruby or Python?

<comment> black-tea Neither. Learn an assembly language first and work your way up.

<comment><USER5> Nah. Learn electronics and boolean logic and work your way up.

<comment> black-tea No. That's not necessary. Assembly language is the simplest programming language there is. It's not a joke and will save time later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice! Thanks, Ruby team!</comment>


Show HN: Hipmob is Olark for mobile apps. (Live support chat, now on Android) - <AUTHOR> http://www.hipmob.com

<comment><USER2> What is Olark?

<comment><USER3> Clearly Olark is Hipmob for web apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the screenshot: "One moment. Looks like you're on an iPhone 4S and running Windows?" Let me get this straight. The user is sitting in front of its windows machine, and happily taps on its iPhone to chat with customer support for a piece of software running on its Windows machine?

<comment><AUTHOR> Screenshot is from a live mobile chat with a user of a remote game control app . . .

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks a lot like look.io (<http://www.look.io> \- redirects to LivePerson who recently acquired them), which is already live in and working in a few apps (Hotel Tonight and others iirc).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> We love Olark, it works on our browser, and we built Hipmob to do the same thing for users in our mobile app.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is incredibly unreadable: <http://o7.no/NhoH2P>

Also, just curious, what is stopping Olark from doing this? I see you already use Olark on your website. Would you eventually want to do web also?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for pointing that out - will fix.

We're focused on mobile - we dont intend to do live chat for web. Olark does a good job at it (as do a few others). We built Hipmob to scratch our own itch, and I suspect we wont be the only ones . . .

<comment><USER7> no not a particularly novel idea, but someone's gotta do it. $$$

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was disappointed by the fact that there is no iOS library. Went to the website, see a big iPhone on the homepage. Read through, see references to "...in your iPhone app."\

EDIT: (Disappointed as in, I was about to sign up and integrate it)

<comment><AUTHOR> Apologies for that - we're hard at work on iOS. Shoot me a line at email@example.com and we'll send a beta pack to you once its ready (should be a couple of weeks). Also would love to hear what features you'd like to see . . .

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Um...the FAQ button link 404s. You should probably fix that (it currently is linking to <http://www.hipmob.com/www.pricing.html#faq>)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for catching - fixing now.

<comment><USER10> Great save. Fixed now, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is there a photo demo of it working?

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you mean by photo demo? Hipmob is already implemented in a couple of android apps - one is here: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wanderplay...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.wanderplayer.android.controller)</comment></comment>


Buying Haje: How I got my given name as my Twitter handle for $250 - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/10/oh-god-vain-much/ <comment><USER2> I wonder what would happen if someone was occasionally using the handle</comment>


New materials could turn water into the fuel of the future - <AUTHOR> http://sciencebulletin.org/archives/11022.html <comment><USER2> The title is misleading, it looks like a linkbait generated by a funny xkcd substitution.

The article is a copy of the a press release. Other sites have almost the same title and text:

[https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-03/ciot- nmc0306...](https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-03/ciot- nmc030617.php)

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170306151722.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170306151722.htm)

The original source is: [http://www.caltech.edu/news/new-materials-could-turn- water-f...](http://www.caltech.edu/news/new-materials-could-turn-water-fuel- future-54294) So Caltech is guilty of the horrible title.

The "new materials" are some new vanadates. They are using them as catalyst to use solar power for something like an electrolysis that produces hydrogen and oxygen from water. I'm not sure, but they may try to add some carbon to produce a more stable fuel instead of hydrogen.

A better title is: "New material could help to use solar power to produce the fuel of the future"</comment>


Show HN: ChatVoting - American Idol-like voting for everyone - <AUTHOR> http://ChatVoting.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I've finally reached MVP stage for this and would really love to know what HN thinks.

What do you think I should change on the landing page, or in the app?

It is built with Sinatra running on Heroku and uses Twilio for SMS services.

<comment><USER2> Is there a way to try it without paying first? Or is there a demo video?

<comment><AUTHOR> There isn't. A demo video is definitely on my roadmap. I'd love to find a way to offer a free demo too, but I'm trying to bootstrap this and twilio charges me for phone numbers and msgs.

Maybe I could allocate a few numbers and let people demo with one of those for a little while.

<comment><USER2> I understand it's hard to offer a free demo. But then a video is really essential. I think patio11 offers a free demo on his Appointment Reminder site, which also uses Twilio. Maybe you can ask him how much it costs to see if it's affordable?

<comment><USER3> Is it affordable to give a demo poll, which closes automatically when you get 5 votes?

<comment><AUTHOR> The SMS msgs themselves are cheap, it is getting the numbers that might add up. What I'm thinking is allocating a block of numbers, maybe 5-10 for now and many more if/when this takes off and then letting you create a poll with one of those. The interesting part will be not letting numbers be used in a close enough time period that someone would skew someone else's poll results.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's my impression that those voting things are a way to make money for the company that initiates the voting. In your concept it's the other way around.

I'm curious who your customers will be.

<comment><AUTHOR> My original thought was just conventions. If you are running a convention and wanted to have a poll on which of the top finalists had the best booth, you would use this.

But I staggered thinking that it could be used for about anything: Beauty Pageants, chili cook offs, etc.

Flame-Bait: Jason Calacanis could use it to find the most popular startup at the next LAUNCH.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You use the word "Lean" about 4 times on the page. Spell check! ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Ha ha, that was in the template I bought from ThemeForest... I should have noticed. :( Fixed.</comment></comment>


Indiegogo fund raises enough money to buy video of Mayor Rob Ford smoking crack - <AUTHOR> http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/rob-ford-crackstarter <comment><USER2> Some context: Rob Ford is the mayor of Toronto, the most populous city in Canada. This is the newest of numerous controversies during his time in office.

Edit: it's also worth noting that Mayor Ford's relationship with the media has been... colorful. Some funny cases include him calling 80% of journalists "maggots" (1) and lying about a drunken outburst back in 2006 (2).

(1) [http://read.thestar.com/#!/article/51a27b477b1eacc589c3f4ae-...](http://read.thestar.com/#!/article/51a27b477b1eacc589c3f4ae- rob-ford-there-s-no-video-reporters-are-a-bunch-of-maggots)

(2) [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2006/05/03/tor-f...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2006/05/03/tor- ford060503.html)

<comment><USER3> The fact that this is getting such widespread attention is making Toronto look like a farce, and as someone from there, it really upsets me. Now when I tell people I'm from Toronto, it will be, "Oh, that's the city with the crack smoking mayor right?"

Really unfortunate and despicable. Cannot believe we voted this idiot into office.

<comment><USER4> To be fair, this: "Oh, that's the city with the crack smoking mayor right?" Could also refer to Washington DC.

<comment><USER5> Washington DC would be "Oh, that's the city with the crack smoking mayor _who was reelected_ , right?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Obviously a lot of you guys don't like Mr. Ford and he doesn't sound like a decent person, but why is this on HN? I fail to see how this relates to tech or entrepreneurship.

<comment><USER7> This political story is at the top of HN despite the guidelines for the same reason that your remarks are at the top of the comments... _despite the guidelines urging us not to comment on why something doesn't belong on HN_.

<comment><USER8> Not all the guidelines make sense in all situations.

They are "guide"lines.

If someone doesn't believe this story belongs on HN and politely gives valid reasons, I see no problem.

<comment><USER7> I think we are agreeing with each other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm a Torontonian, and definitely not a fan of Rob Ford, but somehow it feels like there is an ongoing, organized effort to get him out of the office and out of politics (whether by the opposing parties, or some other organization). Sometimes he really doesn't help the issue by somehow managing to charge head first into even more trouble, but the string of various things he's been charged/accused of can't be coincidental.

Now there's a video of him smoking crack (which it looks like nobody will see, but trust us - it's there!), then there are some anonymous drug dealers who swear that Rob's brother Doug was a major drug-lord back in the day (which for some reason, just surfaces now).

I don't know... it's all a bit convenient and yet ethereal.

<comment><USER10> He fired his chief of staff last week for telling him to go to rehab. This is according to the Sun which, as newspapers go, has been his cheerleader for the past ten years.

So you can't claim there's no substance to the drug allegations when his highest ranking staff-member is advising him to get help.

<comment><USER9> Is this the article? [http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/23/rob-ford-told-to- go-to-...](http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/23/rob-ford-told-to-go-to-rehab)

Here's how that accusation starts: "But a source familiar with the situation told the Sun...". So again, no names, no factual evidence, nothing concrete. Just for the record I'm not saying that Rob Ford didn't smoke crack or that his brother wasn't some kind of drug lord... in fact it wouldn't surprise me at all. I'm just commenting on how relentlessly someone seems to be trying to ruin their political careers.

As far as the Sun being Ford's cheerleader, yes it's true they are the token "conservative" media outlet. Just as Fox News is the conservative source in the US. But here's what I believe about their role in the media landscape. As the most prominent conservative media, their job is to be so ludicrous and untrustworthy that only the most hard-core conservatives would actually listen to them. The John Stewart show is quite good at highlighting just how ridiculous Fox News is, for example. This way you are left with other more-or- less liberal mainstream media as the most accessible and most credible source of news. This way you can channel all kinds of propaganda along with the other "trustworthy" news. And that's how wars and surveillance-drones are sold to tax-payers. Sorry for the conspiracy theory rant.

<comment><USER11> You say "someone" but the people who are writing these articles are easily identified and researched.

The two journalists who did the Globe and Mail piece are award-winning well respected investigative journalists.

I doubt they would risk their careers, or waste their time, on someone else's false claims.

<comment><USER9> No I agree... Let's say these are absolutely responsible journalists with solid sources and reliable evidence. What's really strange and somewhat worrying is, why is this torrent of information suddenly coming out now. Both Rob and Doug Ford have been in politics for years.

What if whoever has these anonymous drug dealers in their pocket has decided for one reason or another to unleash them on the media and ruin the Fords' reputations.

The possibility that our politics and public opinion is not controlled by democracy, but rather some private (and possibly criminal) interests worries me far more than whether Rob Ford indeed smoked crack or not.

<comment><USER11> That's a fair question for sure.. In my opinion, the Ford brothers have been escalating things with the media (who are more than happy to reciprocate) for a while, and things just came to a head with this crack video thing, and everyone decided "let's do this" and the gloves came off..

Oh, and I think they've been doing a fine job of ruining their own reputations (I'm half-joking about that one but Rob Ford really does have almost-weekly blunders)..

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ugh...

> UPDATE-- MAY 27, 2013, 9:46 AM EASTERN EDT: We have had no further contact > with the people we believe to have custody of this video since the last > update.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: Our confidence that we can consummate this transaction has diminished.

<comment><USER10> The fallback position of giving the money to addiction and mental health charities was arguably a better outcome than giving the money to dealers.

And one of the reporters who saw the video was on the radio this morning saying that three other copies are floating around.

<comment><USER9> So it's a win-win-win.. the supposed drug-dealers are 200k short, the people who originally donated money to defame and ruin a man's political career now feel noble and charitable again because it turns our they donated to a good cause after all, and Rob Ford's political career is ruined forever. Couldn't have asked for a more wonderfully humanitarian outcome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Perhaps the drug dealers got smart, "hey, if we hand over the video showing Ford smoking the crack we sold him, doesn't that prove we are drug dealers? damn mo-fo, we outta here!"

<comment><USER11> Well I had actually wondered as well about the simple logistics of accepting a $200k payment.

Clearly Gawker would need some kind of paper trail before making that payment, not just for tax purposes but simply because I'm pretty sure there are laws that govern transfers that large..

So the recipient would have to declare that income at tax time (and possibly even file paperwork on receipt) to at the very least pay taxes on it, which would put them on the government's radar, which is something they may want less than they would want $200k..

<comment><USER14> It's still legal to use cash to pay for things. Let's not assume that we've lost that ability until it happens. It's an important privacy we shouldn't give up easily.

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure that a US business can take out $200k from the bank, bring it across the border into Canada undeclared, and give it to a random person without any kind of paperwork or tracking..

Maybe I'm wrong! I'd just be pretty surprised about it..

<comment><USER14> You're right about the border crossing. I didn't consider that. Canada wants documentation after $10K.

<http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5052-eng.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This somewhat off topic, but I just got back from Toronto last week. Great city. It has been 20 years since I've been up there and a lot has changed.

There are concerns about the development that is going on, but seeing new urban housing going up is refreshing compared with many US cities which effectively have no growth policies.

Based on the number of units that seemed ready to hit the market, I suspect Toronto could see significantly lower housing prices in the future. I just hope it doesn't end in financial ruin for the banks.

<comment><USER16> On the other hand about 60,000 immigrants move to Toronto every year, so there's plenty of people who want housing.

<comment><USER15> I think it good that developers in the city are able to meet the demand rather than ignore it. I'd like to see this level of development happening in US cities. It looks like progress.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As a Torontonian, this is just embarrassing. Someone get this guy out of office already..

</comment><comment><USER18> You know, I had been previously thinking about crowdfunding competitors to Kickstarter. Like Google, that company has pretty much cornered the market in mindshare to the point that kickstarting is synonymous with crowdfunding. Good on Indiegogo, the West Coast/Silicon Valley alternative, for establishing itself with this, I guess.

<comment><USER19> IndieGoGo has nothing to do with this, aside from it being on their site. It's a poorly written headline. If anything it should say 'Gawker fund raises enough money...'

But yes, i'm very happy to see others succeeding at crowdfunding outside of KickStarter, and I firmly believe those with large followings don't even need to be using an outside source, but could be doing it on their own websites.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is anyone else bothered by the fact that if the [Insert Kickstarter project here] doesn't materialize there are few things holding the founder/creator accountable?

In this case, if they don't obtain the video they are simply going to donate $200k to a charity that they will "figure out what that is later if it comes to it."

</comment><comment><USER21> Weren't they originally claiming that his drug dealers shot the video? If so, isn't it actually more harmful to society to give a bunch of crack dealers $200,000 than it is for the mayor of Toronto to smoke crack?

<comment><USER22> Compare who has more influence and therefore potential for harming the public - two dealers with $200k or a crackhead mayor of a city with 2.6M inhabitants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Interestingly, another candidate (George Smitherman) who ran against Ford for the 2010 municipal election in Toronto admitted to being addicted to "an illegal drug" before running for political office.

I wasn't living in Toronto when the election was going on so I didn't really pay attention to the media re: the election, but I wonder how they portrayed him at the time

</comment><comment><USER24> This is definitely interesting. It makes me wonder if there is a possibility to crowd-fund more "information retrieval" like this.

</comment><comment><USER25> I have no idea who Mayor Rob Ford is, but I assume he must be to the right of center for this to be the top item on HN.

<comment><USER26> If only there was a way for you to look this up...

<http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rob+Ford>

<comment><USER25> It's more of a comment about the predictability of political articles on HN.

<comment><USER27> And the predictability of the outright hypocrisy so many right -wing politicians find themselves caught in...

<comment><USER28> But who else to tell us about the horrors is drug addiction than someone who's been there? </sarcasm>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Seems like a bait-and-switch. Horrible.

<comment><USER30> They will donate any surplus money to a charity relevant to dealing with drug addiction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> And, there's a good chance that the video will not surface because Rob Ford (or, you know, the way mob bosses wink) ordered the murder of the video owner: [http://gawker.com/ford-staffer-tells-police-about-tip- linkin...](http://gawker.com/ford-staffer-tells-police-about-tip-linking- crack-video-509995085)

[Edit: uhm, tongue in cheek, obviously. But Rob Ford is pretty clearly messed up with some dodgy people doing dodgy things.]

<comment><USER32> Do you realize you can actually face legal consequences for so flippantly making such a claim?

<comment><USER31> Really? He's going to send the entire Internet to court on libel charges? Last week his defender's came out saying that the video was fake or didn't exist. This week, the Globe and Mail produced an article that was the result of two year's of investigation that shows just how deep the Ford family is in the drug business. Whether these allegations are true or not, at this point would it be beyond the realm of possibility?

<comment><USER32> You aren't the entire Internet. And yes, random people saying random things (through the bravery of seeming anonymity) have led to a number of well known libel cases.</comment></comment></comment></comment>