Why does Microsoft say Zoho is the Fake Office? - <AUTHOR> http://fakeoffice.org/ <comment><USER2> The reason I have never tried Zoho is because I can't believe anyone could create that many awesome apps, which leads me to believe they are all mediocre and just checking another box on the "how many apps can we build list".

I don't know if this is true, but its the reason I still haven't spent the time to try them.

<comment><USER3> It is a 1000 people company. I believe that a 1000 people company can definitely create that many products.

<comment><USER2> Really? Microsoft has 90k people and has only managed to create a handful of good products (and that depends on your definition of good).

<comment><USER4> When Microsoft released the killer version of Word in 1990 they only had 4000 employees (according to wolframalpha).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Because it is?

Let's be honest - everyone is out there chasing Office for features and functionality. That they've pulled it off with Javascript and a web browser is insanely impressive, but nonetheless, they are all imitating the old-timers in a 20 year old product space.

<comment><USER6> MS Office is a copy-cat product, too.

<comment><USER7> 15 years ago. It has been the industry leader for a long time.

<comment><USER8> s/leader //

Fixed that for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Reminds me of a story from Tony Robbins. This turnaround expert was hired to fix Six Flags. Now the Eureka moment came when the employees started to think of their business as being in league with Disneyland, instead of being in league with the local Midway fairs. So for Microsoft to give lip service to Zoho is really a terrible move on their part, since strategically they want their product to be on the same level as no one, but they just revealed that they don't feel that way about Office.

</comment><comment><USER10> One thing that no company should do when selling a product, is show me an ad for some movie before a video that explains the product. I was interested in the CRM product for work but the ad before the sales pitch is poor form for a company trying to sell me something.

</comment><comment><USER11> looks like a good marketing idea initially, but people trust microsoft and may take its word over some internet company with a funny name...

<comment><USER12> After seeing the link, I wanted to run here and say how awesome of a marketing idea this was. But then I read your comment and it got me thinking...

Within this little tech circle, I think it is great. Take something big, bad MS said; twist it, make it 2.0 and bam! Instant marketing...

However, what happens when someone else sees this website. It is going to entice them to try Zoho? I don't think so; if anything it will make them want to run far away and probably to MS.

I think they should have sat on this idea for a little longer and maybe cooler heads would have prevailed. I am very interested to see how this works for them!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This webpage is much better than the one launched earlier. Good luck :)

</comment><comment><USER14> Let's see if this marketing works...

</comment><comment><USER15> Because they are good at marketing

</comment><comment><USER16> Arrogance. They think they own the business business.

</comment><comment><USER17> Zoho is an awesome company and I have written many blog posts among them. But this sort of marketing is pathetic and doesn't suit any reputable company. It's simply childish. Stop it zoho. Nobody likes a cry baby.

<comment><USER18> I don't think they're being cry babies at all. They're just picking up a fumbled ball and running with it. Good luck to them I say.</comment></comment>


Johnny.Decimal – A system to organise projects - <AUTHOR> http://johnnydecimal.com/ <comment><USER2> I see a few potential problems with this.

First, people in practice use folders for a few different things and it causes workflow problems when they can't use folders in flexible ways. (citation: "Don't Take My Folders Away! Organizing Personal Information to Get Things Done", William Jones et al)

Second, despite the claim that "There's only one place anything can ever be," a hierarchical system allows only one of many possible (and conflicting) ways of organizing things. It's commonplace in just about any taxonomy to encounter items about which users have conflicting opinions about where to file, and items that could legitimately belong to multiple categories.

Third, to the extent that it accomplishes any of the stated goals, it does so to no greater extent than a standard, name-based folder hierarchy. The point here seems to be that by using numbers, companies can be freed from even the burden of having sensible and consistent naming... or that for example people can be made to say "12.04" instead of "the Payroll project for onboarding or something. I see this as unrealistic. Should manager correct those who use English, and instead have them use the inherently meaningless numbers?

Fourth, no one in practice will want to use a system called "Johnny.Decimal" Regular people have to be able to say something with a straight face, and not feel a little bit silly.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Most companies I've worked at who still used a share drive had a system like this.

Very simple and effective.</comment>


The People Who Support Linux. Do You? - <AUTHOR> http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/185-jennifer-cloer/306302-the-people-who-support-linux

<comment><USER2> I support Linux by using the OS (the kernel /and/ open source applications) every day in a business environment, discovering bugs and submitting bug reports and patches to improve the software.

I feel like this article is just a fund-raising advertisement for the "Linux Foundation". I wonder what's more valuable to the community, money I give to one organization or time and skills I use to benefit many different applications.

</comment><comment><USER3> _What's your favorite, latest Linux innovation?

Fernandez: [...] The day I updated my laptop's kernel and discovered the wireless now worked out-of-the-box [...]_

Ok. So why do you put something like that in an article meant to promote Linux?

<comment><USER4> Probably because it answers a common, long-standing complaint.

<comment><USER5> A complaint that many people preface with "the only thing stopping me from using linux is..."</comment></comment></comment>


Uber may have to add tipping feature in NYC - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-may-have-to-add-tipping-feature-in-nyc-2017-4 <comment><USER2> To users, one of the great appeals of Uber (and other similar services) is its simplicity. Tips are ridiculous and arbitrary, and getting out of a car _without_ having to think about that is a huge win for users.

Ratings already replace tips as an incentive for good service, in a far more transparent and actionable way.

And if drivers start getting tips regularly, you can guarantee their overall earnings won't go up -- Uber will simply pay them even less, because they can. Whether payment is technically part of a base fare or tip doesn't do a thing to change the law of supply and demand.

(Example -- how restaurants pay waiters far less than minimum wage, and are legally allowed to, because the tips make up for it.)

Moving back to tips is a _huge_ step backwards -- especially when forward- thinking restaurants in NYC are moving away from them as well.

<comment><USER3> I use Lyft these days primarily _because_ I have the opportunity to tip the driver for great service without using cash. I don't believe ratings (especially Uber ratings) are meaningful at all because it's either five star or you're fired, and as a customer you pay the same rate for terrible service as you do for excellent service. I don't believe tips are an excuse for getting around the base fare in this case or for avoiding min wage laws.

Being able to easily tip a driver for exceptional service is great, makes me feel better as a customer, and provides an incentive for drivers beyond stars. What's the harm in making it easy if your base rate is the same? As long as it's not an expectation I think it works quite well.

<comment><USER4> _> What's the harm_

I think the issue is the opposite outcome of your scenario: _" As long as it's not an expectation"_

It _will_ become an expectation. Many people find tipping a hassle and they don't want drivers using a new social standard to guilt them into it.

Also, any discretionary tip _amounts_ become another datapoint for drivers to give bad ratings to riders. ("Oh she only gave me a 15% tip instead of a 30% tip so I rate her 1 star!")

<comment><USER5> This is easily countered by requiring drivers to rate passengers to receive the tip.

<comment><USER4> So now the "passenger ratings" become worthless because the Uber drivers won't rate less than 5 stars for fear of retaliation by a customer giving a low tip amount. Also, instead of the rider immediately exiting the car and be on her way, she has to sit and wait for the driver to rate, and then she has to submit a tip.

The combination of driver/rider ratings _and_ tipping leads to little social games of petty blackmail.

<comment><USER5> again, easily solved.

1\. send tip 2\. driver sends rating 3\. tip and rating available.

<comment><USER4> So now the rider can give $0 as a tip (if the Uber allows that option) and the rider doesn't have to worry about retaliation of a bad rating from the driver. Game theory is fun.

To generalize, if people disagree with an app's user interface (e.g. tips), both sides perform little acts of rebellion against it.

If Uber app _does not_ have tips, some Uber drivers rebel by hassling riders for not using Lyft which has a tipping option or asking for cash tips on the side. This annoys the passengers.

If the apps _does_ have tips, some riders rebel by paying $0 because they think the whole idea is stupid. This annoys the drivers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I honestly wish there was a separate app to tell me when (and how much) to tip and when not to tip when in the US. As a European, I'm always baffled by folks expecting tips in weirdest (at least by my standards) of circumstances.

<comment><USER7> The best rule of thumb is if someone has transported something you own. You tip a waiter at a restaurant because they brought you your food, but you don't tip at McDonalds because you go up to the counter to get your own food, it's not brought to you. You tip a pizza delivery guy because he brought it to you, but you don't tip if you went and picked it up yourself. You tip a bellhop (or porter) at a hotel if they bring your luggage to your room, but you don't usually tip the doorman. You would tip a valet who parks your car for you. A restaurant is 10%-20% of the bill, a porter is $1-$2 per bag they have to carry. $2 is fine for a valet, $2 every time they bring your car to you. You don't have to tip when they take your car.

There are some places where people tip merely because there is a tip jar available... usually you just dump small change into there (the coins you get back or maybe a dollar). Starbucks comes to mind: there's no reason to tip at Starbucks other than the fact that there is a tip jar sitting out. If you're not used to tipping culture, ignore it. Same thing with ice cream shops or take-out windows. Absolutely no reason for there to be a tip jar there other than they're trying to guilt you into paying more than the advertised price.

There are certain situations where you might tip for extraordinary service rendered. You don't tip a doorman for opening a door, but you can tip if he calls a taxi for you. You don't have to tip at Starbucks, but if you ordered an extraordinarily complicated drink and they got the order right, a tip is called for. I usually tip even at take-out restaurants if I'm picking up an order late at night while they're getting ready to close the restaurant, or if it's a holiday and I feel bad that they're stuck working.

Some people get _really_ mad if you don't tip a waiter. People rarely get mad if you forget to tip anyone else. So if you're confused, just tip your waiter 10% or 20% of the bill if they brought the food to you and forget any other tipping. If someone complains, just say you're European and aren't clear on the rules.

<comment><USER2> That explains it for food -- but you also _always_ tip bartenders (just like waiters, essentially their entire income is tips, so stiffing them is just as bad), taxis, barbers/hairdressers and massage therapists.

<comment><USER5> > stiffing them is just as bad

So not bad at all. It's in no way my responsibility to cover their wages. If the bar wants to raise prices a bit compensate then fine, but tipping is a ridiculous practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hope they dont end up having to do this. Why should users subsidize driver's wages if Uber isn't paying them enough? Uber should instead give the drivers a bigger cut, and if needed up their rates to make up for it.

<comment><USER7> I agree. I understand the reason why tipping exists in the restaurant industry and that there are special laws surrounding tipping and minimum wage there, but in my opinion the future should be moving towards eliminating the need for tipping. Businesses adding tipping to their existing business model is, in my opinion, moving in the wrong direction. It's hard for tip-based businesses to move in a tipless direction, but the best way to begin phasing that out is to not start requiring tips in the first place. Once they start allowing tips, they're really never going to get away from employees demanding tips and customers seeking lower prices even if adding in a tip makes the prices the same.

If you need to pay your employees more, they should get paid more. Tips is a bad way of handling employee compensation. Tips should be reserved for extraordinary service rendered, not the main way of paying your employees.

<comment><USER9> > _I understand the reason why tipping exists in the restaurant industry_

Why _does_ it exist?

<comment><USER7> Because wait staff makes less than minimum wage with the expectation that they will make up for it with tips. It's not a good excuse, it's just what happens to be enshrined in the law. It's really just a way for restaurants to cheap out and not pay their employees a proper wage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I live in NYC, and at this point I rarely use Uber. This is one more reason not to.

When I call an Uber, I have to wait N minutes for the car to come. If I want a cab, I step outside my apartment and flag one down. Granted, I live in downtown, so that wouldn't work as well in the other boroughs.

Uber also surges. Yellow cabs are always the same price. It's usually cheaper than Uber.

<comment><USER11> Also, the Curb app works really well. I haven't yet used to request a cab, but when you get in one you just enter the a six digit code from the screen into the app and it automatically takes care of the fare and adds a default tip (which you can adjust).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you think Uber "must" do this if required by law, you don't get UX...

They could almost certainly comply with any law like this by adding a tiny little "Tip your driver" link in your receipt, which would be seen and used by .001% of riders...

</comment><comment><USER9> Can't wait for the whole ride to turn into hearing the driver's explanation of why Uber allows tipping now, and why the driver deserves 30%.

<comment><USER13> I will give 1 star and zero tips to any driver that mention tips even once. Tips is one of the things I hate the most about US.

<comment><USER14> Last week I caught an Uber to the airport and the driver asked me why I didn't use Lyft, then proceeded to somewhat guilt me for not using their app, because it allowed tipping. Really shitty and awkward ride.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If they're concerned that drivers aren't being paid enough, why not regulate minimum wages or fares instead of the arbitrary randomness of tipping?

<comment><USER16> Minimum wages are already regulated.

<comment><USER15> Apparently they don't think they're high enough.

<comment><USER16> That's fair, but it is a different issue from wages not being regulated.

<comment><USER15> Well no, it's a minor variation on the same thing. If they think wages are too low, regulate them higher.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Dumb, dumb, dumb. If anything, we should be trying to remove the expectation of tipping, and price shit appropriately for what it actually costs.

</comment><comment><USER18> Disgusting. Not only is this harmful practice often enforced by social pressure, now they want to make it into a law. Makes me glad to live in a country where tipping is not so widespread.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wouldn't mind this feature, so long as the drivers have to rate you before they find out if/how much you tipped them.

<comment><USER12> I believe Lyft allows tipping (or editing the 'given' tip) up to 24 hours after the ride.

<comment><USER16> I would also take that. I just don't want to see a situation where drivers can effectively hold a users ratings hostage to make sure they get a tip.</comment></comment></comment>


Kuo: iPhone SE 2 Launching in Q1 2020 with A13 at $399 Price - <AUTHOR> https://www.macrumors.com/2019/10/13/kuo-iphone-se-2-to-launch-in-q1-2020-at-399-price/ <comment><USER2> The top-rated comment sums it up well:

 _An iPhone 8 size /shape totally misses the point of the iPhone SE and why so many of us love it like no other._

<comment><AUTHOR> i agree, but the rumor consensus seems to be that apple is abandoning the 4-inch form factor (which makes sense, as they don't want to invest r&d into the low end of the market).

the $399 price is what caught my eye. it will replace the iphone 8 and SE as the low end iphone. hopefully they call it the iphone 9 and not SE 2.</comment></comment>


Computer Pseudoscience - <AUTHOR> https://www.city-journal.org/danger-of-artificial-intelligence <comment><USER2> > a computer can be programmed to detect instances of the word "betrayal" in > scanned texts, but it lacks the concept of betrayal. Therefore, if a > computer scans a story about betrayal that happens not to use the actual > word "betrayal," it will fail to detect the story's theme.

Seems sorta odd to write a book today dismissing 1960s AI technology.

<comment><USER3> Still has the same problem, lack of symbolic and functional or operational AI is still biting hard.

We need inferences and at least sets of labels as output to make sense of what the ML is doing, not simple matches or probabilities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The author seems to use the fact that a computer's intelligence can be deconstructed to 0's and 1's as evidence that the computer can't understand what it's processing. Couldn't the processing in the human brain be similarly deconstructed (albeit not to 1's and 0's)?

<comment><USER5> Absolutely. That brains can be deconstructed into the presence and absence of ion gradients over space and time, and these ion gradients do not understand, does not demonstrate that brains cannot achieve understanding. Using an analogous argument against AI ever being more than dumb pattern matching is fallacious and a serious failure of imagination.

<comment><USER6> Aren't brains also "dumb pattern match"ers?

I see people talking all the time about how machines can't be conscious, but yet, animals are just machines themselves, so what gives?

It's religious I think. People just want to be special. Not only as individuals, but also as a species.

<comment><USER3> They're apparently not. We can hypothesize without having seen a thing, using previous information.

This is different from outputting random single value output. Typically people tend to use generic or vague terms rather than mismatch, which is very different from what ML does.

We can also output that we're not certain. And we can use surrounding context on a way current ML cannot.

<comment><USER6> Those all still boil down to yes or no. Have you seen it? Yes or no? More than 50% sure? yes or no? More than 90% sure? Yes or no?

The neuron either reaches a threshold to fire, or it does not. On or off.

<comment><USER3> That's not how biology works, the spiking intervals matter, and when they occur, chemical state of the neuron at many moments, its shape and composition, and myelination.

In comparison, DNN are an abacus level of simplicity.

<comment><USER6> Just because something is more complex than we currently can mathematically model, does not mean we cannot mathematically model it.

If we can mathematically model it, then we can use 1's and 0's to do so. What you are suggesting is that how we think and observe the world with our brains is not mathematically possible. If that's the case, then Math is wrong, or at best: an approximation to the universe.

Implication: Consciousness exists in the gap between the universe and math.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love how nearly every pitfall listed for AI applies equally to humans who cheerfully see the face of a God in a slice of toast and confusion correlation and causation as easily as they breath air.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is exactly one of the things that makes ML, AI, or whatever so interesting. Sometimes it _does_ find correlations which a human might miss because the human thinks there is no way those two things are linked - but in fact they are.

"For example, a correlation may exist between changes in temperature in an obscure Australian town and price changes in the U.S. stock market. A person would know that the two events have no connection."

<comment><USER9> If you're willing to entertain that many hypotheses, you need a huge amount of data to not be fooled by noise. For instance, there might be 1B hypotheses of the form "temperature in some town is correlated with the price of some stock". You'd need p<0.000000001 to not have false positives. Even the stock market doesn't have enough data for that.

<comment><USER10> My objection is to the absoluteness of the phrase

> A person would know that the two events have no connection.

When a negative statement like this is presented as absolute and categorical it's very easy to disagree with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If the book is as "technical" as this article than I don't think I'll be reading it. The sole argument, it seems, is that computers lack the nebulously defined "concept".

If you don't define it, than you might as well be saying it lacks a soul and can therefore never be truly intelligent. What does understanding a concept mean?

Because AI researchers have been working to get closer to this understanding for years, and to simply say "it isn't there yet" falls a bit flat. It's like saying climbing a tree isn't flying, while ignoring the attempts to fly with kites, wingsuits, or parachutes: we might not have a plane yet, but we are making progress.</comment>


Emerging economies: The Great Deceleration - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21582256-emerging-market-slowdown-not-beginning-bust-it-turning-point <comment><USER2> Decent article. Correlates with the stagflation we have seen and the fact that hedge investments like gold have been correlating to growth investments the past few years. The fact that we have a global recession / stagflation makes it even more interesting. Thankfully technology and software specifically as an industry seems more immune than most to the slow growth.</comment>


Show HN: Genetically Evolving Website - <AUTHOR> http://evo-site.herokuapp.com/ <comment><USER2> Make the text more narrow. Perhaps a table with three columns instead of three paragraphs. [I'm using a notebook with an usual 16:9 screen. Perhaps for a mobile phone your version I better. Try to see the page in both.]

It's not clear when I click. Can you add some kind of animation? Can I click more than once? I there a good click and a bad click? Perhaps something like "Thank for clicking!" that doesn't depend on if you clicked in the correct spot or the wrong spot.

</comment><comment><USER3> So it is A/B testing with random candidates? Simple, but promising idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> That kind of makes sense. I wouldn't call it A/B strictly since we're not comparing the effect of one change, rather a set of changes. Didn't really have A/B in mind when making this. I was reading up on genetic search when this came to mind.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you learn a web framework? - <AUTHOR>

Hi.
I've been disconnected from "web development" for sometime since I don't do it at work. I once used Rails pretty well (pre 2.0), but now I find I'm out of touch and Rails too bloated (as a framework) and slow (due to Ruby?). Perhaps, it is also more expensive to run experimental sites on than, say, Django).
I frequently have ideas which I want to experiment with, and know should take less than a weekend to hack together with one of the newer frameworks/libraries.
So, two questions: first, what are the best frameworks to get a prototype as fast as possible. Scalability is not a major issue for now: I think if an idea's good, it will still be used if it's slow/unreliable (e.g. early Twitter), and one can scale in the meanwhile.
Second, how does one learn enough to hack something quickly together in the framework you suggest? I've seen "Getting started" tutorials are frequently insufficient for real work, but books are too tedious (old examples: Rails screen-cast and the Pragmatic book). Is there a middle-ground for your framework? <comment><USER2> > what are the best frameworks to get a prototype as fast as possible.

Rails is good for that. Worry about 'bloat' later.

> Second, how does one learn enough to hack something quickly together in the > framework you suggest?

Start hacking on it, keeping in mind that you may throw it away and redo it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I actually meant bloated as a framework. Too much magic, too many APIs and too many ways to do the same thing.

Actually, I don't know if it is true, but I wasn't happy with Rails the last time around, and I want to learn something different.

<comment><USER2> Django seems popular too, and Python's a good language.

If you really wanted to try something 'out there' you could fiddle around with Erlang, but that's probably more fiddling for fiddling's sake than 'getting stuff done'. I think for most people, Ruby, Python, and others like them are where the sweet spot is in terms of productivity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I highly recommend going with Google App Engine + Django for getting something up and running and learning a web framework at the same time. You get a lot of features for free right out of the box, namely data store.</comment>


How to Create the Perfect Fake Identity (Bruce Schneier) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2008/09/securitymatters_0904 <comment><USER2> I don't really see the point of identity. Why do I need a social security number to have a driver's license? Why don't they just photograph the person who shows up and passes the test? Why does my name need to be on my passport? (What difference does it make? If I am a threat to the free world, why am I not in prison?)

<comment><USER3> _If I am a threat to the free world, why am I not in prison?_

Oh, man, we've got enough indefinite imprisonment without charges going on as it is. Please don't _encourage_ it.

Once upon a time, people's "data shadows" were very thin indeed. In _The Fatal Shore_ , a truly awesome history book about Australia, they talked about policing in Georgian England. The identification of criminals relied primarily on verbal descriptions of their looks:

 _Official crime records and registers of criminals were primitive, and there would be no fingerprinting until 1885. Artists made sketches, for popular consumption, of famous offenders... but one could no more recognize a felon from such semi-devotional effigies than pick St. Paul from a crowd by consulting a Byzantine icon. Identification of wanted men had to be made from verbal descriptions in the police gazettes, circulated to mayors and magistrates after the early 1770s... Sketchy as they were, such descriptions did produce some arrests, mainly in villages where people noticed strangers. Some officers of the law had long memories. Henry Fielding's sightless half- brother John, a magistrate known in Bow Street as the "Blind Beak," was said to be able to identify 3000 different malefactors by their voices alone. But on the whole, it was easier for criminals to escape scot-free in the 1780s than it would ever be again._

This meant that, once you had caught a suspected criminal, there was no way to release them temporarily without them disappearing, quite possibly forever. So a lot of crimes were punishable by fines (which could be collected on the spot), or by immediate imprisonment (which is what you got if you couldn't pay the fine), or by death. You couldn't really put people on probation, or parole, or release them on bail.

The result, in practice, was that every person who stole a loaf of bread risked indefinite imprisonment or even death. It was so inhumane (and so expensive -- there weren't enough jails) that the English legal system leapt at the opportunity to solve the problem in a novel way: Transport criminals to the colonies, where they would never bother homelanders again even when they were freed. Until 1776 the favorite colonial destination was the American colonies, but after that the English had to invent the Australian penal colonies...

<comment><USER4> > Some officers of the law had long memories. Henry Fielding's sightless half- > brother John, a magistrate known in Bow Street as the "Blind Beak," was said > to be able to identify 3000 different malefactors by their voices alone.

How did they know that he was correctly identifying them?

<comment><USER5> Well, these were old-timey bad guys. Maybe they all said something like "curses! foiled again!" when identified? :)

<comment><USER3> Perhaps they had a second blind person to check on the first. Then it would be a double-blind test!

<rimshot />

In all seriousness, though: Once they'd caught their suspect and thrown them in Newgate Prison, the authorities could always summon people from the suspect's hometown to ID them more precisely. In theory. In practice, that would surely have been very expensive and slow, and I have no idea how diligent they really were about all that pesky "legal procedure" stuff, particularly if the prisoner didn't have the money to hire a lawyer. Back then they charged prisoners for everything: you had to pay room and board in prison, so if you hadn't managed to hang onto your money (which was probably pretty difficult when you were being arrested by freelance thief-takers...) and you didn't have local friends to look you up in prison and help pay your bills, you could be stuck in there for life, like Charley on the MTA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hmmm, if one could write programs to manage these data shadows, then this would be a perfect startup opportunity...

<comment><USER7> Except that it would be illegal. There are a lot more profitable illegal "startups" out there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "twenty-five years is too distant a payoff horizon"

And -this- mentality is what's disastrous to security planning. I hope people actually inside NatSec / InfoSec take a long-term view of things.

<comment><USER9> I trust Schneier's take on this type of calculation more than I trust the people inside NatSec/InfoSec.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why not just link link our identities to DNA, thumb prints, and other unique features of us? You want to withdraw money? Scan your eye here. You would like to apply for a driver's license? Spit into this jar. Someone will contact you in a week (or however long it takes to process DNA samples).

That way, the shadow can never really be separated from the person (or at least the difficulty increases). BTW, I recommend watching the movie Gattaca for an interesting take on identity theft of the future, when people are engineered and DNA is checked everywhere you go.

<comment><USER11> If someone wants to rob me, I'd rather they take my id than my thumb...

<comment><USER12> If someone wants to rob you, they too prefer your id to your thumb. The average sentence for aggravated assault in the U.S. is 30 to 90 years per count. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault#Aggravated_assault>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Me and my shadow Strolling down the avenue Me and my shadow Not a soul to tell our troubles too

And when it's twelve o'clock We climb the stair We never knock For nobody's there

<comment><USER14> I suppose there aren't any Frank or Sammy fans on this board.

Nice try though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> How do you fake your photograph though? All these fake identity scams fall through as soon as you have to show a photograph of yourself. And considering how good software is getting at recongizing faces, soon it will be near to impossible.

<comment><USER16> > "All these fake identity scams fall through as soon as you have to show a > photograph of yourself."

Because no one's ever used a fake _photo_ ID to, say, get into a bar.

<comment><USER17> How many people would get into the bar if US Customs was running the door? Certainly some would, but probably 98% less. Most of the time the reason fake IDs work is because bouncers just don't care. As long as you give them plausible deniability they're happy enough to let you pay them money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Reminds me of Shawshank Redemption. If he can create a whole new identity for himself from prison using mail I don't see why we can't using our freedom.</comment>


Solving mazes using Python: Simple recursivity and A* search - <AUTHOR> http://www.laurentluce.com/?p=264 <comment><USER2> Not to be pedantic, but where's the recursion?

Seems like an instance of a common metaphor:

        while queue.hasElements():
          element = queue.pop()
          explore element if we haven't already
          put element's successors into queue using some priority

<comment><USER3> A correct implementation of A* might look simple, and indeed it's not the most complicated algorithm out there, but I wouldn't dismiss it until you've read and understand the proof of its optimality.

<comment><USER2> Of course, I've dealt with many search problems using A* (in particular, in the context of machine translation). I understand the algorithm and the proof of optimality. And I agree, the algorithm is very simple (not much different than uniform-cost search)--the complex part (in more general applications) is the heuristic function.

I don't see where I dismissed A*.

<comment><USER3> Maybe I misunderstood this:

>Seems like an instance of a common metaphor

That gave me the impression that A) it was new to you (due to the "seems to be") and that B) you weren't impressed ("common").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder how the algorithm would be affected by weave mazes. [http://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2011/3/4/maze-generation- weave-m...](http://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2011/3/4/maze-generation-weave-mazes)

<comment><USER5> Neither is.</comment></comment>


Paying Customers - <AUTHOR> We now have 300 paying customers of conveythis.com
It's great considering that we passed 100 customers in December of 2019 It means a 200% growth in 8 months
We are gonna do $100,000 in revenue this year, my goal for 2021 is to do $1M (+1000%)
Let's keep rocking! <comment><USER2> This is a great milestone. Well done, I hope you succeed in your goal. You should share this with the community at indiehackers.com</comment>


D.C. Court: Accessing Public Information Is Not a Computer Crime - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/dc-court-accessing-public-information-not-computer-crime <comment> m-watson It is nice to see this ruling, it makes scrapings legitimacy more concrete. There was the court's rejection back in 2017 for LinkedIn's case[1] that made an implicit statement but an actual ruling is helpful.

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/court-rejects- li...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/court-rejects-linkedin- claim-that-unauthorized-scraping-is-hacking/)</comment>


VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks - <AUTHOR> https://mailman.videolan.org/pipermail/vlc-devel/2015-November/105002.html <comment><USER2> I work with a Muslim and I'm a Christian. Since we are both very conservative, I actually have more in common with him than with my secular coworkers and friends. Unfortunately we both work remotely and live several hundred miles from each other. I think we could be good friends if we lived closer.

One thing I have learned talking with my Muslim coworker is that, just like in Christianity, there are many divisions and sects within the religion. I am Atlantean and go to an Atlantean church. I would not want to be called a Phoenician or Liliputian christian (made up names cause I don't want to offend anyone this early in the morning).

Just as with anything else, the closer and more involved you are with something the more you see distinctions between different categories of that thing. As a total outsider your categories tend to be large, all encompassing and dominated by the loudest, most visible or most discussed sub category. For most westerners I think that sub category is, unfortunately radicalised Muslims.

I'm fortunate that my coworker has given me a different perspective. I never believed all Muslims were radicalised but the true revelation for me was that my Muslim coworker was more like me than most non-muslims. It saddens me to see states in my country rejecting refugees from Syria. They are depriving their residents of potential friends and coworkers, potential spouses, neighbors or playmates that can give them a new perspective and help make their world a little larger and more interesting.

Edit: I'd love to have a discussion with anyone who disagrees with me. (Not really making an argument but whatever) if you're down voting at least make a comment please.

<comment><USER3> Of course it's not "all Muslisms". But those who claim "it's only the terrorists" or "it's all politics" do not grasp the scope of the problem, ie that globally speaking, a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society.

If you naively extrapolate from the 2013 Pew Poll _The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society_ (which in principle represents nations with a total Muslim population of about 1 billion), 40% of these think you should be killed for leaving Islam.

To me, that's a scary number.

<comment><USER4> > a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible > with an open society.

Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society too. All these people have at least one thing in common: they would like to change society to suit their ends.

And a very large number of people in my country would happily throw back those fleeing the carnage to become victims of that 40%. Which in my opinion makes them just about as bad.

<comment><USER5> _Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society too_

If that's your contention then you'd need to account for the high terrorist attack output of Islamists vs other non-Islam subscribers.

<comment><USER6> Not Jacques, but from a few months back: "White Supremacists More Dangerous To America Than Foreign Terrorists, Study Says" [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/domestic- terrorism-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/domestic-terrorism- charleston_n_7654720.html)

      > At least 48 people have been killed stateside by right-wing
      > extremists in the 14 years since since the September 11
      > attacks -- almost twice as many as were killed by
      > self-identified jihadists in that time.

As Jacques says, "terrorist" attacks are only committed by a Muslim majority because we re-define any attack committed by a non-Muslim as "not terrorism."

<comment><USER5> Are you actually going to put some lone nut jobs here and there on the same level as organized and determined jihadists? If so, you need to include the tens of thousands of murdered people that ISIS has been responsible for. You'll need to include the Russian jet that was blown up, the attack in Paris, and all those killed by al-qaeda on 9/11, etc.

You'll also need to explain why the FBI terrorist list doesn't show that the government has a similar concern for white supremacists.

[https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists](https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists)

<comment><USER7> We define away the problem. White people shooting others is not usually considered terrorism (such as a mass shooting committed by a white person). Terrorism is used to label actions by people you don't like. Some politicians even make statements calling the president a terrorist because he does something they don't like. We don't call it terrorism when the American government kidnapped people, took them to other countries, and let them be tortured (rendition); I do think that was not only wrong but was something you could use the T word for.

<comment><USER5> _White people shooting others is not usually considered terrorism_

If those white people were part of a religious movement indiscriminately targeting the larger society, then of course they would be labeled "terrorists". Do you have an example of where I'm wrong?

 _calling the president a terrorist_

If you'll recall, the White House referred to the GOP as suicide bombers over debt ceiling negotiations. That's political posturing when either side does it and has little to do with legitimate use of the word "terrorists" in the context of labeling organizations seeking to maximize loss of life and destruction through surprise attacks on civilians.

<comment><USER8> The Charleston shooting of 2015 comes to mind as the perfect example [0].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Confederate_flag_controve...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Confederate_flag_controversy#Reactions_to_2015_Charleston_church_shooting)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Confederate_flag_controve...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Confederate_flag_controversy#Recent_public_opinion)

Edit: spacing

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm living in Paris. I heard gunfire from my apartment. My heart goes out to Salah-Eddin, and all people living in the shadow of unspeakable abominations. It saddens me to imagine that simply hearing gunfire in the distance is nothing compared to what my fellow man has witnessed elsewhere.

Salah-Eddin's condolences mean a lot to me and I wish him all the best. It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future, and that such an action will prove useful in protecting him, his family, his neighbors and his culture.

For what it's worth, I've submitted an application to be a reservist in the French army. It's one month of training and 30 days of active duty per year. I sincerely hope my small effort will be helpful not only because it puts another man in the Parisian battlefield (yes... that's sadly what it has become), but also because it allows a better-qualified soldier to (hopefully) deploy to the Middle East.

I don't presume to know whether or not my action is helpful, but I sincerely hope it is. I'm already quite busy with my dissertation defense coming up in a few short months, but this can do, so I will.

I suppose I needed to get that off my chest as well...

<comment><USER10> > It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the > near future

This kind of thinking is exactly why Mid-east is in its current state and that is exactly the reason why ISIS was born.

ISIS high command mainly consists of Iraqi ex-officers, who were rendered jobless and aimless by USA's 'liberation' attempt. Al-Qaida was a result of a 'liberation' attempt by Soviets and then consequently another 'liberation' attempt by USA. Guess how the French 'liberation' will result at the end.

<comment><USER9> I respectfully (and partially) disagree.

The invasion of Iraq was stupid, reckless and selfish. It was a for-profit war that destabilized the region and allowed ISIS to take on its present form.

I'll have you remember that France staunchly opposed this war.

Now the US and the brits have left us with a veritable cesspool, and we're bearing the brunt of the consequences.

This isn't a liberation attempt or a preemptive strike. This is responding to an immediate threat. And again, it would be foolish and disastrous to _only_ respond militarily, but it's just as foolish not to protect ourselves from immediate threats while we counter persistent threats through non-military action.

Yours is a false dichotomy.

<comment><USER11> Am pretty angry about what is going on in world , so if you felt insulted , I am so sorry , and You should understand I don't want to insult you or any other person specifically,But I want insult Ideologies pretty badly.

As person who _LIVES_ in heart of middle east (Iran) and I have seen shia militant from very close(I know people who works in IRGC),You are completely and pure wrong , do you know what would generate another generation of terrorist ? another invasion. I am atheist and liberal with a little being gay,I am not gay , but sometime things go wrong - and believe me these are pretty dangerous thing to be in Iran and would get me killed, without doubt - but I can realize the only thing will give terrorist another opportunity is invasion of a country in middle east. This is not your fucking war.This was not west fucking war at all. They shouldn't come here in any circumstance.You know what ? because Paris like terrorism act will happen again and again and again. West should understand they were wrong all the time. What the fuck are you doing in middle east ? You know what ? no body more than me would be glad to live in secular community with secular government, but it seems politician in west do not realize , being in middle east is equal to raising radical movement against them. YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND , MIDDLE EAST SHOULD FIGHT FOR ITSELF, EVEN IF ISIS KILL ALL OF US, this is not your fucking war.I do not remember reading if any alien did help west during the renaissance. Society should grow.

PLEASE , do for humanity a favor , understand militarism is equal to terrorism. I was talking with one idiot yesterday , and he mentioned I do not believe France invade Iraq. Yes your are right idiot . France did not . but west did . These fucking killers in middle east , do not see countries , they see Islam against West.

Do you know who fights in Iran against mullah's ? Christians ? Are you kidding me, mojahidin ? Those fucking traitors, no way.

Academia fights against mullah's, science fights, liberal people fighting against mullah's more effective than any other person in whole revolution history.This regime is almost unbeatable in political sense- because they have money and manpower and oil- but do you know they are seeing liberals in their nightmare. They even don't care about West invasion against Iran(some stupid person like G.W Bush may even consider that option).Because at the end they know the can manage harm West military pretty badly. Worse than maybe Vietnam war.BUT THEY CANNOT FIGHT WITH INTERNET, WITH TOR, WITH STUDENTS who USE TOR.

Give them internet , provide them satellite , facebook/twitter/youtube/porn , Show them fucking beautiful women in Texas(with respect to women, I just want show sexual incentives), show them there is no need to kill so many people to get those woman , you can fuck like heaven in earth without killing people. And BOOOOOM this is the sound of explosion of foundation of religion.

Ruin their stupid culture , and then you are going to see middle is will revive. and turn to into secular place.

and Do you know who is supporting ISIS ? Which countries? I would suspect Saudi Arabia ( the US closest ally after Israel in middle east).Can you fucking believe it ? This is not double standard. This is fucking fraud against humanity.At the end we all know , non of the west's politician's give fucking flying shit about terrorism in middle east. If they did , They weren't this double standard'ed against corrupted (I would say most corrupted regime in whole world) regime in Saudi Arabia.What was last time you checked women condition in Saudi Arabia.And why the hell us have this much relation ship with country which behead people like candy. This is what I mean when I am saying double standard.

p.s. if you felt I insult you , I am so sorry , I was talking broadly than talking with you.I hope respectively, you understand there was something _HUGE_ wrong with west policy in middle east.

<comment><USER12> The middle east is politically undeveloped and unstable so wars would be inevitable, with or without western involvement. It is unfortunate, but "great powers" were involved in the nation building of many many different countries. They seem to fail in middle east - so far. But that doesn't mean that it would all be peaceful of the westerners stopped being involved.

The problem is, as your comment shows, the idea of a nation is far less appealing than the idea of religion in middleeastern countries. You need to first have people willing to fight for their _country_ more than they are for their religion.

<comment><USER11> About first part of your comment that is a simple false, that is simple lie western politician's they keep telling you . I can see personally what it will turns when it implemented in real world.Personally ,in my personal life.But about involvement , You should read my comment again carefully, I did say west should involve vigorously , but with what? with changing mindset of people, providing them Internet, free flow of information.It is so funny for me , USA keeps spending unlimited amount of money for fighting Iran , the one of the most important thing they should do is to figure out a way for providing free internet and better proxies and these kind of things(Generally free flow of information), they are not working on that . You may haven't seen what internet do with people life in middle east, I have seen it , personally , with my own eye. It turn fundamental religious idiots to people's who spend life time behind the desk reading/watching in internet.

p.s. about the part about country and religious.That was my whole point. YOU simply should show them your religion is wrong, people can fuck and have sex like haven (maybe better than that) in L.A. Without killing people.

Believe me , does not matter how much you are going to try and push. I will guarantee you , there will not any nation in middle east with these people.maybe a nation will be stabilize , but it will not democracy , it will be Saddam Hussein like leader and guess what , there is another generation of terrorist who will grow in Hussein like dictatorship.

Do you want nation. like you have in Scandinavia (in long term) ? keep working on their mind with free information flow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > They control large areas of land, have their own oil fields, and receive > direct support from many countries in the region. Namely from rich oil- > producing countries.

That's one of those things where we could make a fairly immediate change in policy, it would come at a cost, definitely but it would change the situation for IS for the worse far more effectively than any number of bombs dropped would do.

<comment><USER13> I don't see media speaking much about these countries that allows financing of ISIS. But if we want to eradicate ISIS, I too think we should deal with its financial sources first. Maybe because these countries are the same countries that western companies want to sell weapons to.

<comment><USER14> Isn't it naive to think of these countries as one entity? Is the US, or any Western country, one unified allied voice where everyone has the same policies or supports the same causes?

It's very likely that these "rich oil-producing countries" are made up of fragmented power centres and viewpoints, just like everywhere else in the world.

Painting these countries all with one brush is about as foolish as painting Christianity (or Islam) with one brush too.

<comment><USER15> But the fact is that they are a safe-heaven from the US anti-terror campaign. After 9/11, pretty much in any other country of the world the financiers of Al Qaeda would have been imprisoned or assassinated by the US and its allies. In Saudi Arabia or Qatar, not only they have not, but they are still heavily financing ISIS. Whether the monarchies are complicit or not, they are certainly not doing anything against this financing.

<comment><USER4> This is a slightly dated but pretty good primer on how ISIS manages to pay the bills to keep the lights on:

[http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its- re...](http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its-reign- terror-282607.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Isn't it sad that this has to be said at all? "Hey, not every adherent of a religion supports killing innocent people of a different religion". It'd be like us having to apologize for the Crusades.

Besides, the hits were driven by politics, religion is just a facade.

<comment><USER17> > _It 'd be like us having to apologize for the Crusades._

Or like Americans having to apologise for drone stikes, for Iraq and Afghanistan, and specific attacks like the MSF hospital in Kunduz.

<comment><USER16> Well, those were done by the US government, which the US populace elects, so there is a measure of responsibility.

<comment><USER18> Also, since US is a democracy, it means that the people should be able to influence this behaviour of the government, so there's some responsibility in that it did not happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Religion is a smoke screen. Does it matter if you chop bits off your kids "because a book told me to" or "because my mom told me to"? All religions are silly ridiculous relics. Let's stop talking about them.

The problem is the culture as a whole. Does it work? Or does it not work?

The way to know if a culture works is to look at migration patterns. People leave cultures that don't work and go to better cultures.

But people from shitty cultures are still people, so this obvious enormous fact goes completely unnoticed. They are not going to accept so easily that their culture is not good. It takes generations.

Or it _took_ generations. Now it may not happen at all, because some people pride themselves on respecting and _preserving_ other people's silly cultures, instead of just respecting the people.

<comment><USER20> >All religions are silly ridiculous relics. Let's stop talking about them.

You can't actually reliably say this without first going through every religion and telling us how ridiculous you find it.

But I'm not really bothered about every religion. Out of interest, what's ridiculous about Buddhism, and how are you going to quantify the ridiculousness?

Your argument doesn't work as well with Buddhism. It works to an extent (there are repressive Buddhist monks etc.) If I lived near a Buddhist (or Christian) monastery, chances are that I'd respect it, and I would wish to preserve it. I'd even offer up for an alms round. After all, they do no harm to me.

Note that I'm only picking Buddhism because it's a religion I'm relatively familiar with. I don't know enough about Christianity (the largest religion in the world, which doesn't even advocate circumcision) to argue the point on Christianity.

<comment><USER21> Litmus test: does it make any supernatural claims? Yes? Silly, ridiculous relic.

Buddhism? Yes. Silly, ridiculous relic.

Please don't bore us with the usual equivocating about how Buddhism is different, and complex, highly personal, etc.

Are there helpful aspects to Buddhist beliefs? Maybe. But it's still Bronze Age philosophy with _plenty_ of supernatural claptrap mixed in. I'm not aware of any useful aspects of Buddhism that don't have a purely secular equivalent.

<comment><USER20> >does it make any supernatural claims? Yes? Silly, ridiculous relic.

Not everyone views the world from an empiricist or materialist atheistic viewpoint. I don't think it's nice to say something is ridiculous simply because you don't see it that way. Further, many followers of religion wouldn't say it's supernatural at all - it's part of nature that hasn't been uncovered, or it can't be uncovered.

>Please don't bore us with the usual equivocating about how Buddhism is different, and complex, highly personal, etc.

Buddhism is largely different from other religions, first and foremost that it doesn't mandate the worship of a god, and further can be interpreted in such a way that can dispense with _most of_ what you see as supernatural. Secondly, for it's "find out yourself" nature that encourages questioning and going beyond the realm of logical thinking.

And it is highly personal - it's got the idea that you have to be the one to set yourself on the path. You can't be saved by someone simply by praying etc.

>I'm not aware of any useful aspects of Buddhism that don't have a purely secular equivalent.

Buddhists are aware of one - it's called Nibbana - and it can only be realized by following the Noble Eightfold Path, which I will say relies heavily on the idea of kamma and "supernatural" ideas.

Please do not be so dismissive.

<comment><USER21> I don't really care if anyone's feelings get hurt by me pointing out that something is very obviously false. Only religion gets that kind of treatment.

Moreover, I think that the fact that grownups can talk about supernatural religious claims as if they are reasonable and true things about the world is one of the root causes of what happened in Paris.

As for Buddhism, yes, I agree it has less supernatural nonsense than some of the other major belief systems. And the supernatural aspects are sort of optional.

But you've admitted (and I know full well) that there is a great deal of supernatural nonsense tied up with it, for most real-world practitioners. So, I dismiss it out of hand. Just like Mormonism, Scientology, Santa Claus, and the virgin birth.

If there are useful aspects to it, let's tag them with secular labels and move on with our modern lives. Shrouding it in important-sounding, mystical East Asian language and symbols is just silly. Like people who have "katanas" hanging over their mantles.

<comment><USER20> >Moreover, I think that the fact that grownups can talk about supernatural religious claims as if they are reasonable and true things about the world is one of the root causes of what happened in Paris.

I don't disagree with this. However I think another root cause is that you can influence people to do terrible things when you convince them it's in the name of peace or freedom etc. Humans have no problem getting the ideas of nationalism into the heads of Neo-Nazis; no supernatural claims are needed here. Religion can be used as a tool, and a tool can be used in multiple ways.

>But you've admitted (and I know full well) that there is a great deal of supernatural nonsense tied up with it, for most real-world practitioners.

Whether you think it's nonsense is dependent on whether you believe the Buddha was enlightened or not. I have faith that he was, and that the things he related to people are a path to become enlightened ourselves. When I accept this, it leads to the acceptance of the "nonsense" \- the things that you must take purely on faith until doubt has been eliminated - and doubt is eliminated through mindfulness (concentration and insight) meditation. I have faith until I get there. If I don't get there and I still have faith, I'm not unhappy about it.

I can spend my time practicing the Noble Eightfold Path, the practice of which results in happy outcomes for myself (real or not) and being nice to other people, causing no suffering or death or ill will nor bad feelings et cetera. If I can accomplish that, then I'll be happy.

I don't even need Buddhism for this; I could go out and follow the principles, but I will say it will feel _incomplete_. There are various things that may stand in the way. For example, if I view there being no consequences to clinging and attachment (if I didn't believe in karma), what reason would I have to eliminate clinging? With clinging, I'm still unhappy etc. and my own unhappiness means I will have very little happiness left to give for others. The belief is a net benefit to me, and I think to the people around me.

>Shrouding it in important-sounding, mystical East Asian language and symbols is just silly. Like people who have "katanas" hanging over their mantles.

I don't know of any alternative terms to _nibbana_ and _kamma_ aside from "nirvana" and "karma". I write them like this only because this is how they are written in the romanisation of the Pali language, the language in which the Buddha's discourses are written in. To say "karma" leaves the interpretation slightly more open to the meaning in Hinduism, which I believe is a little different.

Kamma can, as far as I know, best be described as "cause and effect" on a very large scale. The idea that actions have consequences; the idea of "bad karma" and "good karma" is tied up really in interpretation. You can see the consequences as good or bad. From the Buddhist perspective, it's a "law" of the universe, not dissimilar to the laws inside physics that model the universe. I suppose you can use "cause and effect" as a secular term for this, but if you dismiss the concept of other worlds then using it as "cause and effect" would be fine.

Nibbana is more difficult to describe in a "secular" way, as there's no way of knowing that it actually exists unless someone tells you. You need to have faith in it, or actually experience it in order to see the reality of it. In fact, it's said that nibbana is beyond words, so any words one uses to describe it are approximations; e.g, from Samyutta Nikaya 43:

The unfabricated, the uninclined, the truth, the far shore, the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging, the stable, the unintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge, the destination

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > we are against their so called Islamic state, and against their retarded, > barbaric version of Islam.

The problem with irrational belief systems is that you have no rational basis for calling one version legit and one version "barbaric". Who's to say your interpretation is correct? Maybe theirs is.

Better to recognize irrational beliefs for what they are and discard them entirely (to the degree that's possible).

<comment><USER4> I think with barbaric he means to indicate they are willing to slaughter innocents. Just like the IRA was nominally Catholic and the Unionists/Loyalists were nominally protestant but in the meantime were happily bombing each others schools. Anybody serious about either religion would not bomb children, they'd be practicing a retarded barbaric version of Christianity.

<comment><USER22> If you accept all of the other irrational tenets of the religion, then why not accept the idea that god wants you to bomb children? And if you believe that's really what god wants, then who are you to refuse?

<comment><USER4> People will believe whatever it is that they want to believe, religious texts can be twisted to support just about any position, or the opposite to that position.

<comment><USER23> I think the outermost comment made a great point that religion is basically a tool to manipulate people, to make them make irrational moves. After all, if you want people to move rationally, you make rational suggestions, otherwise even if people are doing the right thing, they're doing it due to irrational reasons.

When people are made to do good things due to irrational reasons, they may be made to do bad things due to the same or similar reasons the next day. A religion can teach to love and it can teach to hate. Why not discard such a tool and let people make their own decisions with better reasoning other than fear/love of God or wanting to have a better afterlife?

<comment><USER24> There are several elements here. First, most people are not rational, and they can't be motivated by rational deduction. Most people simply do not have the intellectual horsepower to overcome their emotional perspectives and rationalize themselves into good decisions, even when the essential data is present. This invalidates "just be rational" as a practical solution to social welfare.

Second, the essential data is rarely objective or complete. There are very few datasets where a subjective value judgment on some information can be avoided; if you incorrectly devalue some data, your "rational decision" can turn out to be very problematic indeed. So not only are most humans incapable of performing basic rational deduction, they also often lack the perspective necessary to adequately value a subjective dataset, where "adequate" means interpreting it to be compatible with general social cohesion and happiness.

The tried and true traditions of the previous generations of a successful society may err in some smaller things, but in most things, they will be reliable. Young adults (< 50) often lack the maturity and perspective to properly understand the decisions they're making. They'd do well to listen to their elders and try to learn from them.

All of this culminates in "religion" or something very close to it, and it's essential to social stability. If you don't provide one, a replacement will automatically generate. People _will_ find and adopt a belief system as absolutes. You can see this in the "secularist" society of today, that adopts what they perceive to be "scientific consensus" as effective religious tenets, or in the "social equality" segment that adopts their interpretation of "diversity and equality" as effective religious tenets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Reading that brought a tear to my eyes, he and many others live with this on a daily basis. The subject is long and complex and I think his sentence "This is a war of civilisations and way of life. and trust me. the peaceful one, the one that always say sorry for everything is not going to win." is striking in its truth, simplicity and horror.

Stay safe Salah-Eddin and thank you for your words.

</comment><comment><USER26> With the immigration crisis and the Paris attacks, it seems that people completely forgot the atrocities that these nutjobs commit in their own home countries.

Perhaps it doesn't really matter to most westerners, but we shouldn't blame a billion people for the insanity of a small part of them.

It's a crazy situation, for sure...

<comment><USER27> People intentionally forget. Terrorist attacks are a convenient excuse to not allow refugees fleeing from the full terror of ISIS. We get one Paris. They get Paris every single day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Gaeme Wood over at the Atlantic has a riveting piece on "What ISIS really wants". Best long form investigative journalism I've read in nearly a decade. [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what- isi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really- wants/384980/)

(Warning: It's really long, but answers a whole lot of questions that a whole lot of westerners, outsiders have about that group, the region, their funding, recruiting, idealogy and why they still haven't been defeated. Well worth a read.)

<comment><USER29> thank you for sharing this. i have been listening to it for the past hour and it really is a brilliant piece.

<comment><USER30> How did you listen to it? Are you using some text-to-speech software? I didn't find a link to download an audio version of the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I born Muslim but quit religion as soon as I understood how everything works. I'm against every single organized religion. It's just a device for dictatorship in my opinion. But Islam is just like Christianity and other religions you might know. It's a old school of thought with super vague sources. Anyone can have their own take. I can read the Bible and say according to it I should kill and rape, same for Quran. They are all the same and they are all stupid. Don't discriminate between stupid religions!

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm not sure if he's going to read this, but anyway: be strong. I think Western countries have finally understood that Daesh is a problem that can't be "contained", that the only way is to completely eradicate them, even if this means collaborating with governments that they don't like. This won't make terrorism disappear of course, but at least a lot of evil people, the same people trying to seduce young and naive muslims all around the world to join them, will cease to exist.

</comment><comment><USER33> This is why the response you often hear from some quarters: "these attacks have nothing to do with religion/Islam" is so objectionable. It silences all of the majority, ordinary, moderate Muslims that wish to reform their religion.

[https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/666305480369831936](https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/666305480369831936)

</comment><comment><USER34> Isn't current Syrian government also guilty of perpetrating acts of genocide against its own populace? This person is quick to denounce the other side, but Assad's forces have killed thousands of civilians as well. [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Syria)

<comment><USER35> Better the devil you know.

The reason we (i.e. "The West") left Saddam in place until the US needed an easy target after 9/11 is that despite being a dictator and mass-murderer, his reign kept Iraq relatively stable. As soon as he was taken out of the equation other forces began to fight for dominance and now we have a huge mess on our hands that's arguably worse than where we started.

The same is true for most of the dictatorships toppled during the "Arab Spring". This is partially why Russia was against intervening in Syria from day one and why nobody seems to think Saudi Arabia or Qatar or any of the other bloody dictatorships in that region are worth disrupting.

In many cases the actual borders of these countries are pretty arbitrary and split up various ethno-religious groups (that often historically hate each others' guts) in weird ways. As soon as you tell them to self-govern and dispose of the dictators you end up with all these directly opposing interest groups suddenly being able to get at each others' throats.

It's not that Assad is a nice person or that it's more ethical to leave an evil person in place than to dispose of him, it's just that mindlessly handing out guns and expecting an oppressed people to be rational is pretty much the worst thing you can do.

Look at WW2 Germany. Sure, we got rid of Hitler, but in order to prevent Germany from blowing up again (exactly what had happened after WW1) the Allies actually had to work out long-term plans for the occupation of Germany to make sure the citizens were educated enough to understand how messed up their world view used to be and that the country was re-integrated into world economy and politics.

We need a Marshall Plan for Syria with buy-in from several major influencers. THEN we can talk about disposing of Assad.

<comment><USER36> The problem with supporting dictators is that this is a powerful recruiting argument for Isis.

"Look at the West, they claim to be democracies and defend human rights, but they are supporting mass-murders here"

...which makes the West looks like a bunch of hypocrites. And this is an argument that is factually hard to counter.

Frankly, I don't know what we should be doing. I don't see a solution without a long political roadmap with likely a partition of Syria & Irak, to have an Alawite state, next to a Sunni state, next to a Shia Iraq.

<comment><USER35> Except we're already hypocrites. We support all kinds of dictators and terrorist groups. Though a lot of it has to do with preventing wars with Israel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I simply do not understand why we don't bomb every last one of the oil wells they control. We could issue arrest warrants for the heads of every company that buys their oil for providing material support to terrorists, and freeze all assets of these companies in any country where the US has treaties that allow it. We don't have to shoot them; we can starve them.

<comment><USER38> They've already done a pretty good job.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/isis- caliphate-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/isis-caliphate- setbacks-islamic-state-attacks-paris-tripoli)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> An interesting video summary of the history of the Syria war/mess (5 mins). You don't know who to blame really. It's a shame both Russia and Turkey said they were sending bombers to attack ISIS and then went after other targets instead (the anti Assad forces, Kurds respectively).

[http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9735102/syria-isis-history- vid...](http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9735102/syria-isis-history-video)

<comment><USER40> I've learned more about Islam, ISIS, and the state of affairs in Syria from this article than anywhere else. I wish I could TL;DR this one, but I can't. It's so full of details and context I wouldn't do it justice. It's a long one, but absolutely worth it.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what- isi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really- wants/384980/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I'm agnostic so really no prejudice on either side. I see so many religions/gods on earth and I feel Muslim is the one that stays with their stone age laws/rules without updating/revising the original released versions. Other religions seem evolving over time, but Muslim is different and I feel they are just so out, thus all these tragedies. Anything that has no ability to upgrade/evolve overtime is doomed to be losers, and losers will go crazy easily to blame others for their own failures.

Democracy or staying-politically-correct or show-mercy-to-the-murder are all useless to combat this level of violence, the only way to really fix it, is either they evolve and modernize quickly, or get erased by a war at a large scale. It seems more likely the latter will be the case as they're turning everyone against them quickly.

There are no good Muslim or bad Muslim, Muslim itself indeed is the root cause here.

<comment><USER42> >Democracy or staying-politically-correct or show-mercy-to-the-murder are all useless to combat this level of violence, the only way to really fix it, is either they evolve and modernize quickly, or get erased by a war at a large scale. It seems more likely the latter will be the case as they're turning everyone against them quickly.

Who is "them"? ISIS or Muslims in general? It's absurd to think that there aren't "modernized" Muslims in the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I am not advocating blissful ignorance or anything, but I'd be really bothered if religious and political talk become commonplace here. I mean we are inundated with apologies, cynicism and hyperbole from facebook/twitter/reddit already.

I will add something though. Why the apologies? The people apologizing have nothing to do with these acts and are pointless. Plus, why did all these barbarians start all this crap so recently ? Like after the 90's ?

</comment><comment><USER44> It is time to stop terrorist states: ISIS, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and USA.

<comment><USER45> I can't downvote, so here you got my -1 personally.

edit: ok, let me explain: putting the USA and ISIS into the same bucket "terrorist states" is just moronic, that's why. happy downvoting.

<comment><USER46> A terrorist act approved with a stamp is still a terrorist act.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It never ceases to amaze me to what lengths people go to stay in the land they're attached to. I'd have fled my country a very long time ago if I had ISIS that close.

<comment><USER48> I'm afraid it's not as easy as booking a flight and taking a cab to the airport.

<comment><USER47> It could be, depends on the circumstances. Of course you have a point, there are always family ties and so on. But even without leaving Syria I guess you could be at safer places than Aleppo.

<comment><USER49> That's one hell of a bubble. You do know that for a _lot_ of people, it's simply impossible to move out of their city, especially in countries like Syria and Pakistan? Family ties are the least of their problems. Most people simply don't have a wad of cash to do this with.

<comment><USER50> I always wonder about this myself. If my situation were that extreme I think I would try to flee by any means even if I had next to no money. I would put a backpack on packed with non perishable food and as much water as I could carry and I would start marching towards a border.

I'm very ignorant to the viability of this plan though. Would it be possible to escape on foot? Would you be stopped for trying? Killed? Maybe that's why people don't "just flee".

<comment><USER4> It gets a lot harder to flee if you're not a young male. Women, children, elderly, disabled, people you care about and people you care for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> By writing that message, he's making himself a potential target of terror, especially now that this is on the front page of HN and could be picked up by mainstream media. For safety's sake, I hope he contributes to VLC under a pseudonym and not under his real name.

<comment><USER52> What you're communicating is essentially what "terrorists" are aiming to achieve and draw power from. Their attacks are targeted to maximize disruption of daily life and make people afraid of some unknown terror.

Better to continue life as you normally would, be alert, and to not give in to fear.

<comment><USER4> That's fairly easy to write in an air conditioned office somewhere in the west, but it was a pretty brave thing to do this right in the middle of the action.

<comment><USER52> Nobody said it's easy. I'm sitting in Paris right now, and it reflects the attitude of many of the citizens here. I know shop owners that stayed open over the weekend in defiance of what the terrorists were aiming to achieve.

<comment><USER4> I would expect no less from the French, they've always been remarkably steadfast in their convictions, both on the political stage and in their internal politics. Here's to hoping that they will be able to maintain this level of resolve for the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> So we need to drop a metaphorical bomb on the financial institutions that support these regimes?

<comment><USER54> Why do you think that these financial institutions exist in the first place?

Another piece of the puzzle: [https://theintercept.com/2015/11/16/stock- prices-of-weapons-...](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/16/stock-prices-of- weapons-manufacturers-soaring-since-paris-attack/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Wow, how brave he is. Once a long time a go I was in Aleppo. Such a nice town. Terrible how much destruction has happened.

'Normal countries' should help. I.e. fight a war against ISIS, kill them and rebuild Syria. Including new government (under UN stewardship).

<comment><USER56> > kill them and rebuild Syria. Including new government (under UN > stewardship).

Because that has worked so well in the (recent) past?

<comment><USER55> This hasn't been tried yet afaik. Sure, I don't know how UN stewardship could be possible atm. But in a smaller better connected world, I think, we increasingly need a way to police failed/bad-behaving/suffering states. (Or better said, to help the people living in such states).

The millions of refugees, spread of lunatic but well funded fundamentalism and the scope of terrorizing local neighborhoods hasn't been happened in the (recent) past.

What else do you propose?

<comment><USER56> > What else do you propose?

I don't agree to the We Must Do Something, This Is Something sentiment.

Clearly we have to get our arms around the situation. We UN should actually coordinate a plan to figure what we can do. Rushing to put soldiers on the ground always ends up complicating the situation further and it's a choice you cannot take back (seeing how we're still stuck in many places) years after.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> the thing I never understand: why God/Allah even care if I believe in him or not?

<comment><USER58> Because a meme involving a god that doesn't care if you believe in him has low evolutionary fitness because believers have no reason to spread their belief.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> > [They] receive direct support from many countries in the region. Namely from > rich oil-producing countries.

I assume the author is alluding to Saudi Arabia here.

How absurd is it not of the West to

* on one hand is claim to oppose Islamic terrorism, while

* on the other hand having among the closest allies in the region what probably amounts to the most radical, fundamentalist, human-rights abusing and not the least culturally and religiously influential states there, preaching religious intolerance to a world-wide audience of susceptible followers.

Recently, Nicholas Nassim Taleb, author of Black Swan, wrote[1] a thoughtful commentary on the situation:

> Since 2001 our policy for fighting Islamic terrorists has been, to put it > politely, missing the elephant in the room, sort of like treating symptoms > and completely missing the disease.

> Policymakers and slow-thinking bureaucrats stupidly let terrorism grow by > ignoring the roots. So we lost a generation: Someone who went to grammar > school in Saudi Arabia (our "ally") after September 11 is now an adult, > indoctrinated into believing and supporting Salafi violence, hence > encouraged to finance it — while we got distracted by the use of complicated > weapons and machinery.

> Even worse, the Wahhabis have accelerated their brainwashing of East and > West Asians with their madrassas, thanks to high oil revenues.

> * * *

> So instead of invading Iraq, blowing up Jihadi John and individual > terrorists, thus causing a multiplication of these agents, it would have > been be easier to focus on the source of all problems: the Wahhabi/Salafi > education and the promotion of intolerance by which a Shiite or a Yazidi or > a Christian are deviant people.

> If we absolutely need to put people in Guantanamo, it would be far more > effective to ship the Salafi preachers and Wahhabi clerics over there, not > just the people swayed by their teaching. And if we need to correct the > profound Saudi problem, we need to start by sending to them our preachers, > educating them into tolerance, explaining the very concept of the separation > of church and state. Or, better even, encourage Muslim preachers who promote > religious tolerance ("laka dinak wa li dini") — instead of seeing them > ostracized.

> And if you find violence unavoidable, it should be directed at the Saudi and > Qatari funders of violence, as well as the Salafi theorists, rather than the > young performers.

> P.S. Beware the usual ISIL crypto-sympathizer who sort of "explains" (that > is, justifies) what happened (the intentional targeting of civilians) with > some other Western event that can hark all the way to the Crusades… > Otherwise it is presented as "biased." You can spot such people from a mile > away. For them, you cannot condemn ISIL without at the same time trying to > be "balanced." Who are they fooling? This is the technique of bundling > together problems that should be treated independently, and you need to > learn to deal with such people by forcing them to discuss the problem of > ISIL on its own.

[1] [http://www.politico.eu/article/the-saudi-wahhabis-are-the- re...](http://www.politico.eu/article/the-saudi-wahhabis-are-the-real-foe- islamic-terrorists-salafi-violence/)

(edited for formatting)

</comment><comment><USER60> [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html](http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html)

I am not sure how valid these translations are, but there seem to be a lot of incendiary passages in the Quran, how do we reconcile these view points with modern society.

I also understand that old testament (I am not christian) is just as bad but I was under assumption that the old testament was a carry over from Christianities Jewish roots, and the new testament supersedes it?

<comment><USER61> > I also understand that old testament (I am not christian) is just as bad but > I was under assumption that the old testament was a carry over from > Christianities Jewish roots, and the new testament supersedes it?

Christian differ on the effect of the NT on the OT, since the NT contains both material that seems on the simplest reading to endorse the OT law in full, material which seems on the simplest reading to provide different and simpler rules than those in the OT law, and material which seems on the simplest reading to explicitly limit the application of most OT laws.

In practice, you end up with a whole spectrum of ideologies among Christians (and the same is true of Muslims.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> The mistake, maybe an historical one, is that Europe, or better, the media insist in treating the symptoms instead of treating the causes.

</comment><comment><USER63> It really makes us angry, but we should also know there are good Muslims who hope for the world of peace.

</comment><comment><USER64> "It's only through God's mercy that we are not under their rule now."

Great way of robbing the people who put their lives to save you of their contribution.

Thanking god for a series of events is nothing more than ignoring reality. A series of events happened, and that's that.

</comment><comment><USER65> Is it possible to donate to a specific VLC contributor?

</comment><comment><USER66> This text could be kinda direct, but it's what i think could help to get a "solution" or more efficient approach to eliminate IS.

\- Bomb the oil fields, forget about politics/economics , don't let IS grow. Just take away their primary income so they'll internally bleed out... The people who come from Europe woudn't like it there if they don't receive any money.

\- Track down the big import behaviour of Western Products ( Red Bull, Nutella, Hummers, ... ) that IS terrorists love. Elimnate the import of it. They don't want Western products, no problem. Cut them off the economy and black market as quick as possible.

\- Make it illegal to buy black market oil from IS, track down people who want to have some quick money.

\- Invest in rebels that attack IS on the ground ( some people from France and the UK voluntarely go there)

\- If there is any proof of Middle East supports IS. Then take economic sanctions. Work together with Russia, America, Europe and China. Invest in oil alternatives FAST

\- Put a website online www.worldagainstterrorisme.com where there are a couple of big sections:

\- SnitchTerrrorists, to report abnormal behaviour. Make it so that you can see which ethicity/religion has reported them. So people would realize that muslims don't support extremist behaviour

\- LiveTarget, witch the cooperation of America, an online live sattelite map that limits to Syria and the part that IS controls. Limit the visibility of known friendly groups ( eg. masking / using older images when a friendly plane crosses the land). So people in the world can unite and track down extremist behaviour in the IS country. Make it easy to report suspicious behaviour and you can bomb the hell out of them as soon as they get out of their building with the help of the community.

\- The media should make fun with IS instead of addressing them as the big enemy. Make fun with the people who go there, target them as dumb ( if they had bad grades, ...) and change the public perspective for people who are compelled to go there because they hate where they live / feel discriminated because of social community problems

\- I have another idea, but that is morely to protect western nations. That should be hidden from public eye ;) - contact me if you would like to know :P

Edit: If you're down voting at least make a comment please, Eg. how you think states/nations can handle it "better"

My proposition are for the following intentions: less generalisation and less racisme ( not every muslim is IS! ), more public effort to help ( snitching extremists, finding IS members in their home country, ...), lessen the media appeal of IS for people with non-western feelings - living in Europe because of social problems in a country / community / city, ...

</comment><comment><USER63> It makes me sad that all I can do is just praying for Paris.

</comment><comment><USER67> Powerful stuff.

</comment><comment><USER68> I think we are tech people, whe should do something!

</comment><comment><USER69> i hope he has security

</comment><comment><USER70> I'm Muslim and the problem is not about Islam. Problem is all about the people who want to gain money for themselves. I know a truth that makes sense anytime I remember; everything is related to money or sex in this world. Nothing else matters. Religion is just a tool to manage the money.

<comment><USER71> > I'm Muslim and the problem is not about Islam.

Its time to get our heads out of the sand. Religion is part of the problem whether its Islam or Christianity etc. I agree other factors play a role too.

Religion is the best tool to brainwash people.

<comment><USER72> Animal rights extremists don't use religion.

Right wing extremists don't use religion.

Left wing extremists didn't use religion.

Radicalisation does not need religion.

<comment><USER73> All of those are ideologies with certain views on how the world is and how it should be, which can also said of religions.

If religions where purely spiritual and said nothing about the world then I would agree with you, but then I guess there wouldn't be any problems either.

<comment><USER72> Sure, they're like religion.

But the claim wasn't religion or things like religion lead to extremism.

It's wrong to say that only religion leads to extremism, and it's even more wrong to say that only Islam leads to radicalisation.

<comment><USER74> Nobody is saying only religion leads to extremism.

When you recognize that I hope you also recognize that religion is the main cause (or tool) of extremism in the world right now, and that Islam plays the biggest role there.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>