Why I keep fixing my bike - <AUTHOR> http://jcfrei.com/why-i-keep-fixing-my-bike/ <comment><USER2> Interesting application of a 1970 paper entitled "The Market for 'Lemons': Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism" by George Akerlof. This paper was the first to clearly define and study what are now everyday economic concepts: adverse selection and information asymmetry. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for this paper and other contributions to the study of asymmetric information.

As the author suggests, there are definitely some start up ideas buried in solving the problem of information asymmetry.

The paper, if anyone is interested in skimming through: [http://www.econ.yale.edu/~dirkb/teach/pdf/akerlof/themarketf...](http://www.econ.yale.edu/~dirkb/teach/pdf/akerlof/themarketforlemons.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> Putting aside the fact that derailleurs are relatively cheap and buying a new bike to replace a seized derailleur is not economical (unless you get stuck on an upgrade path that makes you also replace the shifters). And putting aside the fact that bicycles needs regular maintenance and regular riding to stay in top condition (seized derailleur only happens if you basically leave it sitting in the rain, or never change gears)... The lemon issue only really applies to bikes that you buy sight unseen. You want to check for cracks in the frame and a worn drive train. Both of these are relatively easy to learn how to do.

Having said that, I wouldn't usually buy used either for a variety of reasons. If you are buying a quality bike, the damn component manufacturers keep improving the components in incompatible ways. So if you want to replace components with new parts (for example you wear out the drive train and you want to replace it), it can be difficult to find them. This puts you on an upgrade path, replacing everything so that it is all compatible again. However, bike manufacturers get steep discounts on components and it is almost always worth it to buy a brand new bike rather than upgrade all the parts of your old bike. Buying a fairly low-mileage used bike will only delay things for a while because eventually you will have to replace worn components.

Of course you can buy used components to replace your worn ones, but it is harder to asses the quality of the components unless they are attached to a bike. Also, there is a huge market for stolen goods and as a person who doesn't want their bike stolen, I also don't want to buy stolen goods. Used components are practically impossible to verify that they aren't stolen. Either someone is replacing the components because they are worn out (in which case you don't want them), or the components are stolen (in which case you don't want them) or the person is upgrading to new components before their old components wear out (very small number of people).

So basically, you are stuck with:

\- Maintain your bike properly \- Ride it a lot \- Replace cheap worn compnents with new parts \- Buy a new bike when you get stuck in an upgrade path

(of course you _never_ throw away the old bike because then you would have one less bike and who wants that???... so you upgrade it with new parts too... sell the car to pay for it since you are riding so much you don't need it anyway)

<comment><USER4> You can blame Compagnolo for the 'group' concept.

That's why you can't just replace one element of the drive-train with a random other, you'll have to find a compatible piece and this can be quite hard after a bike gets older and that particular 'group' is no longer supported or serviced.

The idea behind a group is that chain, front and back dérailleur and the two sets of gears form a unit which work well together. The main driving force behind this is that if you add or reduce the number of gears on the pinion you're going to want a wider or narrower chain which affects the dérailleurs.

So there is some logic behind it but it can indeed be very frustrating to have to replace all of the drive train just because one small part is impossible to source.

<comment><USER5> While it's true that concept originated with Campy (which is why we're still calling it a "gruppo" after 40+ years), but Shimano owns an enormous chunk of the bike component market, more than 80%, so they have really made incompatible product lines into a way of life for the industry (with some sniping from SRAM, who make Shimano-compatible parts that often work better than the originals; I have a SRAM chain on my other wise Shimano drivetrain, for example).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I might be misunderstanding, but I'm having trouble imagining online bike markets as the dominant form of selling bikes. Wouldn't shipping cost be a big problem? Or are they city-specific markets, where people meet up in person for the actual exchange? The linked site seems to be for all of Switzerland, which is definitely not within biking distance.

In Copenhagen people mostly buy used bikes from: the monthly police auction of abandoned bikes (good for cheap bikes of random-skewed-towards-bad quality), used bike shops, for-sale flyers posted in apartment lobbies or offices, word of mouth, postings on Facebook, etc.

<comment><USER7> In SF the way most people sell their old bikes are via craigslist. _are they city-specific markets, where people meet up in person for the actual exchange?_ \- Yes.

In my experience both selling and buying bikes this way its not been not as difficult an experience as stated in the article. My wife has sold two bikes on craigslist, she sold them for a fair value (She knows bikes well) and everyone has been happy. As a buyer I can get a pretty good assessment of a bike's value based on some pics and a description. You can actually find a lot of good value in the used bike market if you're comfortable doing some repairs yourself and you know what to look for. There's a lot of sellers who have an old bike in the garage they're just trying to get rid of when they move that might be a nice steel frame commuter once cleaned up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's a similar problem in an area of interest to me: Musical instruments. A possible issue in common between bikes and instruments is that with a little bit of care, they can last forever, but with no care, they deteriorate rapidly. I would absolutely have to see a bike myself to be assured of which case I was dealing with.

Aside: I'd have fixed or replaced the derailleur too, and I'm not that short of funds.

</comment><comment><USER9> I operate a site that is a popular destination for pricing used bikes (and other things)[1] and this is a pretty big problem. We get our pricing data from listings for bikes, but without ever seeing the bikes it's hard to come up with a way to infer quality that will lead to more consistent pricing.

The fact that sellers shade the quality of their bikes isn't the only problem (although it's a significant one), a lot of times they don't even know the quality of the bike they have, whether the derailleur is close to failing, for example. In a way, it's worse than the auto market, because with the auto market the price has been enough to justify the creation of services to certify the quality of used cars. I think you could probably ask for an inspection from a bike shop on the quality of the bike, judging the shop based on the Yelp reviews or how trustworthy they are considered in your particular community, though (many people trade bikes in online enthusiast forums, in the same way that cars are). But this would only be worth it for very high end bikes.

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

</comment><comment><USER10> The big issue the author misses is that there's no such thing as a "lemon". The whole concept of the "lemon" is one that ignores that a machine like this is the sum of it's parts, in their working or non working order.

In the auto world, some states have odd qualifiers like "3 times in X months = you bought a lemon", which in reality means, "I did not know enough about the individual parts of the machine I purchased to fairly assess their quality/condition/or appropriate place in the larger machine".

I can understand this, in the automotive world, as these machines are in fact quite complicated. A bicycle is not. The most complicated bicycles on the market may be, with electronic shifting, etc.. but those come at such a premium they're legitimately intended for racing users only. If you can't spend a few minutes to see how simple moving parts should work, take care of exposed parts in the elements, and educate yourself, how dare you compare your simplistic, cheap machine to a car legally.

We have enough problems trying to ride our bicycles without people trying to act like lawyers when they don't know how to clean their front derailleurs.

<comment><USER11> > how dare you compare your simplistic, cheap machine to a car legally

The article is using the term 'lemon' as an economic term, not a legal one. It suggests that the 'lemon problem'(economic term) in used car markets also occurs in used bicycle markets.

The use of the term in economics goes back at least as far as 1970, so 5-10 years before the first 'lemon law' in the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> These guys have a nice solution to the "lemon market" for used cars: [https://www.beepi.com](https://www.beepi.com)

Could be cool to apply a similar expert scoring mechanism to used bikes, but you may have to find a different way to do it because the margins are probably so much lower.

<comment><USER13> I came here to mention Beepi. I bought a car off them this week. We had spent multiple weekends driving to a bunch of used car dealerships to find the cars that were in bad condition, had obviously belonged to a smoker, or that were way overpriced.

Beepi is pretty much an online dealer, but hypothetically their 10-day return policy and the fact they arrange delivery means that have an incentive to make sure the car is as described.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The author should point out he's talking about the low end bike market.

It's definitely possible to assess the value of bikes and determine the quality and condition of the components.

<comment><USER15> And with low-end bikes the reason there are so many lemons is they are manufactured to be disposable. If the frames were built to last 30 years then there'd be more of a market for used bikes.

As an aside, I thought the author would say the reason he keeps fixing his bike is because... it's a fixie! (rimshot)

<comment><USER16> The frames of even cheapest bicycles last 30 years. The other parts do not (or at least they appear ugly due to rust).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Comparing bikes with lemons? Ugh.

Assessing value and quality is certainly a concern and a challenge for those who aren't bike geeks. I nearly bought a carbon framed bike from a woman in San Francisco a few years back, but I noticed a problem where the bond between one of the carbon seat stays and the steel dropouts had come loose (visible movement). She didn't even know about it and was bummed, I passed on the bike.

One place to take a first pass at bike prices (for many commercial bikes) is:

[http://www.bicyclebluebook.com](http://www.bicyclebluebook.com)

As for Craigslist, you have to be careful, many stolen bikes end up there.

Edit: CL comment

<comment><USER16> Dictionary entry for lemon:

4\. Informal. a person or thing that proves to be defective, imperfect, or unsatisfactory; dud:

"His car turned out to be a lemon."

<comment><USER17> The thought experiment in the article is certainly an interesting read. That said, I don't see used bikes or the fact that bikes have parts that wear out as being in the same category as lemon laws applied to cars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow -- I would never think of writing an elaborate explanation of why I replaced a derailleur instead of buying a new bike. I guess that's why I'm still riding a 1985 Univega :-)

</comment><comment><USER19> @Scott

I thought this to myself as well. Is this the outcome of the new society were in? Nobody knows anything beyond what they do for a living? .. Aren't willing to watch a 5min youtube video entitled 'how to buy a used bike' .Whatever happened to googling and figure it out?

Is this where the big bucks are now? Solving things people could google? ..

Nobel prize winning papers applied to buying a used bicycle.. I thought april fools was over. A bold new era.

</comment><comment><USER20> Well if you have to write a piece of advice not to buy a new bike because it's dirty... I think you're so far off the normal world that I can't even comprehend.

That the author didn't even know how to clean it. There is the old Sheldon website there is even a stackexchange for it [http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/692/what-to- use-...](http://bicycles.stackexchange.com/questions/692/what-to-use-to-clean- your-chain-and-cogs).

Secondly indeed it's hard to buy a used bike if you don't even know how to clean one. And because you personally can't take the 5 minutes to learn some easy bike essentials doesn't mean it's a lemon market.

This reads like hey I learned about lemon markets. Let's write an essay to show I understand it. Well you didn't.

Sorry to be a bit harsh.

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't think that this is a huge problem when it comes to selling relatively expensive and bulky items like bikes. First you get to buy see & try the bike. Most of the time the seller will not ship it. There is a huge incentive for telling the truth on a product you sell when you get to actually meet the buyer : it's an awkward moment for the seller when the latter realize, after a 30 min/1 hour trip that the item was not described accurately. I won't say that it never happened to me as a buyer but it certainly happens more often when you buy a used item that is shipped to your place.

Also the buyer knows where you live, and is relatelively close to your home. Some buyers being complete morons hidding the flaws of an item is definitely a bad idea.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm amongst the 'sellers with high quality bikes' and I've given up trying to sell my bike.

Here in Melbourne, Gumtree is the go-to place to sell bikes.

Most buyers would be trying to not buy the lemons.

<comment><USER23> The BicycleMarket group on Facebook is the place to sell high quality bikes in Australia (no affiliation, just used it successfully before)

<comment><USER22> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Some markets don't need to be global, so don't need to be impersonal.

If I am buying a second hand bike I will search for one within local area and friend networks. Then any new connection is close enough to visit, or anything I am just taking on recommendation is being recommended by someone I know.

However fixing your bike is good anyway. You improve yourself and your bike.

</comment><comment><USER25> The flip side to this - as someone who bikes infrequently - is I'd like to be able to buy a bike that doesn't require any maintenance. Tyres would be foam or solid so they don't puncture. More parts might be made of plastic or stainless steel so they don't rust. Bolts would not need to be tightened.

<comment><USER26> Just buy a new bike any time something breaks.

I don't say that to be glib, I say it because I suspect it is actually the cheapest path to what you want.

It might make sense to hire someone to come and take the bike and change the tubes every year or something like that. Or perhaps hire them to deliver a new bike once a year, and take the old one away (depending on how much easy money they smell when you ask them about this, they might even give you some of the proceeds from selling the lightly used old bike).

<comment><USER27> _hire someone to come and take the bike and change the tubes every year_

What do you guys do to your bikes?

The biggest maintenance I've ever had to do on my 10yr old bike was putting on new tires and brake shoes. Any bike shop will change those for you and give you a full check up for like $30 (materials included).

Unless you leave your bike outside in the rain all the time it should last pretty much forever, needing little more than some air, oil, and re-fastening of the odd screw.

<comment><USER26> The comment I replied to expressed a desire to do _nothing_ and I presumed that they also did not want to deal with an inconvenient failure.

I don't think either of my suggestions are particularly sensible (unless maybe you are in a situation to have your butler take care of it), but they are possible, which compares favorably to the idea of a maintenance free bike.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The used bike market as a whole factors in lemons. This is why the bid/ask spread in used markets such as bikes is quite high. (Because of the risk you may get a lemon.)

I am not sure how this is different from most other used markets. Or if he is using the term lemon in the sense we are expecting for that matter.

</comment><comment><USER29> I've had good luck with craigslist for buying bikes. Admittedly, I'm not super knowledgeable about bikes, but the ones I went to go see all seemed in pretty good shape. And pretty much anyone you're thinking of buying from will let you ride it before buying it.

</comment><comment><USER30> You've got some typos: "tesitfy" and "byciclist"

</comment><comment><USER31> The secondary market for bikes varies from area to area. My feeling toward the article is that lemons is based on the how the buyer interprets the value/time.

</comment><comment><USER32> Some things should still be purchased in the physical realm.

<comment><USER33> Agreed, but then finding some kind of market, going there, and looking at several bikes will probably take longer than just fixing the old bike.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> You should never buy anything mechanical without examining it first hand. Period.

<comment><USER35> You don't understand what a market of lemons is and how it works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Actually, a friend of mine claims that this is what happened on the job market (it has become a market of lemons for employers AND employees).</comment>


Denmark is on course to generate 50% of its electricity from wind power - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04x6xk8 <comment><USER2> The sad thing is we pay more for electricity if it is generated by wind power, because of a "green tax"</comment>


Gray2vec for rendering bodies of water for maps at high zooms - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/imagico/gray2vec <comment><AUTHOR> And the author's related blog post: [http://blog.imagico.de/parting-the- waters/](http://blog.imagico.de/parting-the-waters/)</comment>


The Trouble with Digitizing History - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3048283/the-trouble-with-digitizing-history <comment><USER2> The solution is so simple -- have a more reasonable time limit on "hard" copyright (i.e., where no distribution is allowed), then when that time expires have it go to "soft" copyright. This is where the copyright item would be treated similar to trademarks, that is if the copyright holder isn't actively using it then the work would be free for non-commercial use. Then the third time period would be public domain.

Then, give the option for copyright holders to extend the "hard" copyright time period with a periodic maintenance fee. That way, it still gives Disney the ability to hang on to Mickey Mouse, yet any work without a clear owner (i.e., where an old software company went defunct yet the assets are technically held by some holding company) will be able to be preserved (along with any movies and recordings that are no longer published).

The thing I can't figure out is why the governments don't go for this. I mean, it is an effective way to get additional tax revenue (from rich companies such as Disney and Hollywood), without raising taxes on the voters. Win/win; well except for some campaign donations. But if I was in office, I'd take votes over campaign money any day.

<comment><USER3> We can remove the arbitrary-but-keeps-getting-extended copyright length limit, and just make the payments scale up exponentially the longer you hold on to the copyright. Disney gets Mickey Mouse as long as it wants, so long as it feels the economic value is large enough.

We can even sell Disney on this by making it easier for them to keep Mickey Mouse under copyright for longer. I mean, they're going to keep it for a long time anyways, but this lets them do so cheaply and with little lobbying over the next ~30 years (depending on how the USG negotiates things). In return, we get sane copyright rules for the rest of the content that isn't that valuable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is it worth it to save history? Ask a few historians that question. I think it absolutely is, even if some 70% of the videos are still under copyright; that will change eventually, as time passes.

</comment><comment><USER5> Infinite interstitial ad loop.</comment>


Clojure now available in Ubuntu repos - <AUTHOR> http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/clojure

<comment><USER2> I personally prefer to use a more up to date version, so i don't use the one from the repos, but im sure people who just want to have a simple install, or a stable release could benefit from this.

<comment><USER3> Well, it's _extremely_ helpful if you want to make a Debian package that depends on Clojure. But for development work, a more unstable version would probably be better.

<comment><USER4> It works like this: you start developing now. By the time you cut through all the red tape, you got the HTML templates, the servers were installed, the solution validated and you can finally deploy it into production, the package will be the same version you started development with ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This isn't new. I have had Clojure installed via the Ubuntu repository for some time now. Maybe since Karmic was released.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree - appears to have been around since Jan 2009, but judging from all the problems people seem to be have getting a simple Clojure install up and running, it does not appear to be well known.

<comment><USER6> the simple clojure install is coordinating JVM 5 or 6(almost always sun, tho link below mentions openJDK), emacs 22 or 23, slime, swank, ELPA, etc.

[http://thoughtadventures.blogspot.com/2010/01/setting-up- clo...](http://thoughtadventures.blogspot.com/2010/01/setting-up-clojure-repl- with-emacs-and.html)

[http://measuringmeasures.blogspot.com/2010/01/clojure- quick-...](http://measuringmeasures.blogspot.com/2010/01/clojure-quick-start- guide.html)

[http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/...](http://groups.google.com/group/clojure/browse_thread/thread/868c8ac36d55d674?pli=1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Fedora seems to have it since 2008.

[http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/clojure/F-10/clojur...](http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/clojure/F-10/clojure.spec?view=log)

</comment><comment><USER8> Why is this here ? This is old news.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> BTW it is presently available only for karmic.

<comment><USER3> Actually, that's not true: <http://packages.ubuntu.com/jaunty- backports/clojure>

<comment><USER9> And is in the current development branch as well: <http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid/clojure></comment></comment></comment>


Finnish the Dishes: Simple Nordic Design Beats Dishwashers and Drying Racks - <AUTHOR> http://99percentinvisible.org/article/finnish-dishes-simple-nordic-design-beats-dishwashers-drying-racks/ <comment><USER2> I see this all the time in the US. Admittedly it's not as popular as a dishwasher or the sinkside rack but it's here.

The first time I saw it I couldn't believe the genius of it, and it's already been incorporated into my dream house.

</comment><comment><USER3> the title would be better without the lame pun</comment>


Application Attack Surface - dan-cornell http://blog.denimgroup.com/denim_group/2013/11/lets-talk-about-application-attack-surface.html

<comment><AUTHOR> In this thread we get to see who's been coding in a bubble for the last 5 years.</comment>


Guerrilla Marketing + Lost and Found = Light Bulb (good startup marketing idea) - <AUTHOR> http://www.startuphustle.com/2008/01/08/guerrilla-marketing-lost-and-found-light-blub/

<comment><USER2> What's it doing is abusing a useful social system where lost articles are returned to owners. It's not guerilla marketing, it's spamming.

</comment><comment><USER3> Show me any example of "guerrilla marketing" that doesn't take advantage of some system. That's what makes it "guerrilla". This example is no less guerrilla than SPAM itself.

<comment><USER4> I'd assume guerrilla marketing should add some value to the message, thus helping it stick: it either makes you think, surprises you, or entertains you. Sending this to news.yc or anywhere else where marketing is a hot topic might- barely- qualify, because of the meta discussion it generates. The described trick itself is just plain spam.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was disappointed by the lack of actual Blub. This is News.YC after all. Sorry to be a typo totalitarian.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I thought this was going to be an article about creating a lightweight language...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So that makes this guerrilla guerrilla marketing?

<comment><AUTHOR> Guerrilla marketing is an unconventional way of promoting on a very low budget, by relying on time, energy and imagination instead of big marketing budgets.

I would say that the example is guerrilla marketing.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, but they're marketing the product by marketing the guerrilla marketing. That makes it guerrilla guerrilla marketing.

<comment><USER4> You mean guerrilla marketing marketing?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hi. I'm going to stick this sticker on everything I see. You, by default, will see the stickers. I will now call myself a guerrilla marketing guru. Pay me on the way out, but not before I stick this sticker on you.</comment>


The Sexual Life of Savages (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/savagesex <comment><USER2> It's very hard to believe that generation after generation after generation, they didn't connect intercourse with pregnancy. I understand the explanations; it still seems unlikely that no circumstances, human it otherwise, would have ever convincingly demonstrated it. Like eating and defecating.

The associate theorized they were stupid. I sincerely don't know what to think.

<comment><USER3> Sounds to me like there's too much cultural inertia. They're not stupid, but admitting that sex causes pregnancy means admitting that Bob's wife cheated on him; it means some poor desperate soul really did shag Ugly Betty; it means accepting responsibility for life-changing events that it's much more convenient to write off as "acts of god".

The clincher is the fact that they've been informed of the link now, and still won't accept it. That's not stupidity, it's denial.

<comment><USER2> That sounds plausible. Some people might believe the correlation, but not enough to disagree with sun-revolves-around-the-earth prevailing wisdom.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One reason I think everyone should go to college is to gain exposure to cultures completely different from theirs and lose their sheltered and ethnocentric mindset. (the best place to start is on the Nacirema [0]) It's no surprise that the most homogenous and least educated populations are more prevalently racist. (I'm not saying the educated elite are above it though and it was often the most educated who thought they knew best with beliefs like eugenics)

One interesting culture [1] we studied in one of my classes practiced ritual cannibalism of their dead. It was highly formalized regarding which relatives eat and had rules for the method of eating. (the meat is cooked so disease isn't much of an issue) After the Brazilian government's FUNAI [2] stopped the practice, one woman described feeling haunted by her deceased kin and not knowing whether their spirit was put to rest. The ritual held huge spiritual significance to the people and provided catharsis after death, yet the government stopped it because it was against their own moral code. This has parallels in how Christian Americans impose their own views on women and others (Manifest Destiny anyone?) who should have autonomy.

Another group we studied was male sex workers in (I think) the Dominican Republic. Western men would go there to receive sex from them. The interesting thing is that the workers did not view themselves as homosexual, despite living in such a macho culture, as long as they were the ones not being penetrated. This is contrary to the Western view where any sexual attraction with men means you are gay, while in reality sexuality isn't so binary and clear-cut.

Lastly we learned about a Bedouin [3] tribe in which speech is highly restrictive, yet women were afforded more free expression through the medium of poetry. Their culture of modesty actually empowered their women and the narrative is in contrast to that of Western nations which view Middle Eastern women as oppressed and in need of rescuing. (the author, Lila Abu-Lughod, actually has another book titled "Do Muslim Women Need Saving?")

The point I'm trying to make with these three groups isn't that their perspectives are the right ones or that we should completely ignore what other groups do in order to let them preserve their culture (many immigrants still believe in beating their children and spouses for example), but rather that we should question our assumptions and preconceived notions and we cannot do that if we stay safely in our own bubbles and hold stubbornly to our believes because "that's the way it always was" or that "it's our heritage".

[0]: [http://www.ohio.edu/people/thompsoc/Body.html](http://www.ohio.edu/people/thompsoc/Body.html)

[1]: [https://pib.socioambiental.org/en/povo/wari/865](https://pib.socioambiental.org/en/povo/wari/865)

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funda%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Nacional_do...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funda%C3%A7%C3%A3o_Nacional_do_%C3%8Dndio)

[3]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin)

<comment><USER5> >One reason I think everyone should go to college is to gain exposure to cultures completely different from theirs and lose their sheltered and ethnocentric mindset.

This doesn't happen in college but through actually living away from home in another culture. The worst bigots and racists I've met have university degrees.

<comment><USER4> Let's be real though, those who need it the most won't go live in another culture exactly because they're so attached to their own. Education is a cheaper way to get the necessary exposure. Regarding your second point, I did make a disclaimer that educated people aren't above this, but in my experience at least higher education encourages more independent thinking, reasoned inquiry, and study than is done in high school or by the uneducated. Opposing opinions are encouraged and healthy debate is pretty common, even with the professor.

<comment><USER5> Opposing opinions are never welcome within any social group or system such as the academy, and discussion is always kept between narrow bounds.

>but in my experience at least higher education encourages more independent thinking, reasoned inquiry, and study than is done in high school or by the uneducated.

Case in point: bigot with a degree.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Wireframe drawing library for JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://tidwall.com/pinhole/ <comment><USER2> the code seems to be at [https://github.com/tidwall/pinhole- js](https://github.com/tidwall/pinhole-js) in case anyone else needs to take a look.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it weird that I saw this and the first thing I wanted to see it used for was a browser port of Elite?

</comment><comment><USER4> good library!</comment>


The Efficacy of Deepfakes - <AUTHOR> https://icyphox.sh/blog/efficacy-deepfakes <comment><USER2> A candidate used deepfake during an election on India: [https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/jgedjb/the-first-use- of-d...](https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/jgedjb/the-first-use-of-deepfakes- in-indian-election-by-bjp)

Was it positive?</comment>


'Wow': Tesla's share price rise stuns Musk and his fans - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/65cad29a-b7c3-4f1c-bb69-443c1c063ed3 <comment><AUTHOR> Syndicated at: [https://leaderpost.com/financial-times/wow-teslas-share- pric...](https://leaderpost.com/financial-times/wow-teslas-share-price-rise- stuns-musk-and-his-fans-but-some-think-it-could-race-to- us2300/wcm/20a42cde-65c8-425a-ac9f-bc497a91aefd/)</comment>


SaaS Benchmarks - <AUTHOR> As a SaaS solopreneur and bootstrapper, my hardest challenge is to find the low hanging fruit.  Ideas to increase growth are endless and they all sound great.  Which ones are going to yield the best results with the least effort in the least time?
I like to use benchmarks of other SaaS companies to find the low hanging fruit.  I look at which of my metrics are the lowest compared to the benchmarks and assume they'll be the easiest to improve.
But benchmarks are hard to come by.  Participate in this survey and I will publish the results when I get a reasonable number of responses.
Only SaaS companies, please!
Survey:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FKQ6HW6 <comment><USER2> What benchmarks? IOPs? MBPS? $/TB?

Give us a bit more detail here, and maybe you might get some more participation.</comment>


A Destructable Ball That's Blowing Up Unexploded Land Mines - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobiledia.com/news/191259.html

<comment><USER2> cool art project but this isn't systematic enough to trust if the area is 'really' clear</comment>


Naïve Quitting - <AUTHOR> http://sivers.org/nq <comment><USER2> If I were the employer I'd say, that's really nice, please make sure you serve out your two weeks and we'll post the job, she can apply.

Bringing in an outsider for a job on your own initiative can open up your employer to all kinds of nastiness, for instance, maybe there is someone in line for promotion that immediately has a case because the job was never posted.

Really, this will work only very rarely, if you're working for 'bigcorp' x, I'd highly advise against trying a stunt like this.

You also can't just disclose all kinds of stuff to third parties that are not under an employment contract. Even a librarian has access to all kinds of private information. No wonder his boss was a little 'stunned'. What's wrong with talking it over beforehand instead of presenting your boss with a fait- accompli ?

I worked for a company as a co-founder/shareholder in the mid 80's and was in the situation that I too wanted to quit, I talked it over with the owner ('DGA' in dutch, mine was a minority share), suggested that I would talk to a friend of mine, he said, fine, go ahead.

That's the correct sequence.

Incidentally, my friend _still_ works there today!

<comment><USER3> "If you work for bigcorp x" being the operative term here. If you work in a small business, you know the owner personally, and you know this would be appreciated, knock yourself out. That's a lot of "if's", so the post could've used a lot more context, but in a certain situation I can see doing this.

<comment><USER2> Even in a smaller corporation I'd be very careful. I try to put myself in the place of the boss there and to have some sysadmin walk up to me and say hey Jacques, I'm leaving today, here is the guy that I trained while you weren't looking, he already has all the passwords and would very much like my job, I can promise you I'd be less than thrilled about it.

There are two things wrong with it, it presumes that it is his right to make these decisions and presents his boss with an impossible situation, either accept and you _might_ have continuity, or don't accept and have an immediate problem.

Master salesmanship to get away with it but not everybody is quite as timid as his boss was there.

I can't find a better term than blackmail, but that isn't quite it because he doesn't expect any payout, maybe someone else has a better term for this, but something really isn't right here.

That decision was simply not his to make.

<comment><USER3> This is why all of those conditions need to be true. If you _know_ that your employer will appreciate you doing this, then why not? Of course, it's highly unlikely that you know this to a reasonable certainty unless you ask.

<comment><USER4> Exactly, you don't know unless you ask. Don't assume, ask.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Surely some employers may prefer to use the event of an employee quitting to readjust things / change salary levels / bring in a good candidate they had no room for? It just seems a bit presumptuous to offer someone your job at your salary without the employer's prior approval.

<comment><USER6> I think the most polite thing to do, as an employee, is to say "I'd like to leave my position within [some time period], let's figure out an exit strategy".

PS - maybe add "I have a friend who I'm certain is capable of doing this job, I highly recommend her as a replacement if you need one."

<comment><USER7> I used to be employee #3 at a small startup. When I left, I gave 30 days notice so that I could help hire and train my replacement. In response, they told me to go home and refused to pay the 2 weeks pay they owed me.

<comment><USER8> Good thing you left.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't get all the articles on HN about quitting.. having recently quit a job I've worked in for 1 year and 9 months, and never having quit a serious job before that, all I can say is its not that hard. Give them whatever length of advance notice as your contract says (I hear its typically 2 weeks in the US? Where I am, a month is the standard length), tell them in person. Be polite. Make sure you pass on any information that they may need for someone to take over your job. Thats it.

Employers should be used to people leaving - and if not, they should get used to it. It may not be the employers fault you want to leave (or maybe it is?), but its still not your job to find replacements - thats their HR departments job. Also, I keep hearing things on HN about people feeling bad for leaving - don't. The employer doesn't feel bad when they make money off your hard work without giving you a reward or bonus, they don't feel bad when they downsize the company to save money. They don't feel bad when they replace you for someone better/cheaper. (Ok, they might and you might feel bad for leaving, but its normal and it happens. Loyalty shouldn't get in the way of fulfilling your career goals or your happiness).

I got stressed over quitting my job, but then I decided _screw it, I'll tell them this morning_. I IM'ed my boss to ask him when would be a good time for a chat and then I went to him in person and told him straight out that I want to leave to work on personal projects and possibly travel for a few months. We then briefly talked about exactly when I'll be leaving and then we chatted about about how I found my time working there and my future plans. He then wished me well and offered to contact him if I ever needed advice or help with anything. That was it. I worked for the month and then on my last day everyone went for a few drinks. I'm still in contact with some of my former workmates.

<comment><USER2> It depends on so many circumstances whether quitting is a big deal or not that it is probably not possible to say which without knowing a lot more about a person. Obligations matter a lot, savings obviously figure in there, the local economy and the job market.

What's a non-issue for one can cause many sleepless nights for someone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've never had an employer offer to find me my next job, why would an employee offer to find their next employee?

</comment><comment><USER5> It's interesting to see the contrast in comments here vs. the comments on Derek's blog.

<comment><USER11> Sycophants and praise in the comments on the blog itself, rational discussion elsewhere. It's not _that_ surprising or interesting. :-)

<comment><USER5> 68 comments and not a single one pointing out the obvious flaw with the article? If that was my blog, I'd be worried.

(Of course my blog is happy to have 3 comments on a post, but that is another matter entirely)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is believable, if you assume this guy has never seen a television, listened to the radio or read a newspaper for the last 25 years.

<comment><USER13> Many of Derek's posts are a vehicle used to illustrate a point. I thought that was generally well accepted.

<comment><USER12> You mean, made up? Like, a fable? Didn't read like that.

<comment><USER13> Perhaps embellished or selective memory driven. For example, I'm sure he is aware of how people elsewhere quit, and I'm sure at CDBaby he had someone quit over his tenure of running it. But by leaving that out, the story is so much better and the point is made crystal clear.

<comment><USER14> Thanks David. You're right on and said it better than I could. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I want to quit my job to go for MS this fall, but there is a service agreement binding (2 years) that makes me work for them until Jan 2011, otherwise I need to pay a huge compensation for the bond breakage.

curious to know, is it only in India that I see such binding agreements, or are they prevalent worldwide?

UPDATE:

they reason because we invested money to train you, we expect you to serve us for 1 year after the training.

after a generic training, you need to get trained in any specific technology (which you don't get to choose). I was forced into mainframe; I have a web app development background from college, and due to lack of interest in mainframe and eventually realizing how tantalizing it could be to do something you don't want to do, I decided to apply for MS, and got decent admissions, and now I am not able to go.

<comment><USER16> Never heard of anything like that in the US, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear of someone trying to pull something like this. Is it both ways? Do they have to pay you if they break the bond?

<comment><USER15> nope, even if they break the bond and terminate you, you still pay!

<comment><USER17> Then I have a great business model for Indian entrepreneurs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So, if he has to fire someone does he find him another job first?

<comment><USER19> Fire for cause, certainly not. But layoff in a restructuring or downsizing? Many of the better companies will offer some form of support in finding the next job in that situation. What form that support comes in and whether it is really useful or not is another topic, of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If that's what the employer expects, shouldn't he put in a longer notice period in the contract and also reciprocate the courtesy while firing someone's ass off?

</comment><comment><USER21> This article isn't about the fact that he quit his job or how he went about it, it's about challenging the norms of society and not just accepting them.

I think it's this naivety that let's many entrepreneurs, young and old, think that they can tackle established players or entire industries head on and win. It's this naivety that helps them identify the right way to do something rather than the established way.

</comment><comment><USER22> Social, economic and technological innovation is disproportionately made by the supposedly naive.</comment>


Show HN: Extension stats – extension count watcher for VSCode, Sublime, and Atom - <AUTHOR> https://yukaii.tw/extension-stats <comment><AUTHOR> Hi I'm Yukai, the author of extension stats.

It's a simple dashboard that watch extension count of 3 popular editors nowadays.

It's built with [just-dashboard][[https://kantord.github.io/just- dashboard/](https://kantord.github.io/just-dashboard/)], which generate d3 graph with plain json/yaml format data. I wrote crawler to generate json, and use just-dashboard to draw the history graph.

It has been almost 1 year now since I collect these data. You can see how VSCode's extension community bypass Atom in 2018, and its growing momentum.

Hope you guys like it :)

The source code is on Github ([https://github.com/Yukaii/extension- stats](https://github.com/Yukaii/extension-stats))

</comment><comment><USER2> Seems cool. Why don't you watch languages & celebrities? Might catch audiences.</comment>


The Beauty of Bounded Gaps (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/do_the_math/2013/05/yitang_zhang_twin_primes_conjecture_a_huge_discovery_about_prime_numbers.html <comment><USER2> This is from 2013.

<comment><USER3> Yup, I've been taught the result in first year calculus and the resulting corollaries, which was over 2 years ago now.

<comment><USER4> > Yup, I've been taught the result in first year calculus and the resulting > corollaries, which was over 2 years ago now.

Are you joking? This is not calculus, and it's certainly not first-year material.

<comment><USER5> I think he means that he stated the result in a calc class, not that he proved it. It would be very reasonable (and cool!) to state without proof in a calc class.

<comment><USER4> I certainly won't presume to tell Will Stein about number theory, but it seems strange to me to include in a calculus class (even without proof). Far be it from me to suggest ever excluding interesting mathematical content, but I'd be suspicious of an ordinary calculus class appreciating the significance of this result. On the other hand, maybe such prophecies are self fulfilling, and the enthusiasm of the teacher engenders the enthusiasm of his or her students, whatever the material.

(I am curious what "the resulting corollaries" are, though.)

<comment><USER3> Hmm, well you can read for yourself, my prof is nice enough to have posted all of the lecture notes online; These are the lectures from the second class where the result is covered on the third page:

[https://www.math.ualberta.ca/~xinweiyu/117-118.14-15/2014090...](https://www.math.ualberta.ca/~xinweiyu/117-118.14-15/20140904.pdf)

And then the homework (Q3): [https://www.math.ualberta.ca/~xinweiyu/117-118.14-15/2014090...](https://www.math.ualberta.ca/~xinweiyu/117-118.14-15/20140904HW1.pdf)

Where the corollary follows.

<comment><USER4> To be clear, I didn't mean "Are you joking?" as in "You are obviously lying or mistaken"; I really meant, exactly and only, "Are you joking?", because I found it incredible. Well, obviously you are not; and I would have taken you at your word without proof, but thank you for the careful documentation.

I still would be hesitant to talk about this in my own calculus courses, but, given the impression that this made on you and Will Stein's endorsement ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12886751](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12886751)), it sounds like that's just undue timidity on my part.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you're a fan of "How not to be wrong" ([http://www.jordanellenberg.com/how- not-to-be-wrong](http://www.jordanellenberg.com/how-not-to-be-wrong) )—and, if you're not, then go read it and you probably will be—then it may be worth noting that this article is by the same author. It is an excellent and accessible exposition that doesn't shy away from pointing to more technical resources for those who are interested.

</comment><comment><USER6> There's a nice documentary on Zhang (and the progress his work triggered) here:

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

</comment><comment><USER7> > _Quite the opposite—we take [primes] as immutable features of the universe, > and carve them on the golden records we shoot out into interstellar space to > prove to the ETs that we're no dopes._

That sentence itself is golden!</comment>


Apple deals massive patent blow to HTC, Android in serious trouble - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/apple-deals-massive-patent-blow-to-htc-android-in-serious-trouble/13714

<comment><USER4> You know that annoying old joke where you just add "in bed" to everything. Its starting to be like this only you add "In America" to every story concerning patents.

Right now, the US is very fortunate that the rest of the world is kind of going along with its patent frenzy, mostly because of its prominent position on the world stage. As American influence wanes, they might not be so willing to continue.

 _"You should be thankful for what you have, child. Right now, there are poor children in America who don't even_ have _Android(1) phones. All they get is one expensive, government-chosen monopoly device."_

(1) Choose Chinese equivalent.

</comment><comment><USER5> _"HTC claims that is has found 'alternate solutions' to these patents, but Mueller isn't optimistic:

But can those patents really be worked around? Standing in front of the Great Wall of China, you can also vow to walk around it. That doesn't mean it's a viable option."_

The fact that you _can't_ go around those patents, emphasizes how broken the current patent system is. How are competitors going to be "innovative", which is what the patent system was supposed to encourage, if they _can't_ actually take another path in building their product, and basically their only real options are to either _infringe_ on the patents or _pay_ the licensing fees.

<comment><USER6> To play devil's advocate here, if this patent really can't be worked around reasonably, than this may be, finally, an example of a software patent that is valid and worthy of a patent because it is a true and novel invention.

<comment><USER7> If the patents can't be worked around reasonably then it could just as easily mean that the patents are so broad and superficial that nearly any approach, whether common sense or not, would violate them. I haven't read the full patents, so I don't have a real opinion yet, but from what I know about software patents in general my explanation would surprise me less than yours.

<comment><USER6> Yes, you are absolutely correct, I was only making a statement from one angle.

It's too late now, but if I could edit my statement, I would like to point out that the patent could be valid assuming it was very SPECIFIC in its claims, and not just a broad patent which would mean that the single unique invention was so brilliant that it was the one and true path to the end product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oft-quoted: "Android May Be the Greatest Legal Destruction of Wealth in History"

It's actually a transfer of wealth from the coffers of Apple, RIM and MS to mostly developing-nation consumers who can now afford the same advanced phones as people in developed countries. The trio is doing everything in their power to kill Android, but I do hope it survives.

<comment><USER9> Except I don't believe in a free lunch.

Explain to me again, slowly. Apple is spending $1B in R&D to design the iPhone. Google is spending the same amount to design Android. Where is this money coming from and is it a sustainable investment from Google?

<comment><USER10> Android pays for itself, in lots of different ways, among them and by far most importantly: Being the default search provider on 550k additional phones/day. That's worth a billion $ to Google any day.

<comment><USER11> Isn't Google the default search for iPhones as well?

<comment><USER12> And not the default on Verizon Android phones.

I don't think it's just about search. I think sometimes Google does things Because They Can and then try to figure out how to make money later. Android's most realistic reason for existence, IMHO, is to ensure that Google users can take their data with them. If there was no Google phone, then the world would stick with Exchange, and GMail is not Exchange.

<comment><USER13> I always thought that Android's raison d'etre was to prevent any other company from dominating the smartphone business (Apple having apparently the best shot at this, but would still apply if Microsoft or RIM seemed likely to) because they would then have a huge opportunity to cut Google out of the loop - <USER2> could use Bing for their default search engine, have a built-in mail app that's not Gmail, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Per the claim chart in Florian Mueller's blog post, [http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show- ho...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show-how-android- infringes.html), it seems than any vendor selling a computer with a web browser on it infringes Apple's patent.

Claims Accused HTC Android Products 1\. A computer-based system for detecting structures in data and performing actions based on detected structures, comprising:

an input device for receiving data; (a mouse)

an output device for presenting the data; (a screen)

memory storing information including program routines including (computer memory)

an analyzer server for detecting structures in the data and for linking actions to the detected structures; (a browser which detects anchor tags (structures) in html and links actions to them (clicking on a link opens a web page.))

a user interface enabling the selection of a detected structure and a linked action; and (The web browser allows the user to select anchor tags with the mouse.)

an action processor for performing the selected action linked to the selected structure; and (The web browser is also the "action processor" which performs the "selected action" (opening a web page) linked to the "selected structure" (anchor tag).)

a processing unit coupled to the input device, the output device, and the memory for controlling the execution of the program routines. (All computers have a processing unit, CPU, linked to their input and output devices and memory which "control the execution of the program routines.")

<comment><USER14> Given how broad these claims are, I think the patent office should reexamine the patent. If claim 1 stands, Apple could shut down not just the mobile phone industry, but all vendors of computers with browsers. Note that there is no limitation in claim 1 to phones or tablets. Indeed, the patent was filed in 1996, long before the invention of the iphone.

Here you can download a copy of the patent: [http://www.google.com/patents/about/5946647_System_and_metho...](http://www.google.com/patents/about/5946647_System_and_method_for_performing.html?id=aFEWAAAAEBAJ)

Note the figure on the front page: a computer system with a floppy drive and printer attached. The computer system Apple is referring to in the patent is any personal computer.

<comment><USER15> I believe Apple and MS have a patent cross licensing agreement. Apple and MS may have created a legal duopoly. Google really needs to treat the legal situation around Android like a serious threat.

<comment><USER16> If this patent is as broad as it seems, Google needs to treat the patent situation around _Chrome_ as a serious threat.

In fact, depending on how liberally you can interpret things like "input device" and "output device" I could make an argument that elements of Google search infringe (e.g. the bits that parse a site's menu structure into a virtual ToC for faster access).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Link to a deeper analysis [http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these- tables-show-ho...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/these-tables-show- how-android-infringes.html)

Claims using regexes to match patterns in a piece of text is infringing.

        By way of example, the functionality within the Nexus
        One includes Android's "Linkify" functionality, which
        "take[s] a piece of text and a regular expression and
        turns all of the regex matches in the text into
        clickable links.

<comment><USER18> That's not what the patent claims. As usual, we are going to burn many tens of messages here debating patents without truly understanding how patent claim matching works.

In this case, Florian Mueller is using examples of Android functionality to illustrate _individual elements_ of the body of a single independent claim. You've excerpted his example without context, leading a reader here to believe that Apple is patenting random Perl features.

<comment><USER19> Your comments on this issue strike me as disingenuous.

By my understanding, the patent claims the (obvious, with mountains of prior art) behavior of auto-generating hyperlinks from text using regular expressions, so that (for example) when you receive a text message with a phone number in it, that phone number can be detected with regex and displayed as a hyperlink. When you click it, it can then say "Call, Save To Contacts" etc.

That's just one of the supposed infringements. Your comments here make it sound like this is a legitimate patent, and that HN geeks are simply too stupid to understand the issues. Well, we may not understand the obscure details of every patent claim, written as they are in fearsome legalese, but we understand very well when a company like Apple is trying to make an end-run around the Patent Office. We grok it. Don't pretend we don't, or that our understanding is somehow skewed.

<comment><USER20> > Well, we may not understand the obscure details of every patent claim . . . > but we understand very well when a company like Apple is trying to make an > end-run around the Patent Office.

If you don't understand the patent claims, you do not understand what the dispute is. End of story.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Isn't this the Florian Muller (who is quoted in the article here) the same one who was predicting the end of the world related to the Oracle vs. Google software patent dispute a few months back?

<comment><USER22> The same. I don't think that dispute has been resolved yet, has it?

<comment><USER23> So, the world is still in limbo then? Shit!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Perhaps someone who understands patents better can explain this quote to me: _"According to intellectual property activist Florian Mueller, Apple is unlikely to grant HTC a license for these patents and might make a damages claim."_

My understanding was that a patent (unlike copyright, but like musical performances) was something you _could not_ refuse to license, you could only extract a licensing fee. That being sort of the point of the inherent tradeoff of a patent—by making the blueprints public so anyone can use them, the gov't gives you a time-limited right to make money from anyone that uses that.

But the above quote would seem to contradict that. Can anyone explain?

<comment><USER25> There is no requirement on what you must charge for a license. So, a $1,000,000 per handset "license" would be a perfectly valid offer, and obviously unlikely to be taken up by HTC.

<comment><USER26> The fee has to be "reasonable", and in fact courts will step in when the patent holder is being demonstrably unreasonable, even going so far as to put the patent in the public domain.

I'm not sure exactly how that translates into a dollar figure for license fees. But the patent holder certainly has an interest in at least appearing to work with potential licensees.

<comment><USER25> Still, "reasonable" can be widely interpreted, and take another many years to settle if the courts are involved.

Applying a basic sniff test, if all patents _had_ to be licensed for _reasonable_ fees to competitors, there would be almost no sense in having patents in the first place. Additionally terms like "blocking patents" in terms of intellectual property barriers to entry in a marketplace would also likely not need to exist.

IANAL, but I do believe from my own experience that Apple can effectively decide to not make their patents available to HTC if they so choose in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It sounds EXACTLY like <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_tag_(Microsoft)> to me, except on a mobile device. Does anyone know if Pocket IE6 had Smart Tags?

</comment><comment><USER28> > U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 on a "system and method for performing an action > on a structure in computer-generated data."

Looks like I'll be closing my doors, too. Software and I: we had a good run...

<comment><USER29> I think patents are now often unconstitutional as they impinge upon freedom of expression. Do you feel violated?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I haven't read the patent in detail but from Apple's description my initial suspicion is that this patent could likely be invalidated by using the prior art of MUD clients such as Tintin from the early 90s. It was fairly common for users to set up triggers that detect particular patterns of text that represented structured information and then initiating an action based upon them.

Here's Apple description of what the patent in question is:

"The '647 patent generally relates to a computer-based system and method for detecting structures and performing computer-based actions on the detected structures. In particular, this invention recognizes that computer data may contain structures, for example, phone numbers, post-office addresses, and dates, and performs related actions with that data. The '647 patent accomplishes this by identifying the structure, associating candidate actions to the structures, enabling selections of an action, and automatically performing the selected action on the structure. For instance, the system may receive data that includes a phone number, highlight it for a user, and then, in response to a user's interaction with the highlighted text, offer the user the choice of making a phone call to the number."

Anyone who's read the patent in detail care to comment if they think MUD clients would be sufficient prior-art to invalidate it ?

</comment><comment><USER31> The claim has been made in prior patent-related threads that some fave companies (Apple, Google, Etc) only play the patent game for defensive purposes: A kind of MAD doctrine, a patent detente.

This indicates otherwise. This is a shady, shady act by Apple.

<comment><USER32> Google generally does that. Most other tech companies, including Apple, are not so benevolent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> All I know is that we need GOOGLE to open up about this issue.

What is the future of Android? Should I keep developing apps for Android? Should I be telling my family to buy Android phones?

I know that the summary of these patents is one thing, but the guts are in the claims of the patents.

To what degree is something actually "infringing" on a patent? Does it have to meet EVERY claim? Does it have to just come close? What REALLY constitutes infringement of a software patent like this?

EDIT:

1 more question if anyone has a deeper understanding of this. Why is HTC being sued for something the Android OS is doing? Is HTC infringing, or is Android?

<comment><USER33> I personally don't think anyone should be worried. HTC/Samsung et.al are big companies with their own patent portfolios and deep pockets. At the worst they will pay the cartels and move along - business as usual.

If you were to apply the "oh $CORP got sued and lost a patent lawsuit - <USER3> might want to dump $CORP product" uniformly - you will be left with no products to buy in the mobile space at least!

Why is HTC being sued and not Android - Because HTC is an corporate entity that makes money off Android - Android isn't a corporate entity on its own - who would they sue if they wanted to sue Android?

<comment><USER34> _Why is HTC being sued and not Android - Because HTC is an corporate entity that makes money off Android - Android isn't a corporate entity on its own - who would they sue if they wanted to sue Android?_

Google develops Android and markets it, and I would assume that they could be sued for developing an infringing product. Google most certainly makes money, and a lot of it, from Android.

But Google makes no phones on its own, unlike HTC and Samsung, so Apple goes after those companies to keep the devices from being imported into the US. And Apple can fight Android in a legal proxy war rather than directly suing Google.

<comment><USER35> > Google most certainly makes money, and a lot of it, from Android.

Could you explain how you are most certain of this? I don't believe they make any money from Android. If you mean they make a lot of money on ads from customers accessing their services via a mobile device -- then fair enough but that's not "from Android" any more than they make tons of money "from the iPhone".

<comment><USER36> They've released figures in the past that Android is profitable on its own; meaning irregardless to the effect on search profits. They make money on selling Google Apps, Maps service, etc to manufacturers and carriers.

<comment><USER37> "They make money on selling Google Apps, Maps service, etc to manufacturers and carriers."

Would love a source on this... AFAIK Google never publicly said Android Trademark and Google Apps were not free (apart from the obligation to pass the CTS test suite)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Apple's patent sounds like Microsoft's "Smart Tags" from IE6. They surfaced in IE6 beta, but were removed from the shipping version because they were so unpopular.

[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smart_tag_(Mi...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smart_tag_\(Microsoft\))

</comment><comment><USER39> It seems to me that given the opportunity Apple would have patented the structure of an email address (email@example.com), Apple would have patented Blogs, Apple would have patented Commenting on an online post. Apple is taking patenting to an ugly new level.

This is why software patenting is really bad for all.

</comment><comment><USER40> I Just read the first patent and find it seriously, ridiculously retarding that such a generic thing could be patented. If instead of being a software system, it was a social system, it would equate to a patent on secretarial duties.

"If I get a phone call, and it's from somebody important, bring it to my attention, and I will choose from a number of possible appropriate re-actions, which decision I will then inform you of, and you take appropriate re-re- action, if there is one."

Is it possible that in 1996, when this patent was issued, that the patent office clerks rubber stamping these things had no ideas as to what was meant by the pseudo-technical jargon?

Input device? Output device? Action processor?!

</comment><comment><USER41> Tie this back to the stories of iOS developers pulling out of the US due to patent troubles: it's scary to think that a software company's sole channel provider has interests that side with an institution that could drive it out of business.

</comment><comment><USER42> I'm so utterly disgusted by the whole patent system I care not to read any further. Basically every software patent that starts off with "a method of..." is usually bogus. The whole system needs to be scrapped.

</comment><comment><USER43> It's really depressing that business today is less about innovation and competition and more about dirty legal practices to destroy other members of an industry.

This is some incredibly short-sighted zero sum game consideration. I hope we wake up and fix this before the state of innovation has been set back too many years.

<comment><USER44> It isn't. The overwhelming majority of competition is about innovation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Article needs more hyperbole.

This is nothing new - companies are constantly going back and forth over patent infringements.

</comment><comment><USER46> _This is serious stuff._

I tend to not believe this when an author ends their point with it.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is the proof of true disruption by Android.

<comment><AUTHOR> "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win."

Unless you, of course, agree to license their patents. Then they win by proxy.

<comment><USER48> Or if you're Netscape.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Jobs is a seriously greedy vindictive asshole, I'll never spend another penny on his shitty company.

<comment><USER49> Apple is playing hardball, why isn't Google playing hardball back? Why not yank Google Maps and Youtube from the iPhone?

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Wow, how is this not the modern day version of patenting the hyperlink? Sounds very close to it.

<comment><USER51> Patent 5,946,647 (filed on February 1, 1996) seems to cover automatically scanning/recognizing data, creating links for identified data and then providing a way to act on those links. It sounds similar to contemporary technology that created HTML archives from email which scanned data and created http and mailto: links which were then acted on by browser and email clients. Hypermail is one package that did this and was initially released on July 30, 1994.

Ref: [http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/archives/WWW-TALK/www- talk-1994q...](http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/archives/WWW-TALK/www- talk-1994q3/0297.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> how. what.... i don't even.

these patents are both so obtuse and vague, could they not cover every single computer program in existence?

</comment><comment><USER53> I don't know. In 1996, I think this would have been pretty novel. The idea of parsing a random block of text and converting everything that looked like a phone number certainly didn't exist in any device or software I can think of. I don't remember any email or IM clients detecting email addresses and making them links either.

Some software patents are in fact valid inventions. The fact that today, _15 years later_ , it seems obvious, doesn't mean it was at the time.

<comment><USER54> I was 17 at the time, and heavily into computers, programming, and the Internet as a hobby. Far from being novel I thought this idea falls into the "bleeding obvious" category.

<comment><USER53> I guess how you'd accomplish it is pretty obvious, but the idea of linking phone numbers in text is not. There was no pressing need to do so at the time. Once a lot of text messages are happening and people start sending phone numbers and email addresses to each other, it becomes obvious.

Of course, I'm not sure the idea is patentable, only the implementation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> If this does become a larger issue, and US sales of Android are temporarily halted, it could be the high profile patent dispute needed to implement much needed reform, including limiting or eliminating software patents and process patents. So in the long run, this could be a fantastic catalyst and make us better for it. Right now every tech company has the incentive to patent everything they can, regardless of merit, in order to fight each other.

<comment><USER16> If US Android sales are temporarily halted, don't you think Microsoft and Apple will be more than willing to spend enough money to make sure reform will never happen?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I think this case illustrates one of those landmark moments when you get to choose the forest or the trees. There has to be an equitable middle ground where we don't have to throw out the baby with the bath water but the direction of these patent lawsuits are troubling.

For me the greatest adverse affect is on open-sourcing software. Open sourcing software is not free, there is a very real cost to the people who share even without lawsuits. If the project is interesting enough, sure people will fork it and contribute but you also get half-brained support requests for people who can't get your project to compile or what not.

With the possibility of lawsuits it becomes even more tempting to just keep your code locked away. For a small or medium-sized company it pays to keep any innovative code locked away internally to avoid patent trolls.

If these claims go through and Android falls on the mercy of Apple to license the technology at whatever price they name if they are gracious enough to, then we have to ask ourselves long and hard, will it be worth the wait until these patents expire? Is there any meaning to having Android perennially over- priced compared to Apple for the next several decades so that Apple wins big with any smartphone sale?

</comment><comment><USER57> From what I can tell, the patent covers converting a piece of text into a hyperlink using regular expressions. There's a good chance that there might be prior art (especially, Perl books, because I remember doing HTML parsing using Perl regexps back in those days).

I can understand Apple's desire to protect its IP. But software doesn't need protection for more than a few years. 17 years is way too much for software patents. This lunacy must end.

</comment><comment><USER58> Good god, bring back Groklaw. If the most respectable commenter on this topic is Florian Mueller, then we're in serious trouble.

</comment><comment><USER59> I'd guess that the first claim of the patent is also infringed by Twitter when it makes @names and URLs clickable: <https://dev.twitter.com/docs/anywhere/welcome#features>

</comment><comment><USER60> It's not completely related, but weren't the Lisp machines (and probably Smalltalk) printing out "live-objects" on the screen?

It's not related as the objects being printed (and could be clicked on) knew their identity beforehand, and established rather, rather than being "grepped" and then using heuristic establish connection to them?

But then what about say simple dictionary that finds words in webpage, and connect to the local or global terminology web-site (couple of tech-related sites have that). Or news site, where certain words are automatically linkified

</comment><comment><USER61> IANAL, and haven't read the patents. But "system and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data" and "real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data" - really? I'm sure people were doing both of these before Apple even existed, and in the case of the second one, probably before anyone involved at Apple or HTC was born. Doesn't sounds very novel or inventive.

Interesting read though, maybe I should start stocking up on Androids ready for the black market!

<comment><USER62> Just to remind you that the title of the patent isn't the patent itself. There's many ways to do the same thing, each patent is for a particular method or model. For example, you could claim patent for 'bicycle', and describe your model in the patent.

<comment><USER44> You are 50% right. The title isn't the patent - true. But the description isn't the patent either. The description serves to demonstrate how the claims may be implemented and hence underwrites their validity. It is the claims that have the teeth. (Respecting the fact that in cases of ambiguity the description will indeed be referenced)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> If one of these patents is really about using regexes to extract hyperlinkable data from text... maybe it will encourage people to use yacc for their parsing instead?

</comment><comment><USER64> Anybody else thinks Apple is now being the Lodsys? I know they create products unlike Lodsys, but c'mmon, if this isn't a cheap shot, I dont know what else is.

</comment><comment><USER65> I looked at the patents. Can't Netscape (1994) be quoted as prior art for U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647?

</comment><comment><USER66> Boy, I sure do love software patents.

</comment><comment><USER67> This is why I hate lawyers.

<comment><USER68> In this case the lawyers are an agent for Apple. Apple is the one with the patent claim and started the lawsuit. The real issue (IMO) is Apple, Microsoft, RIM, etc. colluding to kill Android. Android is a fundamental threat to their business model.

<comment><USER69> And Apple, Microsoft, and RIM are agents for investors to make money. If you really want to blame someone, you need to follow the money trail back to shareholders, most of whom don't even remotely understand or can interpret the language of the patents.

You've got complex systems on top of complex systems that really only benefit a small number of people who understand them and consistently make money off of them.

Let's say I have both Apple and Google stock (ignore for the moment that it's only HTC being sued, because this obviously has an impact on Google's ability to compete with Apple in this market). Should I take the blame that a company I invest in is taking advantage of a complex system to increase the value of my shares? Probably, but unfortunately I have no idea where to start.

In a system where everyone has patents and are suing each other, I think the obvious beneficiaries are the middlemen making money off the process (lawyers being among them). So ultimately I would agree with the parent that lawyers are at least partially to blame for these shenanigans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> I had a look at one of the patents and it sounds like Smart Tags to me.

</comment><comment><USER71> I wonder what the congressperson ownership rate of iphones to android phones is?

Would cellphone carriers be required to prevent access on their network to patent infringing phones?

</comment><comment><USER72> Oh, so will this be like when they disabled multitouch on some Android devices because of some patent bullshit, then developers re-enabled it on hacked ROMs?

</comment><comment><USER73> Complete madness. The US patent system needs a serious injection of common sense. Removing lawyers would also work. Same thing really I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER74> I highly doubt that Apple will shut Android down. If they do, they'll have the DOJ all over them trying to break them up.

<comment><USER44> Highly unlikely. There are many suppliers of phones and even of smartphones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Is this the first time that Apple has ever attacked something so related to Linux before? I wonder how that community is responding to this appearance of a new "evil empire."

</comment><comment><USER76> this is so broken...

</comment><comment><USER77> OK, well, yet another US Patent that virtually any engineer with only two neurons left in their brain would say: "Yup, been there, done that".

Patent number 5,946,647 describes recognizing text within strings and doing something with it. That's the basics. OK, well, that has been done since the very first computers were put to use.

Let's see, yup, my HP41 calculator can do that. It was introduced in 1979.

Let me remember...yup, computers before that date did that sort of thing too. What do interpreted language processors do? Scan strings for tokens and take actions based on what they find.

Just check out the History of AI page on WikiPedia: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intellige...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_artificial_intelligence)

...my guess is that most anything that this patent covers was probably already being done in the 1950's in some form. Modernizing the form to take advantage of, say, touch or the concept of links and new interfaces isn't invention, it is something that any skilled engineer would simply implement as part of applying the solution to new hardware.

When are we going to stop granting patents for implementation rather than invention?

Don't get me wrong. I love Apple. This isn't a jab at them. You have to use the system as it exists or someone else will plant a useless patent bomb in your face and stop you cold. They are using the system as they should, defensively and offensively. No problem with them or any other company, really.

My problem is with the patent system and how it is granting patents for implementation rather than invention. Implementation simply requires stating a problem to someone skilled in the art. That person, in turn, is able to find a solution promptly. And so could thousands of others equally skilled in the art. Invention should have a much higher standard of proof or performance.

More importantly, large companies have the financial horse-power to accumulate thousands and thousands of these "been there done that" patents. What this means is that those engaged in true innovation have to walk around in fear of running into this mine-field for the simple act of doing something that anyone skilled in the art would do as a matter of solving every-day problems.

One of the best examples of how far the idiocy goes are a series of patents granted for the use of pulse width modulation for the control of the intensity of an LED light. This is something that is beyond obvious to any student of electronics.

Yet another example of government incompetence at work? Perhaps the USPTO process should be privatized. Think about it. You could then file a lawsuit against the examining firm for approving a questionable application. That would stop the granting of patents for what amounts to prior art cold on its tracks.

'nuff said.

</comment><comment><USER78> One problem:

Despite bias in the media, HTC claims that the ITC lawyer argued that HTC did not infringe. Which means that HTC has a good shot at the appeal...

Also, one of the Apple patents has prior art..its called BeOS...it had some of the features/claims and was out in the market commercially in 1995.

</comment><comment><USER79> On the bright side, if Android goes away, iPhone developers now don't have to worry about learning yet another framework.

<comment><USER16> Sure they will. It will just probably be called Windows Phone (or maybe webOS if HP gets their act together and gets lucky).

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> If Apple were eBay it will now hold patent for online auction.

</comment><comment><USER80> Android = iPhone killer

iPhone = 50% of Apple sales

Apple shares = making a top?

</comment><comment><USER39> Watchout! Apple may file to patent "Startup", Lean startup and generally startup as we know it. These guys are out to destroy software creativity and invention in general.

<comment><USER44> Yeah - Apple really has a crummy record on innovation compared with... ... oh yeah... now that I actually engage my brain for a millisecond... they have been pretty innovative haven't they?

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Boycott Apple. Simple as that. If you can't compete, litigate? It would be interesting to see when this claim was started. Right around the time Android started eating their lunch?</comment>


Newly Released Aerial Photos of World Trade Center on 9/11 - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/02/10/nyregion/20100210-WORLDTRADE_index.html

<comment><USER2> Brings back some memories. I was working in midtown, but my apartment was 3 blocks South of the trade center. I got back home about an hour after the collapse, and the way I've always described the scene was that it looked like a volcano had erupted because of all of the ash everywhere. The 7th picture in the series is really incredible in showing how big that cloud of ash was when the second tower went down.

</comment><comment><USER3> Man, I never understood before the problems they must have faced just with people nearby watching and suffering from dust and ash inhalation. It COATED BLOCKS.

</comment><comment><USER4> Also already posted here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1115572>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps a bit too off-topic but extremely interesting.</comment>


An interview with Hans Camenzind (the designer of the 555 timer IC) - <AUTHOR> http://www.semiconductormuseum.com/Transistors/LectureHall/Camenzind/Camenzind_Index.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> Q: What patents are related to the 555?

A: There are no patents on the 555. Signetics did not want to apply for a patent. You see, the situation with patents in Silicon Valley in 1970 was entirely different than it is now. Everybody was stealing from everybody else. I designed the 555 Signetics produced it, and six months, or before a year later, National had it, Fairchild had it, and nobody paid any attention to patents. The people at Signetics told me they didn't want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say "These are our patents, now let's see what you're violating". It was a house of cards – if you blew on it, the whole thing collapsed. It took about ten years to change. I guess it was some new companies that didn't have ancient history and did have a strong patent, and started enforcing, and that changed to whole situation. It is very intense now. The same thing – I have a patent on the phase locked loop, and that would have been a very strong patent, but no enforcement.

</comment><comment><USER3> Two 555's are used as the key components of the "Atari Punk Console" - <USER2> simple noisemaker synth.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OScKPHnFv8></comment>