Ford Ditches Microsoft for QNX in Latest In-Vehicle Tech Platform - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/11/ford-ditches-microsoft-for-qnx-in-latest-in-vehicle-tech-platform/ <comment><USER2> The whole thing reeks of NIH and some poor saps trying to save their butts by trying to be forcefully relevant.

Apple and Google already solved the UI problem - you don't need to have the damned ugly in-car UI anymore. Just stick decent hardware with Android Auto and CarPlay support and be done with it. Make decent looking apps for each platform to provide functionality outside of platform supported features.

I just don't understand why on earth would Ford need to have their own system with QNX, WiFi updates and Maps that are not free. What problem does it solve that is worth solving at the expense of reinventing the wheel and making users deal with yet another system?

Edit: One way Ford to justify it is to think of the non-SmartPhone, non-Apple, non-Google users. Though in terms of numbers, at least in the US this bunch is a tiny minority. Ford could give them a Moto G free with every Car for not having to pay for QNX licensing fees, maps and updates etc.! OR they could limit the QNX based independent system to lower end cars and make the higher end ones compatible with Android Auto and CarPlay.

There's also the question of longevity - what if in 2017 Apple and Google stop being compatible with the older version of Carplay/Auto compatible implementation Ford shipped in their 2014 car? What if users switched to non- Apple, non-Android phones? In that case it would make the in-car system useless for the user. So given people use cars for way longer than SmartPhones - I guess it makes some sense for Ford to have an independent system.

Regardless they should still rid themselves of the NIH and stick with Android based UI and not have their own based on QNX. That part hardly makes sense.

<comment><USER3> I was one of the architects working on Ford SYNC. Internally, Ford has a big problem with open source software from a legal stand point. You have a fortune-5 company here. Translation for you: They are a very large target for lawsuits. The open source software provides no indemnification.

You also have to remember when SYNC was in the planning stages long before the public knew about it. I was part of the original team responsible for taking the whole concept to reality.

I can tell you that internally, it was one of the most well run software architecture teams I was ever apart of. The middle level managers really know how to run software teams which is not something you might expect from a big old automotive company.

But in many ways, our hands were tied. Recall about the time Bill Gates and Bill Ford riding around in a model-T. A lot of us didn't want Windows for automotive and were trying to champion Linux. Also, the iMX3 which was in the first generation SYNC modules was at the time a slow processor.

And to top things off, a fair bit of the software running on the SYNC module is not written by Ford. Ford partnered up with a crappy company called B-Squared.

The Maps are not Ford's either. When I was on the team, Ford had partnered with INRIX for Maps, traffic and direction.

SYNC is just not a simple single board computer with some apps running on it. There is an entire eco-system build around the SYNC module because it's connected to the vehicle networks (CAN Bus). Microsoft & Ford being partners (Windows servers in data center), Microsoft wanted to handle some of the software development but when Ford asked Microsoft to sign off on some legal agreement asking MS to take any and all responsibility for things like inadvertently deploying an air bag, they backed off.

Also, Ford SYNC as I said has an eco system of roughly 20-30 backend applications that support it. Some of these have to do with 911 assist and the TREAD act. The TREAD act is the US Federal Government's oversight on safety claims.

Because via SYNC you can report problems and have your vehicle serviced, their is a lot internal logic that keeps track of what is called EOL (End of Line) data about a vehicle which needs to funnel into TREAD act reporting.

Think about the not so long ago Toyota problem where they tried to blame floor mats for gas peddles getting stuck.

EDIT: Also, the GUI is not Microsoft CE native. The WindowsCE is just the OS running on the SYNC module. The GUI was Adobe ActionScript. Trust me, many of us yelled very loud about how stupid an idea this was but because B-Squared own the implementation (not the architecture), they were aloud to chose whatever they wanted to meet Ford specs. The results are a history less: JD Powers gave it SYNC poor ratings and many of us (myself included) got the hell out of dodge.

Middle managers, managing the day to day software architecture and specifications, were caught between a rock and a hard place with senior management (Allan Mullaly, Mark Fields, Bill Ford, Marcy Klevorn) pushing these partnership relationships we were forced to work within.

<comment><USER4> > The open source software provides no indemnification.

Just as Google and Apple do, QNX contains multiple open source components from other parties that QNX does not own the copyright to including code licensed under APACHE, BSD-2C, BSD-3C, BSD-OPENSSL, BSD-V, ISC-V, GPL2-EX2, MIT, MIT-V, MPL, MPL10, PYTHON, UL, ZLIB (this is copy-pasted from QNX's own open source license compliance documentation). Anyone can sue Ford directly for using those components just as they can with the use of Google or Apple software.

Now, if QNX itself provides a _complete_ indemnification from both copyright and patent lawsuits arising from the use of said code and Apple and Google do not, that's a different story. But unless that is the case, Ford is no safer with QNX.

<comment><USER3> I'm not a lawyer but sat in many of the internal meetings. From what I understand, anyone who signs up to work with Ford Motor also signs a legal agreement saying you take on legal responsibility for your actions....

As an example, Ford is also a big Linux shop but they do not use any old Linux distro. They have partnered with Novell (SUSE Linux) who indemnifies them from all open source code found in the SUSE distribution.

When I was on Ford SYNC, no Google code ran on the module. The feature they are talking about is called Send To Sync and it's a web service where the SYNC module can receive a map planned on Google Maps. The mapping software in Ford SYNC is simply given the data output in the form of lat/long info.

<comment><USER5> There is no way that Novell or QNX are big enough to indemnify Ford unless we're talking about some kind of huge business or E&O policy or something; in which case Ford is paying the bill for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Windows CE is an unbelievable pile of crap under the hood, easily some of the worst code I've ever seen. It should never have been shipped; it was certainly never made better, at least at a level that mattered. Instead, Microsoft kept adding features. CE speaks volumes about the lack of caring about quality and good design from Microsoft's upper management.

Yes, it was killed a few years ago. But it lasted way too long, and did untold amounts of damage to Microsoft's ability to execute in mobile. They spent a lot of time recovering from many bad decisions, mostly politically driven nonsense having nothing to do with making CE any good.

<comment><USER7> Considering every sysadmin spent yesterday uninstalling rollup 8 for Exchange 2010 and KB3004394, I'm very worried that MS, as an organization, has fallen from grace on a level never before seen. On top of a million other issues like the failure of Office 2013 and Windows 8 in general.

I imagine the politics at Microsoft still remain at, "Catch up to Apple, make our own iPad, iPhone, etc" instead of delivering a good product in the dozen other realms they compete in. Of course the automakers were going to ditch the MS product. Its substandard.

I really wish MS would find a way to up their game. Nadella's tenure isn't looking so bright 8 months in. Not sure if MS is salvageable, to be honest. I sometimes think how much better the products would be if Clinton actually tried to split up the enterprise stuff from the home stuff during the anti- trust settlement, instead of allowing MS to continue as-is and continue to force IE6 on the web for 4 or 5 more years than it deserved to.

<comment><USER8> >Nadella's tenure isn't looking so bright 8 months in.

I think many here would disagree with that, as shown by the last... 8 months of news about open source this, Linux that, iOS/Android apps, web standards, and GitHub.

I've never heard any complaints about Office 2013, and I haven't heard any complaints about Windows 8 that haven't been solved by Windows 8.1 or Windows 10.

<comment><USER9> Office 2013 apps are incredibly slow to start and run. Outlook, in particular, will lock up for minutes at a time with no network or CPU activity. Some people in my office use OWA instead of Outlook to get around the lockups.

<comment><USER10> Really? On my >3 yo hardware Word 2013 starts well below half a second (actually in like 300 msec, I've made many measurements).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How much did Ford pay Techcrunch to write this glowing advertisement? The interface doesn't look nice at all, look at those harsh shadows and bezels on the edges (especially the buttons). It looks outdated in comparison to iOS and Android. Not to mention the article mentions how smooth the experience is, if you watch the video you can see lag (on maps in particular), UI flicker and other animations for the sake of animating (see the keyboard come into view). It might be faster than SYNC2, but it is not as perfect as this paid-for looking piece proclaims.

The article fails to also mention that QNX is owned by Blackberry, they acquired QNX Software Systems in 2010. I am honestly surprised that this isn't a stated fact in the article. In-fact, it is a known fact that QNX dominates the in-car operating system market and have contracts with a few other car manufacturers, notably BMW.

The real story here is: Microsoft loses out to market dominating Blackberry QNX.

</comment><comment><USER12> From the article: "Sadly, since the new Sync runs on a totally different hardware, vehicles that shipped with the old version will not get the new hotness."

This is the #1 reason why I'm not interested in high-tech displays and car automation from the car manufacturers.

I drive an 18-year-old car, mostly because I enjoy not having a car payment. I'd rather deal with an ancient cassette deck than have _more_ of my dashboard functionality imprisoned in an ancient (and possibly poor-performing) UI that cannot be upgraded.

<comment><USER13> _dashboard functionality imprisoned in an ancient (and possibly poor- performing) UI that cannot be upgraded._

Doesn't that pretty much describe a cassette deck? :)

It's easy to fall into the version-chaser trap with easily upgradable digital systems. But I've come to realize, when it comes to digital appliances, do they really _need_ to be upgraded? I don't think so. My Toyota has a basic touchscreen UI that will probably never receive a software update, but you know what? That's fine. The CD player works, the radio works, the bluetooth works, and it will all continue to work. It really isn't all that different from the cassette decks of my past cars.

<comment><USER12> _Doesn 't that pretty much describe a cassette deck? :) _

LOL, yes, if the manufacturer components aren't intended to be upgradeable via software. A virtual speedometer or gas-gauge, for instance, should be simple enough to never need a patch.

Navigation and entertainment systems, on the other hand, can be a lot more complex. Not only does mapping software need to be upgraded, but I think there can be some temptation on the part of content publishers to endlessly tweak potential revenue channels (the continuously increasing number of apps on my AppleTV comes to mind).

What happens when one of these updates results in degraded performance? Again with an Apple comparison: I think about my iPhone 4S' performance after iOS7 rolled out. A vehicle's performance degrades as it gets more mileage, but it can be offset by care and maintenance. What happens when a manufacturer (or their subcontractor) pushes an update that turns your 2-year-old responsive console system into a sluggish mess? Would you have purchased the car if it had performed like that?

<comment><USER13> Which is why it doesn't need to be upgraded at all! All you need is map database updates- that road closed, this new road was put in, end of story. My Garmin works like that, and I've seen first-hand with it that map databases tend to stay current "enough" for years.

Through that lens, you could view the fact that pre-WiFi, pre-cellular dash systems can only be upgraded by invasive action at the dealer as a blessing...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Ford is missing the mark by charging for map updates. They should offer free updates with oil changes - which gives them an opportunity to get the owner back in the dealership and to talk with them. "How's your car doing? Good. Let us know when you're ready to trade it in. In the meantime, we've updated your maps for free."

<comment><USER3> They certainly did but consider at the time the WIFI module does not connect to the Internet. It was only for inside the vehicle to sync with your device or give your device an Internet connection. The internal software never looks at the Internet; it's firewalled. And there are a ton of good reasons for this (see my post above).

Also, because SYNC is not connected to the internet it does not have an always on connection. SYNC uses data over voice. Think old school dial up internet connection. SYNC, however, dialed into a partner company that provided a strict set of customer experienced data like ball scores, get your horoscope, etc...

So to update maps, requires you to plug an update stick into the USB port. MAPs are also very large data and would take too long to update on a dial up connection. Again, it has WIFI but the WIFI is not internally used by SYNC or wasn't when I was on the program.

Secondly, because of the partnership with INRIX, I think INRIX gets some kickback for maps updates. And after the trial period, if you decide to keep traffic and direction subscription, I think INRIX also got a kickback for that too.

It will be interesting to see where SYNC goes in the future with 4G now available. When I was at Ford, they wanting to have a celluar data service that was vendor agnostic but it gave them problems for 911 assist. Maybe that has improved.

My point is that there are a whole host of problems a first mover has to over come. Yea they made some mistakes but dam, you have to give them credit for being one of the first to start putting some of this out there.

<comment><USER14> I'm not saying it's a bad system - Sync 1.0 was pretty revolutionary. Sync 2.0 had some issues around the UI design, for sure.

What about updating the maps over the diagnostic connector? You'd just send over the deltas, obviously.

<comment><USER3> too slow. CAN maxes out a 1Mbps. Besides, if you have to connect to something, it might as well be the faster USB port.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interestingly, not a single mention of the word Blackberry in the entire article. Not that it's required, QNX is being pushed as a separate brand but still, makes me wonder if that is intentional. Scoring Ford for QNX is a pretty nice win for Blackberry.

<comment><USER16> QNX is still run as an entirely separate company, its one of the only remaining jewels in Blackberry/RIM's treasure chest. While they are developed with somewhat common and aligned goals, development is still fairly separate. Additionally QNX has been slow (partly due to funding) to take up the QT BB10 side of things as it is not generally part of their core business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Message to QNX people; would it be possible to re-instigate the tradition from the late 90s where QNX was released as demo version for enthusiasts to play around with? The sheer stability and performance of that 1.3mb-floppy-ready OS still amazes me to this day (came with full gui, 3d models, editor and web browser..!).

<comment><USER18> >> Message to QNX people; would it be possible to re-instigate the tradition from the late 90s

second this. I was really impressed with QNX - I played with it a bit and stopped when the licensing changed.

<comment><USER19> They really botched that. QNX went from closed source to free-for-hobbyists to closed source to fully open source to closed source.

This killed open source development efforts for QNX. There used to be a Firefox build for QNX. The underlying QNX OS technology is great, but the organization, which has now been acquired twice, is a pain to deal with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "Software updates come by way of Wifi. All cars equipped with the new version of Sync will also be loaded with a WIFI receiver, allowing Ford to push software updates to Sync"

Either the author is confused, or you're literally going to have to connect your car to a WiFi network to receive updates.

<comment><USER21> That sounds about right, actually. In practice, this shouldn't be a big deal for people who live in a house where WiFi reaches the garage, but I can see it being a PITA for anyone who lives in an apartment.

<comment><USER22> Nearly every phone I've seen in last few years has a WiFi access point feature. So shouldn't be a big issue even for apartment dwellers.

<comment><USER23> How many people actually know how to use that feature, though?

<comment><USER24> On a Blackberry Z10 it's just two touches: the first touch gets the main settings menu from the top (I think the same as any Android), then hitting the Hotspot icon. I use this all the time to feed the Internet to my laptop and even a couple pieces of remote machinery. I'd expect to do this to update such a car as well. And I'm really old in HN years.

How can carriers know when the phone is acting as a hotspot, and why are those bytes more expensive?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Recently I moved my family to the 'burbs and needed a car after 5 city years without one. I did not buy a Ford Flex - an otherwise perfect and very desirable 7 seat family car - simply because of its horrid touchscreen. In every other way it was brilliant, but I just couldn't do it.

Ford's recent models are truly excellent cars (I've rented many Tauruses, Explorers, and Fusions over the last couple of years), but they were all utterly ruined by that dreadful system with its awful, ugly, laggy console you're forced to use for everything that isn't actually driving.

Good on them for moving on.

<comment><USER26> I agree, I remember the first time I had the option to rent a Ford and was excited to try out Sync. It is horrible.

For me, the test was to pair my phone before I left the rental car garage. Ford was the most difficult compared to Nissan, Chevy, Dodge and Toyota.

<comment><USER25> I never once got that to work (Blackberry or iPhone). The USB port did charge the phone though.

I did manage to get music from an iPhone through the USB port, but that was on an Expedition which has a different system (and it also only worked sporadically, requiring lots of re-plugging).

Such a crying shame. Since the company moved to the global platform and started making ROW-quality cars in the USA, I've been so impressed. They look good, drive well, ride comfortably, have good engines, have fantastic interiors (by mass-market US standards)... Then you go to turn up the AC and you realize that the rotting turd in the center console means that Ford hates you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> _Nair stated emphatically that there is a "hard and fast" firewall between Sync and "mission critical systems" in the car._

Wow I sure hope that's a dumbed-down explanation for the press, because I don't want my radio and (say) my ABS or traction control to have enough of a connection to each other to even establish any kind of "firewall" between them.

<comment><USER28> In a lot of cases there are multiple CAN or similar buses, like one for engine components, one for accessories, one for emissions (OBD2), etc. There definitely are valid concerns with malicious attacks, but they can be mitigated a bit by separating devices to different buses.

<comment><USER3> See my response above. There is a firewall. I won't divulge too many details other than what anyone can learn by simply disassembling a SYNC module but will say all software for SYNC must be signed and approved by Ford. The SYNC module has two CPUs. The Freescale iMX handles all the graphics and I think it was a V850 from Renesance that handles all vehicle bus communication. Between these two CPUs there is a firewall which restricts what the graphics processor (iMX) can & can't get out on the CAN bus. The communication is essentially proxied; 3rd party software doesn't have a direct connection to any vehicle network.

And the concern is precisely as you said. They don't want 3rd party software setting off air bags as the inside joke always was.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Regardless of what the real reason was, it is nice to see mikro-kernels being used in production.

Funny how many successful embedded OS are micro-kernels while desktops OS are still struggling to achieve similar designs, the best being the Mac OS X and Windows hybrid designs.

</comment><comment><USER30> The Microsoft Sync system in my current Ford (2015) and last Ford (2013) were the worst onboard computers I've used. They crash when restarting your iPhone if connected by usb. They loose connection with my phones. They require you use buttons on the steering wheel to select usb input and can not do it via the touch screen display when all other input sources are available. There are countless reasons why consumers should rejoice for the fact that a superior solution was picked here.

Ford committed to the hacker community that their systems could be open and maybe a standard connector will be made... but anything is better than Ford Sync.

<comment><USER31> Im able to select USB by tapping the voice command trigger and saying USB. Seems easy enough?

<comment><USER30> Great, now I have two workarounds instead of using a giant screen that's installed in the front of the car that you have to use for everything else. The voice commands suck if you're speaking English as a second language BTW.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is unfortunate, as it does signal less competition which is never good.

QNX is excellent and has been the clear dominant player in the auto world for decades. However I think is unlikely Ford will go with QNX for the major in- vehicle display in a wider capacity, Intel/Apple/Microsoft will throw cash at the pie to make it worth using their suite of technologies. Also don't forget Ford would have already used QNX already, its in embedded system everywhere! QNX just needs a better good IoT pitch yet for it to become better known or popular in the mainstream software world.

</comment><comment><USER32> I got a Ford CMAX (which I really love!), and the dealer tried to eagerly sell me the SYNC system.

I found a car that had all I wanted, but SYNC was there so I told him I would walk away and find one that didn't have the SYNC, and was ready to do it too. In the day they lent me it to test drive, it had all sorts of WTF and features not working.

So eventually they gave me the car without charging the $1200+ for it.

I live in the Redmond area. As I was leaving he mentioned that most Microsoft employees declined that system too.

</comment><comment><USER33> Thank God, I own 2 Fords including a Focus Electric. Sync has been by far the most painful part of ownership. Unintuitive, slow, buggy, flakey bluetooth - just a terrible user experience.

<comment><USER34> How do you otherwise like the electric? I might have done some work on that.

<comment><USER33> Its good for around town driving, stressful for longer trips due to varying range (50-80 miles). Biggest complaint is because it is FWD, and the battery in back, traction is terrible going from a stop up hills, or on wet surfaces.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This looks absolutely awful. Great features, bad execution. Shouldn't this UI look at least as nice as the Blackberry Playbook from 2011?

</comment><comment><USER36> Maybe this is Blackberry's chance to pivot to a different market?

<comment><USER37> QNX was already a player in embedded car info systems before RIM bought them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications dropped CE for Android because Microsoft refused to fix its bugs.

MS would acknowledge the bugs - but then it wouldn't fix them.</comment>


My Grueling Day As An Amazon Mechanical Turk - <AUTHOR> http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/4732/my-gruelling-day-as-an-amazon-mechanical-turk/

<comment><USER2> Awesome. Khia's "Thug Misses" is a pretty good album.</comment>


Put Your Startup on Holiday Autopilot with Twilio - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/readwritestart/2009/12/put-your-startup-on-holiday-au.php

<comment><USER2> Twilio is a great service. And as Dana mentions you can create an entirely customized voicemail and phone tree system for your company so that customers who call get an individualized experience.

I recently left Microsoft to go it alone, and my startup SocialKind has built a number of solutions on top of Twilio (TweetToCall.com, EscapeMyDate.com, enterprise solutions in healthcare and finance, etc.). I enjoy working with businesses to build interactive phone solutions connected to the web. If you're looking to do some of this for your business, or just want to chat about Twilio and hack a bit, drop me a note at firstname.lastname@example.com or @mistermorrill on Twitter

Happy holidays!

<comment><USER3> I really like Twilio as a service. That said, I find it really disingenuous that you and Danielle post here under the guise of community members without disclosing your ties to the company. You guys should update your bios to state your relationship to Twilio if you're going to tout it the way you do and not participate in this community outside of your astroturfing:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=dmor> <http://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=danielle17> <http://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=kmorrill>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm the 1st non founding employee at Twilio, Kevin (my husband) and I have turned our lives upside down so I can work on this startup, and it's really all I think about. I read Hacker News every day and post about the best of what can I bring to the table - which is the Twilio service and the apps our developer community creates.

The community here at Hacker News is VERY efficient at voting down crappy submissions, so I trust that if I am a spammer posting useless content it will be relegated to the trash heap right away.

I've updated my profile as you suggested, and I'm working on recovering the password for "dmor". Seeing as you needed to create a new account to make your point (aka "trolling") you might consider taking your own advice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Twilio sounds very interesting but the name makes me think it's yet another twitter app...

</comment><comment><USER5> I seriously love twilio. Have been using their conference call service. It....simply....works.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm just about to start using Twilio at a pretty large scale and am really excited about it. I called them to ask a few questions and their cofounder called me back, always nice to hear a response like that.</comment>


Thanks to technology, we may be entering a golden age of journalism - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2221856/ <comment><USER2> The _Eureka!_ transcendence of web media from traditional print media will never get old to certain people of a certain generation. Yet another generation will never know what it was like any other way. Makes for interesting fodder for those of us on the "in between".

 _If Sullivan were alive today, I'll bet he'd be encouraging journalists to study PHP and Javascript, to hone their video-cutting skills, and to learn how to manipulate databases. The cheap tools and affordable devices the average Joe has at his disposal to produce precision journalism and distribute it around the world are enough to make the reporters of yesterday sob in envy. It's the difference between digging ditches with a spade and excavating a canal with dynamite._

Maybe it's that in the past, workers of journalism in journalistic publications were always held somewhat hostage by editors. Editors of mainstream publications usually sought certain slants on certain topics that would ultimately increase their bottom line: something awful happens? Divert attention to something less awful, but more do-good-feely; don't want to lose readers. Causes for families, or causes for certain political issues? Those are always good, since people are always seeking allegiance.

In the past, small-town newspapers had only one front page, featuring what was usually one main topic of local interest; something non-global.

The only really certain thing that web media does is narrow the gap between what small-town editors and writers seek to expose in an environment of expanding global-reach.

Maybe it's that great editors seek to expose great writers; great writers seek to expose the truth sought out by great journalists.

This article really brings to the front of the line the predicament of Laura Ling, Euna Lee, and others like them.</comment>


A Tale Of Two iPhones - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/27/iphone-5-iphone-lite/ <comment><USER2> Apple would be wise to address the threat posed by low-cost entry level Android devices. If this is true I'd be more inclined to believe that Apple management isn't content to again be relegated to a profitable but small niche market.

</comment><comment><USER3> The biggest cost in having an iPhone is the monthly plan. Fix that first.

<comment><USER4> Buy an iPod Touch and use VOIP over WiFi for calling. You probably have WiFi coverage at home and at work.

What you are really paying for is the inbetween places. If those don't matter, then you are all set.

<comment><USER5> Is there a VOIP client that doesn't suck? I haven't had much luck finding one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wait, I thought AT&T selling last generation's (I think) iPhone for $50 with a contract was Apple's "response" to people requesting a cheaper version of the iPhone?

<comment><USER7> It was. This new device could very possibly be free with 2 year contract if it only costs $300-$350. The unlocked angle is mostly for the international markets where more carrier competition exists and there's a real incentive to go contract free. In the US, due to incompatible 3G frequencies on GSM phones and little real competition, there's not a huge market for these unlocked phones.

If this new iPhone 4-ish device was a CDMA/GSM hybrid with a healthy frequency selection it could shake things up in the US. At minimum you really need at least 2 fully functional carriers to choose from to bother with an unlocked phone. As a hybrid they could (in theory at least) support all 4 carriers on one device and push the US market closer to the international model where the consumer has an incentive to spend the money up front on hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> in India iphone 4 and iphone 3GS are available on shelf right now, 3GS has been priced such that it will affect nokia and samsung smartphone sales.

<comment><USER9> In Europe, they also sell the 3GS limited to 8GB storage. In its heyday, the 3GS was only sold in 16 and 32 GB versions. Note that all the software for the iPhone 4 (except for a few apps that require front-cam, flashlight or gyroscope) also runs on the 3GS. Seems to me the older 3G has been left behind for over an year now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> While I'm not saying that a cheaper "lite" iPhone version is not possible, anyone else feels that this could be a fabricated rumour by Apple to rat out internal leaks?

I once came across a (half-drunk) guy in a bar who apparently works for Apple and according to him, Apple does at times release fake rumours or have multiple versions of a product and monitors which one gets "leaked out".

Not sure how true his statement is but this rumour somehow doesn't feel right. Or maybe it is just me.

</comment><comment><USER11> I would _love_ an iPhone mini. Think the Pre form factor, with iOS.

<comment><USER12> Never. iOS is constrained by the size of fingertips and its current widget system. You can make a useful UI with a smaller screen, but reworking the current code base to that screen size will never happen.

<comment><USER13> Though an "iPhone Nano" in a watch form-factor like the TikTok's iPod Nano mod would be pretty cool:

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1104350651/tiktok- lunati...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1104350651/tiktok-lunatik- multi-touch-watch-kits)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If carriers could give away iPhones for free with a 2 year contract, iPhone sales would go through the roof.

<comment><USER15> Why do you think they can't? Deutsche Telekom in Germany will happily sell you an iPhone 4 (16GB) for 1€ with a two year contract (90€/month for the first half, 100€/month for the second half of the contract, unlimited minutes, 120 minutes in the EU, 3000 SMS, unlimited data throttled to GPRS speeds after 1GB). They are doing that whole activation fee scam and will want an additional 25€ from you but still, free iPhones are certainly a possibility and there is no reason to sell them for $200 together with a crazy expensive contract like, for example at&t does. I'm sure US carriers could sell free iPhones with contracts, they just don't want to.

Not that it matters anyway. Who cares about the price of the phone when the contract costs by far the most money?</comment></comment>


A 1970 iceberg killing and the looming problem of criminal justice in space - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2020/07/arctic-t3-murder-space.html <comment><USER2> People seem to assume that countries end their laws at their borders. This is not true and never has been. Plenty of people have been convicted of piracy (piracy with ships I mean, not stealing copyrights) which happens almost exclusively in international waters. The specific act banning piracy in UK law even says requires the acts happen "in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State".

Here in the UK, we have a specific list of crimes that can be prosecuted even if they happen literally anywhere. The list includes serious crimes like murder but also FGM and stalking which would be legal in many states[0].

The US actually arrested and charged a Huawei executive recently for breaking US sanctions while in China. "I was in China" was not a valid defense. Canada actually extradited her.

Similarly, a jury "of your peers" literally only means that if you are a commoner, a commoner jury but if you are a Lord, a jury of other Lords (even this has now been abolished I believe). You have no right to a jury from your own town or with similar life experiences.

A murderous astronaut could not reply on either of these legal arguments to escape prosecution either in the US or anywhere with an English common law tradition.

[0] [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse- bi...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-abuse- bill-2020-factsheets/extraterritorial-jurisdiction-factsheet)</comment>


Lasers should be classed as offensive weapons – British pilots' union - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35580261 <comment><USER2> As a commercial pilot that has been hit a number of times by lasers, I find the report over the top. At the speed and distance the airplane is when hit (180 kts, 2000' high when 6 miles from the airport), you see they are trying to laser you, but is extremely difficult to fix the beam on you for more than some ms. At that distance the laser is quite wide too, and the cristal provides some protection. Also the beam comes from your side, and usually you don't look directly that way, so it's hard yo get a direct retine hit. I don't know what type of injury did the pilot suffer but all the cases that I know the laser was just anoying and a distraction. It must be prosecuted, but banning all lasers is stupid in my opinion.

<comment><USER3> So you're saying that the commercial pilot of Virgin Atlantic flight VS025 that called "pan pan pan" to request an urgent return to Heathrow was overreacting and that his co-pilot suffered no serious vision loss? Note that the laser strike was on takeoff and they didn't land until about 2 hours after departure, so the pilot's vision was still affected an hour into the flight.

<comment><USER2> No, he maybe was hit badly, maybe was filling dizzy afterwards and they thought the laser was the reason. I don't know all the possible effects of a laser in a human eye, nor the power of this laser or the medical situation of the pilot prior to the encounter.

Also if one of the pilots finds himself unable to continue the flight, the other pilot has to declare pan pan, or even may day, as he is operating alone, it seems a bit dramatic but it's mandated that way.

What I know is that common laser incidents are annoying to pilots but usually harmless, and the pilot's association request to ban all lasers is over the top.

You still got to prosecute the dumb people playing to blind pilots anyway, not just for medical injuries, but because you are in a delicate parts of the flight and every distraction has potential consequences during landing and take-off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ludicrous authoritarianism masquerading as a solution to a problem.

Given that all laser pointers fall into a couple of very narrow bandwidths, surely it would be more practicable to filter these at the cockpit window. That way you solve the problem in every country where you fly your plane and also deal with the billions of laser diodes already in circulation that are essential most aspects of our modern existence. But that would cost air carriers directly, not the public, so I guess it's unacceptable to them.

<comment><USER5> With all due respect, what on earth are you talking about? The filtering idea is much more complicated than you'd think, and almost certainly won't work. Laser safety glasses are typically sold for specific wavelength sets. However, the block isn't all that precise - typically you just filter out the entire neighbourhood. Look at the Optical Density vs. Wavelength graphs on this page: [https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=76...](https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=762) . Now imagine trying to combine a whole bunch of those to cover all commonly available laser diode wavelength groups. Your laser-proof glass would be nearly opaque!

Even if we're extremely optimistic and have invented some new sort of very precise optical filter, you're still looking at _dramatic_ reductions in visible light transmission which I would have to believe would be a huge safety implications.

<comment><USER4> [Airbus partners with Lamda Guard to evaluate an innovative laser strike protection]([http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events- single/detail/a...](http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events- single/detail/airbus-partners-with-lamda-guard-to-evaluate-an-innovative- laser-strike-protection/))

<comment><USER5> Which is very cool, but still very experimental and appears to only block a single frequency range (not what OP was proposing). I've also yet to see any published specs at all for the stuff (i.e. what's the actual optical density at those wavelengths?), so I'm a little skeptical still.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The thread from the Pilots equivalent of HN is worth a read - [http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/574720-virgin-atlantic- fl...](http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/574720-virgin-atlantic-flight- london-ny-returns-after-pilot-hurt-laser-incident.html)

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the share, that was a very illuminating read (accidental pun).

As an aside, why do they all spell laser as "l@ser"? There's 3 instances of "laser", two are from the title repeated, and one is in the body. This means that that the common spelling is not banned or masked on that forum. Yet everyone else spells it with the @ sign, about 79 times, which is egregious.

<comment><USER5> [http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/349414-l-ser-attacks- airc...](http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/349414-l-ser-attacks- aircraft-14.html#post5092701)

It's to avoid all the contextual ads on the site being for high-powered lasers, which some posters found irritating or offensive. I don't know why some posts seem exempt from the policy though. Mod posts maybe?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What a knee jerk reaction. I agree that people shouldn't be shining lasers at planes, but ban them outright? I think that really there just needs to more education, and perhaps make people register if they want to buy the powerful lasers, so there's some paper trail in an event like this.

<comment> brown9-2 Do you really think people who point lasers at a plane do so out of a lack of education?

<comment><USER8> Well, of course. I imagine it's done to see if they can see it reflect off the plane for amusement, not realizing that it could distract pilots and be potentially fatal.

<comment><USER9> It's mostly kids and not-so-smart young adults.

I built a laser show system about ten years ago, and managed to give myself retinal burns with a fairly weak laser. So I'm aware of the dangers.

There are some incredibly powerful devices available now. IMO there's no reason - beyond macho posturing - that anyone needs a handheld laser pointer that puts out more than 50mW.

I wouldn't ban more powerful devices, but I'd certainly consider licensing them. A 1W handheld is an insane thing to be selling to someone with no training or oversight.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not only are laser pointers potentially dangerous to pilots in aircraft, they can, and do, cause retina damage - often between school kids playing around. They should be licensed, with heavy fines for carrying an unlicensed laser pointer and compulsory jail time for shining one at an aircraft.

Complete banning is somewhat ridiculous.

<comment><USER11> So, do you want to ban wireless presenters or laser rangefinders?

Requiring a license for these would be akin to banning them. Except if "holding a presentation" would be enough to get a license. In which case I think the limit would be useless. Maybe limiting them to adults might help. On the other hand, there are plenty of other ways for children to do stupid, permanently harmful things; and exactly the children that shouldn't be let near lasers would probably be able to find some anyway, so... I don't think the licensing idea would work.

And shining lasers at aircraft already carries a jail term.

And maybe the power limits could be made somewhat (much, actually) stricter.

<comment><AUTHOR> They can be restricted based on power or class. A Class 2 laser pointer used for presentations or a laser rangefinder aren't going to be powerful enough to bother aircraft, nor in most cases to damage eyesight. Currently there is a voluntary code to not sell lasers over 1mW to the general public, but this isn't a legal requirement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Sounds like a fun OpenCV type project to use a camera onboard in conjunction with the airplane's gps position,altitude, and camera's orientation to locate the source of the laser and prosecute accordingly.

<comment><USER13> Prosecution based on such information has been done frequently in the past. Basic geometry convicted a man near me about 6 years ago for shining a green laser pointer at a pilot taking off at a local air force base.

Don't shine lasers at pilots from your backyard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> So are bows, knives, clubs, and vehicles. Should they be banned, too?

<comment><USER15> Well knives are banned. And you need a license for vehicles. So a license for lasers?

<comment><USER14> > Well knives are banned.

I'm surprised. You can't own a kitchen knife? Or a hunting knife? Or pocket knife?

<comment><USER16> This is what I found.

[https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives](https://www.gov.uk/buying- carrying-knives)

It seems that you still can use one at home, but good luck trying to take a knife to a forest.

Also, no sales of switchblades and samurai swords :)

<comment><USER17> I find it really interesting that the blade lengths are given in inches ((3 inches or less") rather than 7 or 8 cm.

<comment><USER18> That law comes from the Criminal Justice Act 1988: [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/139](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/139)

Some legislation has been updated with metric measurements (example [1]), but not everything. This one is newer than metrication, but perhaps the length was based on something that existed before, like a police or sentencing guideline.

[1] [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/21/schedule/1](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/21/schedule/1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Awesome but impractical idea: require every laser over a certain wattage to encode in very short pulses its own serial number. On first purchase and every resale, owners much register and transfer ownership.

Now, whenever such an incident happens, a bit of footage is all you'll need to prosecute the owner.

Shortcomings: cost of implementation, real or alleged theft, aftermarket modifications to mask the pulses, imported lasers, people who don't fear repercussions.

</comment><comment><USER19> How is it possible that there are enough people buying powerful lasers and shining them at planes that they are hitting them often enough for this to be a problem? There must be either a lot of dumb people or a few very smart, vicious ones. Which is it? How did "Craig Ryan" do it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Probably half a dozen people would be enough to cause all of the cases that are currently being reported. The chart in the article says there's been around 40 incidents at Heathrow in the first half of 2015. One person could cause all of those in 20 minutes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I doubt that standard weak laser pointers could harm pilots much at such distances. However it makes sense to ban/regulate stronger laser pointers, since they don't have practical value for an ordinary consumer.

<comment><USER21> I bought a 1W ultraviolet laser pointer and thought it was cool, but disappointed with how dim it was. Then it destroyed the CCD in a digital camera after a brief exposure, and I threw that shit away because it dawned on me that it was 200x more powerful than my 5mw red laser, and 99%+ of the light was invisible and that I was playing with something extremely dangerous.

It should have been obvious from how quickly the batteries drained, or how much heat I could feel from the beam, or how bright that dot looked when I pointed it at something UV-reactive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> So is there no way to treat the windshield to deflect the laser light? If not then pushing towards fully autonomous landings and takeoffs is a better solution to trying to ban something you could never realistically ban. Either that or create detection systems if possible that can direct authorities

<comment><USER23> Treated windshields can block chosen wavelengths. But it's mutually exclusive, what blocks blue and green doesn't block red, etc. Unless you replace the glass with steel sheet and switch to camera optics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> These people need to grow the hell up, or wear protective glasses in the cockpit, whatever. Being able to target a plane, at all, and THEN also targeting the cockpit window is well beyond the capability of the vast majority of people. This is like asking that we ban spoons because somebody managed to actually cut another person's heart out with one.

</comment><comment><USER25> Nanny State UK

<comment><USER26> Your comment is accurate, but you need supporting messages for it to be an actual argument.

The Times has an article about a nine year old boy, ___already blind in one eye_ __, being given as laser pointer by his parents as a toy. The child damaged his working eye, and the parents felt comfortable enough in their own actions to speak to a national newspaper about it.

Edit: Times version is paywalled, but here's Daily Mail:

> Nine-year-old William Jackson was injured two years ago by one of three > devices bought for him and his two brothers by their parents as a Christmas > present.

> The schoolboy, who is now 12, already had a lazy right eye and wore an eye > patch. The injury to his other eye left him unable to read.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3393159/Laser- pens-b...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3393159/Laser-pens-blind- children-causing-eye-experts-call-new-laws-deal-powerful-devices-brought-UK- abroad.html)

Times paywall URL: [http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/ar...](http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1654673.ece)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Currents API - News access through request - <AUTHOR> Access news from 11 languages over 30 countries. https://currentsapi.services <comment><USER2> I'm keen to use it but I want to know it won't disappear overnight - can you tell me more about the team behind it?</comment>


Telescript programming language - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telescript_(programming_language) <comment><USER2> > In 1990, Marc Porat convinced then-Apple-CEO John Sculley that the future of > computing lay not in desktop personal computers, but much smaller portable > devices combining computing power, communications systems, and data located > on network-accessible servers.

Well that was staggeringly prescient.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's something few people know: Sun saw Telescript as a threat (because Sun was all about "the network is the computer" and now Telescript was invading this space) and started the Java project in response. Microsoft saw General Magic's social interface and deemed it to be a threat to Windows. Their response was "Microsoft Bob".

</comment><comment><USER4> This is probably posted now thanks to the Andy Hertzfeld interview from the other day [1] where he discussed Telescript as a failure.

The notion of a restricted server-side language for user scripts still sounds useful and an unfilled niche.

[1] [https://www.notion.so/tools-and-craft/01-andy- hertzfeld](https://www.notion.so/tools-and-craft/01-andy-hertzfeld)

<comment><USER5> Mobile code was dying before, but the final nail in the coffin is the Spectre/Meltdown class of vulnerabilities (with new variants coming out monthly).

It seems modern microprocessors simply aren't designed to run untrusted code.

<comment><USER4> Couldn't one run user scripts on separate servers with non-OoO CPUs: low-end ARM or MIPS or RISCV or whatever?

<comment><USER5> Sure, but requiring separate hardware to run code is a pretty high cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I actually worked on General Magic circa 1994-1995 at France Télécom. The whole tech stack was garbage, despite AT&T's valiant efforts to salvage it.

<comment><USER7> It would be much better if you could turn that word "garbage" into a sentence, or better a paragraph, so readers could learn something. I'm sure people would be interested to hear your experiences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> In retrospect, Telescript and mobile agents were a bet against the Internet; if you have good connectivity it's easier to use RPC.

</comment><comment><USER9> I loved this language. I still have all the papers somewhere. Unfortunately, the announcement of Java killed the few remaining chances it had of outliving General Magic.

<comment><USER10> Was the stack-based assembly it compiled to similar to Forth?</comment></comment>


Bioinformatics Algorithms (Part I) - <AUTHOR> https://www.coursera.org/course/bioinformatics

<comment><AUTHOR> The introductory video is great. And they are going to use Python.</comment>


German universities scrap all tuition fees - <AUTHOR> http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4213550.ece <comment><USER2> Related discussion from 3 months ago [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8394136](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8394136)</comment>


Dropbox API is available - <AUTHOR> https://www.dropbox.com/developers <comment><USER2> Why is the developer page behind a log-in wall?

<comment><USER3> How could you develop for Dropbox without an account?

<comment><USER4> Google can't index things behind a login wall (as far as we know...).

It's also just sort of annoying (you may have a dropbox account but not be logged in at the moment on the device you're using) and unnecessary.

<comment><USER5> It's easy enough to not require the login wall for certain user agents (such as GoogleBot).

Granted, it would be easier and better to not have it the first place.

<comment><USER6> Google frowns on treating its not differently than a regular user. And the googlebot doesn't always identify itself as such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yeah, finally a usable filesystem for my iPad :)

<comment><USER8> Considering that there are already lots of apps that support Dropbox, I believe that Apple couldn't have done the company a bigger favor. Wonder how many percent of downloads go to mobile devices…

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Quick hacker poll: what services are you thinking of building with this API?

<comment><USER4> I'm probably going to make a simple todo list app with it.

I want a todo list that I can edit with emacs, but that I also have available to me everywhere.

Basically, you'd have a Dropbox folder with as many files as you want, each of which would be a list. The files would just be a series of lines (probably prefixed with a * so it looks better as a text file)

I've thought about just doing this and using the Dropbox app on my phone, but I want a slightly prettier interface on my phone and the ability to edit on my phone.

<comment><USER10> Check out MobileOrg

<comment><USER4> That is awesome. I was thinking something like that might happen.

Unfortunately, I just switched to Android. But maybe I'll just port it :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been waiting for a follow up to my ticket for exactly 1 month for "Request for Mobile Access Key flag for application", despite numerous email requests for an update.

<comment><USER12> I've been waiting about 2 weeks I think. No clue where we're at with that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> API pages look really informative. Looking forward to seeing what cool features will be added to other apps.

@jrnkntl I can also recommend icloud.com/mobile for the iPad. It's Read-only but it feels really nice. You can upload using Drop-on-Window using Chrome or Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER14> Can anyone sum up what I can _do_ with this API? I have some guesses, but there's no summary of what the capabilities are, and I don't want to parse through the 10+ page "getting started" guide to figure it out...

<comment><USER15> Everything is done with HTTP requests (duh), if you want to upload a file then you make an HTTP POST request with the file data (just like with a normal file upload form) and the associated meta-data. The servers then process the file and give you links back to access it.

Fetching files will be processed similar to a download, php will "fetch" the file and then write it to disk. Then php can move or rename it via its functions.

Renaming, copying, and deleting files are all done with a single http request with a relevant response code (pass, fail, more info needed...).

Really, it's pretty simple and the included libraries seem to cover everything that most apps will need.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Top three apps I would love to see this integrate with: 1\. Omnifocus 2\. Textexpander (better than at the moment) 3\. Clyppan

Dropbox, you all deserve a beer.

</comment><comment><USER17> nah, what are those stupid apis for anyways? always done this kind of stuff with wireshark and handmade POSTs/GETs ...</comment>


The Worst Internet Trolls Might Be Mentally Ill - <AUTHOR> http://kotaku.com/5938996/the-worst-internet-trolls-might-be-mentally-ill <comment><USER2> nothing that couldn't be cured by doing the same thing late at night in a car park.</comment>


Ask HN: How to stay secure on the web? - <AUTHOR> Is it possible to avoid surveillance? (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13810015) <comment><USER2> It could probably be done.. using Linux or something that cannot easily get a virus, a fake name, fake information, a non-permanent email address, a browser like Tor, a proxy to hide your IP address, etc. I'm sure less than 1% of all Internet users actually go through these extremes, but I'd be willing to bet there is a person out there who is so paranoid and has done this. You wouldn't be able to shop online in order to not reveal any information at all.

</comment><comment><USER3> No, not really</comment>


The Late, Great American WASP - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304367204579268301043949952?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories <comment><USER2> I hate the treacly, overly politically correct world of today, but these WASPs of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting so much were pure, unabashed racists. For this reason alone, I'm bloody glad they're not in power.

"The last unashamed WASP to live in the White House was Franklin Delano Roosevelt"

Yeah, a shameless person who refused to meet black athletes, including Jesse Owens after the '36 Olympics (even Mr. Godwin's Law is rumoured to have shaken hands with Owens), and was responsible for the Sith-sounding Executive Order for internment of Japanese Americans ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066)).

We're much better off without this sort of rubbish in power. Good riddance.

<comment><USER3> > these WASPs of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting so much > were pure, unabashed racists

And sexist and elitist - but not more so than the society they lived in. Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as pertinent as calling them uncool because they lacked iPhones. Plus, it erases distinction between people like Lincoln who, while expressing very racist views, did a lot to bring things closer to equality; and others like say John C. Calhoun, who did their utmost to push the opposite way. History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my friend.

<comment><USER2>
      Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as
      pertinent as calling them uncool because they
      lacked iPhones.

No, screw that. If they were racists, I am going to call them racists. I don't give a flying f--k that they "did a lot to bring things closer to equality". What am I supposed to do, be grateful?

      History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my
      friend.

I'm not the one waxing eloquent about the demise of this ruling class -- the author is. My point is that it's a good thing that they are no longer in power, regardless of what historical context their (extremely flawed) behaviour might have been in.

<comment><USER4> In the future, there is likely someone who will be equally able to look back at some primitive activity we're currently engaged in right now and call all of us idiots for some reason or another.

If you eat meat, or plants, perhaps you'll be referred to as a barbarian.

If you drive electric cars, perhaps you'll be called a planet killer.

If you don't bathe in milk, perhaps you'll be called a Typhoid Mary.

Ignoring the context of the times is a naive way to look at things. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, and many rejoiced. In 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional, and many rejoiced; in a lot of cases, the very same people. I was a complete homophobe in 1996, and attend rallies and champion gay rights in 2013.

Society moves quickly now, but it didn't always. Yes, I was stupid for my homophobic ways in 1996, but so was almost everybody else. It's hard to hold an opinion, even one you know to be true, when everybody else disagrees with you. It's even harder to be the oddball that tries to advance the cause for equality.

Just because the WASPs were once racists, that doesn't mean the same people would be now. Times change, and smart people change along with them. By not acknowledging that, the inverse of your argument is just as laughable.

"those slaves of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting were totally spineless lackeys and yes men, completely subservient to white people. For this reason alone, I'm bloody glad that they're not in power."

<comment><USER5> the fact that "smart people" go along with bad social mores says more about the faults with who we denote as "smart people" than about the way we should judge people from the past.

you say "if they were smart today they wouldn't be racists", I say "they probably don't deserve as much credit as they get, if they were racist while a tiny minority of people was aware of the problem and trying to move past it".

there have always been people against slavery, against the oppression of women, against homophobia. don't dismiss their efforts and achievements in examining society just because you don't want to sully the image of technocratic heroes.

<comment><USER4> I'm speaking out of context from those people specifically as, for the most part, I don't have any particular adoration for them.

Regardless, you simply cannot take things out of the context of history. In that day, it was common to find scientific evidence (or at least reports masquerading as scientific from otherwise esteemed scientists) suggesting that non-caucasian races were inferior, and weren't meant to be treated as equals.

It wasn't too long ago that the common knowledge was that homosexuality led to increased and unavoidable risk of diseases.

It's too easy to look back on history and decry those idiots for succumbing to common knowledge, but it is naive to do so.. and is analogous to mocking them for letting so many die of Polio, when it is so easily vaccinated against now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Buried in the paragraphs of treacle is an important point about supposed "meritocracy":

"Having been a good student, no matter how good the reputation of the school—and most of the good schools, we are coming to learn, are good chiefly in reputation—is no indication of one's quality or promise as a leader. A good student might even be more than a bit of a follower, a conformist, standing ready to give satisfaction to the powers that be so that one can proceed to the next good school, taking another step up the ladder of meritocracy."

I don't think it's necessary to wax nostalgic about the heyday of WASPism to recognize this, though.

</comment><comment><USER7> The first paragrap suggests that the US currently is a meritocracy; whereas in the past few years, I've had the impression it was a kleptocracy run by bankers. It's probably just my own impression, though. Is there really any kind of meritocracy that goes beyond lip service in the US? (Or anywhere else, for that matter, since there was no such thing in any country I've lived in.)

<comment><USER8> >I've had the impression it was a kleptocracy run by bankers.

Is this really the view that foreigners have the how the states is run?

We actually rank among the least corrupt nations in the world depending on if you trust Transparency International or not. I guess you could say it's legalized corruption through lobbying and political donations, which I agree with to some extent, but even than it wouldn't be bankers. Pharmaceuticals top that list with room to spare, where as "Securities and Investments" don't even make top 5.

Lawyers are really the people who run America and anyone who has any sort of political ambitions will get a law degree, not become a banker.

Obviously the Citizens United case (the one that allows Corporations to donate) was fucked, but it's not like 20+ years ago everything was fine either. I really think this is just a result of HN/reddit having such a young demographic, no one remembers how bad things used to be as well.

Iran Contra? MK Ultra? The FBI under Hoover? Police assaulting union workers because why the fuck not? Rampant political corruption by organized crime in the 20s/30s?

You know the phrase "I wan't America to be the way I grew up in"? It's not because America was different, it's because you were a kid and didn't see any of it.

<comment><USER7> > Is this really the view that foreigners have the how the states is run?

Might be just people I interact with, but terms like plutocracy, kleptocracy, and theocracy all come up fairly regularly. As does police state, for that matter. Terms like republic or democracy seldom get mentioned -- not seriously anyway.

(Not saying the grass is so much greener elsewhere, mind you.)

> We actually rank among the least corrupt nations in the world depending on > if you trust Transparency International or not.

I don't trust them personally, but I'm in full agreement with that point nonetheless, having seen and experienced corruption first hand in developing countries.

> I guess you could say it's legalized corruption through lobbying and > political donations, which I agree with to some extent, but even than it > wouldn't be bankers. Pharmaceuticals top that list with room to spare, where > as "Securities and Investments" don't even make top 5.

Unless, perhaps, you count TARP and under-the-counter bailouts that Bernanke handed over in recent years. But I'll happily concede if I ever see material clawbacks and jailtime for the related ill-gotten gains.

> Lawyers are really the people who run America and anyone who has any sort of > political ambitions will get a law degree, not become a banker.

The same is largely true in any country [and time] where a significant bureaucracy is leveraged to run a large enough political unit. Which is to say just about every country nowadays, bar warzones such as Somalia.

Also, that doesn't mean that these countries are run _for_ lawyers. If anything, the cynic in me wants to compare them to valets who are content to cooperate with their masters in order to keep the small amount of privileges that they have over the masses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's astounding that an article like this is published in 2013 anywhere but the dark corners of supremacist sites and the memoirs of fading British lords, where it belongs.

This is nothing more than moaning that the modern predominantly-white, predominantly-male, virtually entirely rich elite are too "new money" for the old predominantly-white, predominantly-male, virtually entirely rich elite.

<comment><USER10> hyperbole much? See reader5000's comment below for a fairer assessment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> His argument is that WASPs were men of "character"? What a load of tripe.

I honestly cannot believe this is being published in the WSJ, an article wanting for a return to hereditary rule (not that it's gone far from that, but still). Awful, awful things.

I, for one , look forward to the last time that people try to use a "standards" argument in deciding things.

An interview with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) :[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2NKlMW0vc#t=1059](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2NKlMW0vc#t=1059)

"All that we say is lets have some standards, in decency , in behavior , and in civilisation" , this is the argument to justify not giving 95% of the population franchise in elections.

The more I hear people talk, the more I feel that "moral standards" and "decency" are arguments that are only used to enforce some existing (usually racist) plutocracy.

<comment><USER12> > I honestly cannot believe this is being published in the WSJ

This isn't really a surprise coming from the WSJ...

Here, this will make you lose more faith in humanity.

[http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for- monarchy/](http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is it just me or is there kind of too much going on in this essay? It moves pretty quickly from a history of famous WASP writers and presidents, why WASPs dominated, to how WASP dominance declined, how America is now a meritocracy, that meritocracy is built on overeducation, it isn't as good as WASP-ocracy, and something to do a with "greedy pigs" that are overeducated.

<comment><USER14> He's just observing the putative pros/cons of having a society ran by a hereditary elite, versus by the spazzes that got all the best grades in school. He doesn't clearly prefer one over the other, but laments the erosion of the good parts of the old regime.

<comment><USER13> That's a great summary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> WASPs idealized virtue, which to some extent promoted it within their culture, but there was certainly corruption. Allan Dulles is named in the article, for example. He literally used his power to foment wars in other countries to advance his personal interests. And corruption allegations against the Bush family are voluminous.

I think a big difference in the perspective of today's elite is due to globalization and technological advances. The population of the US was valuable in the past because outsourcing wasn't feasible and war was less mechanized. Now the population, judging by the federal government's development of counter-insurgence measures over the past decade, seems to be regarded more as a threat than an asset.

</comment><comment><USER16> I say this as a WAS (no, P, thank you very much). Cry me a freaking river. Not included here was the WASPs he worshipped were all men. And this strawman bullshit about nobility of WASP character and how "meritocrats" are hypocrites shows that the author is one of the "old breed" that needs to die off as soon as possible.

<comment><USER17> "An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?"

[http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html)

<comment><USER16> Huh? What ad hominem did I apply? That he's got an old-school mentality that worships the good old days without acknowledging the negative parts?

It was kind of funny having such worship of WASPs come from a jew. Whatever. No point in wasting any more time or effort over this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Meritocracy?

What a load of garbage!

        http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm

        "According to the ideology of the American Dream, America is the land of limitless opportunity in which individuals can go as far as their own merit takes them. According to this ideology, you get out of the system what you put into it. Getting ahead is ostensibly based on individual merit, which is generally viewed as a combination of factors including innate abilities, working hard, having the right attitude, and having high moral character and integrity. Americans not only tend to think that is how the system should work, but most Americans also think that is how the system does work (Huber and Form 1973, Kluegel and Smith 1986, Ladd 1994).

        In our book The Meritocracy Myth (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), we challenge the validity of these commonly held assertions, by arguing that there is a gap between how people think the system works and how the system actually does work. We refer to this gap as "the meritocracy myth," or the myth that the system distributes resources—especially wealth and income—according to the merit of individuals. We challenge this assertion in two ways. First, we suggest that while merit does indeed affect who ends up with what, the impact of merit on economic outcomes is vastly overestimated by the ideology of the American Dream. Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility. We summarize these arguments below. First, however, we take a brief look at what is at stake. That is, what is up for grabs in the race to get ahead?"

[http://www.law.umn.edu/lawreview/v85n2.htm](http://www.law.umn.edu/lawreview/v85n2.htm)

<comment><USER19> Might want to invest in some linebreaks. (fold --spaces --width 60)

      According to the ideology of the American Dream, America is
      the land of limitless opportunity in which individuals can
      go as far as their own merit takes them. According to this
      ideology, you get out of the system what you put into it.
      Getting ahead is ostensibly based on individual merit,
      which is generally viewed as a combination of factors
      including innate abilities, working hard, having the right
      attitude, and having high moral character and integrity.
      Americans not only tend to think that is how the system
      should work, but most Americans also think that is how the
      system does work (Huber and Form 1973, Kluegel and Smith
      1986, Ladd 1994).

      In our book The Meritocracy Myth (Rowman & Littlefield,
      2004), we challenge the validity of these commonly held
      assertions, by arguing that there is a gap between how
      people think the system works and how the system actually
      does work. We refer to this gap as "the meritocracy
      myth," or the myth that the system distributes
      resources—especially wealth and income—according to the
      merit of individuals. We challenge this assertion in two
      ways. First, we suggest that while merit does indeed affect
      who ends up with what, the impact of merit on economic
      outcomes is vastly overestimated by the ideology of the
      American Dream. Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit
      factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the
      effects of merit and create barriers to individual
      mobility. We summarize these arguments below. First,
      however, we take a brief look at what is at stake. That is,
      what is up for grabs in the race to get ahead?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > The old U.S. ruling class had plenty of problems. But are we really better > off with a country run by the self-involved, over-schooled products of > modern meritocracy?

Being vague is sorta almost as fun as doing this other thing.

I think social criticism today relies too much on arguments made between lines to be effective.

</comment><comment><USER21> > _The WASPs ' day is done. Such leadership as it provided isn't likely to be > revived. Recalling it at its best is a reminder that the meritocracy that > has followed it marks something less than clear progress. Rather the > reverse._

Wow. Obama has been disappointing but he hasn't come close to the damage Dubya did. Dubya really was a drunk dimbulb, and his name got him into Harvard Business School. Heck of a dividend we got from that anti-meritocratic inbred WASP-favoring move there. Let's try a really meritorious president next time.

And just above the words "Trust, honor, and character" I see John and Allen Dulles. Seriously? I wish I could call the author of this piece uninformed but I think it's worse than that.

</comment><comment><USER22> If anyone is baffled by why this article exists, go to your favorite search engine and type "the new wasps", including the quotes. The target audience doesn't need to do that, but you might.

I find it odd that it was posted here though.

<comment><USER11> maybe it's a good reality check to realize that society has not moved on as far as we might hope. Or maybe the WSJ's editorial board hasn't. There's a disconnect somewhere.

<comment><USER12> In the last few months, I've been noticing that every major political issue throughout the entire history of America ties strongly into the Civil War, either as a prelude or as an effect. I'm not a historian, though, and I'm worried I have a golden hammer, but...

When I was in high school, I looked around at my school and saw how diverse it was and said to a friend online I'd never met that racism was dead. She told me that, when she was a child, a burning cross had been thrown into her yard. That would have been ~1980.

I don't think society has really moved on at all. I think a lot of us were simply distracted for a while, and deluded by the brevity and light treatment given in schools.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> With articles like this, is it any surprise that the Republican Party is having trouble relating to a diversifying, increasingly immigrant America? When one of its institutional mouthpieces is publishing articles that celebrate eras in which the majority of modern America would have been excluded from the levers of power, is it any surprise that the American public is choosing to reject the Republican party instead of rolling over and handing back rights that were hard won during the twentieth century?

I mean, let's look back at the era in which WASPs ruled American political life. They heyday of the WASP was basically from the end of reconstruction through the beginning of the Great Depression. These were great years... if you were a WASP. If you weren't, they were years of rising income inequality, rising racism, rising anti-immigrant sentiment and rising corporate power. Sure, TR, and later, FDR, went some way in ameliorating the worst excesses of WASP power, but they were viewed as class traitors by their fellow WASPs. These were years where, like today, the rich got richer, and everybody else got screwed. As a proud member of Everybody Else, I'm glad that WASP power has been irrevocably broken. I do not want to go back to an era in which I am excluded from the most desirable positions in society simply because I am of the wrong race, religion or gender.

</comment><comment><USER24> Stewart Alsop called, he wants his book draft back.

[http://www.amazon.com/Stay-Execution-Memoir-Stewart- Alsop/dp...](http://www.amazon.com/Stay-Execution-Memoir-Stewart- Alsop/dp/039700897X/ref=la_B001H6KRLS_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1387659063&sr=1-1)

NB for relevance: In the late 60s, Alsop (the brother of Joseph in the article) would use his Newsweek column to rant about the lack of WASPs in the CIA and State Dept. making us lose the Vietnam War.

<comment><USER24> In fact, a play about Joseph Alsop's life and this milieu the OP speaks of was on Broadway not so long ago starring John Lithgow as Alsop.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/theater/the-columnist- diss...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/theater/the-columnist-dissects- joseph-alsop.html?_r=0) [http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/07/the_colum...](http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/07/the_columnist_broadway.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Another classic from Joseph Epstein. The same guy who wrote, "There is much that my four sons can do in their lives that might cause me anguish, that might outrage me, that might make [me] ashamed of them and of myself as their father. But nothing they could ever do would make me sadder than if any of them were to become homosexual."

</comment><comment><USER26> " _What our new meritocrats have failed to evince—and what the older WASP generation prided itself on—is character and the ability to put the well-being of the nation before their own._ "

With regards to the older WASP generation, I would like some independent verification of their character and ability.

</comment><comment><USER27> You keep using that word 'meritocracy', I do not think it means what you think it means.

It seems the author, Joseph Epstein, picked up on the idea that using privileged education as a proxy for merit is probably a bad idea, yet why he feels that this vindicates WASPishness is beyond me. It wasn't even particularly clear why WASPishness was included in the article at all, since it seemed only to serve as a mildly interesting biographical backdrop on an argument that centered around evaluating the worth of university.

Frankly, the article seemed like it had no clear direction. It banged on about meritocracy throughout, and used ivy-league universities as some sort of prima facie proxy for merit, yet it seemed to tiptoe around the crux of the argument: ivy-league universities are the new WASP. Yet rather than make this point outright, and show that attending an ivy-league school is no more an indicator for merit than was WASP birthright, the writer spent the majority of the article romantically eulogizing the old-school WASP. Frankly it all seemed a little tenuously connected.

That said, its strongest point -- on which it spent the least time -- was the argument that privileged education does not prove anything of one's abilities. This is certainly true in my experience, yet this undermines the article's claim that a meritocracy would choose someone with a privileged education. If a meritocracy is marking irrelevant traits as indicators of merit, then all that shows is that the meritocracy is incorrectly assigning merit, rather than showing that the concept of meritocracies themselves are flawed.

Maybe it's only in the tech community that quality of output is seen as a better proxy for merit than educational background, but here at least I don't believe I've seen much weight attributed to education. When given the choice between two candidates, one of whom having attended MIT and the other of whom having written some fantastic systems, it's been my experience that it is the latter candidate who would be more desired by tech companies. In a meritocracy where one's output alone is judged, that seems to me to be a fair system, because -- unless the output is intrinsically tied to some unfair advantage -- it seems that it cannot be gamed through class, gender or race. I felt that the author failed to consider such a meritocracy, and instead -- to his discredit -- just assumed 'merit' and 'ivy-league' are synonymous without arguing to prove such a point.

Why any of you should care what I thought of this essay is another point entirely...

</comment><comment><USER28> Once upon a time, racist white upper-class men ruled the United States honorably and without corruption, and Ronald Reagan was the greatest president...

I wish the author provided some examples or evidence to support his rather outrageous claims.

<comment><USER29> He said strongest president not best. Simply look at the 1980 electoral map. . .

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Remarkably stupid. Did Joe or even John Kennedy philander more than J.P. Morgan? Has anyone in a hedge fund today the imagination to dream up the schemes of Collis Huntington or the first Harriman? Did John D. Rockefeller win a name for honest dealing?

And (as that proto-wasp Henry Adams pointed out) some things can be more harmful than simple corruption. It would be hard to find anyone now who thinks that John Foster Dulles's influence was anything but harmful. And how about Robert McNamara (whose name looks might Irish, by the way)?

</comment><comment><USER31> _A financier I know who grew up under the WASP standard not long ago told me that he thought that the subprime real estate collapse and the continuing hedge-fund scandals have been brought on directly by men and women who are little more than "greedy pigs" (his words) without a shred of character or concern for their clients or country. Naturally, he added, they all have master's degrees from the putatively best business schools in the nation._

<comment><USER7> As Bill Black says: the best way to rob a bank is to own one. (He even wrote a book titled like that.)

<comment><USER31> Sames is true of any business, or any "non-profit". The more unethical you are, the easier it is...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> asking if america is better off without the ruling wasp class is like asking if the world is better off without the british empire.

the arguments for, and against, are practically identical.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think the best example of this shift can be found in the Supreme Court: not a single justice is a WASP, but they all have degrees from Harvard or Yale.

</comment><comment><USER34> Thank god. I'd rather live in a world that represents everyone than to have a ruling class consisting of a single type.

</comment><comment><USER35> I thought everyone was upper class, is it just me?

God I love these fucking piles of cash

\-- James Chalmers Lang III

p.s. name made up, I have 4 20s on my desk.

</comment><comment><USER36> The WASP elite was, relative to most elites that human history has graced our species with, a very decent one. (Was there racism and corruption? Of course. But they _aspired_ to decency, a trait not seen in the current elite, and not seen in most elites. I'm not calling them good in absolute terms, but in relative terms.)

So, in the middle of the 20th century, they did an unusually decent (and unusual) thing. They accepted their own decline. For one example, they invented the SAT, whose initial result was to increase the number of Jewish students admitted to Ivy League universities by about an order of magnitude. (Then there was a racist backlash, which is where we get all that extracurricular bullshit in US college admissions. Elites are not monolithic.) Why'd they accept their own decline? I think they were self-aware enough (again, as a group) to recognize that there was no choice. Without letting FDR save capitalism via the New Deal, the U.S. would have fallen into economic collapse and political chaos, and not been able to fight the two-front (cultural, and then actual) wars against fascism and communism. The stakes were existential. When facing a choice between the risk of obliteration (but also the assurance that, if there was a country left, they'd rule it) and gentle decline (to merely quite rich, but not a ruling class) they took the right path. Very few elites do. Most let their countries burn.

What happened next is _not_ a meritocratic invasion. The _global_ elite (which is much more anti-democratic) stepped in. That's been bad for all of us. The WASPs care enough about the country not to destroy it. The global elite is not tied to any one nation, and doesn't care.

Upper-middle-class "meritocrats" are _not_ the ruling class, and the people in charge have more in common with Russian oligarchs and Arab oil sheikhs than with either (a) the somewhat callous but stately and pro-democratic (or at least _republican_ , with no reference to the political party/megachurch) WASPs or (b) the well-educated technology adepts who top out in the upper- middle-class. In the US, the current elite tend to look like WASPs because, in fact, many _are_ ethnically WASPs, but their ideology comes from a dirtier source: a global elite whose values come mostly from places where political corruption is just another perk of being rich, where democracy is ridiculed, and where the poor are held in open contempt (and exploited, and often shut down violently) by the rich.</comment>