A Mysterious Patch Of Light Shows Up In The North Dakota Dark - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/01/16/169511949/a-mysterious-patch-of-light-shows-up-in-the-north-dakota-dark <comment><USER2> I seem to be one of the few persons commenting so far who actually lives in the region and regularly reads local reporting on issues in North Dakota (a state neighboring my state). Western North Dakota, where the Bakken Shale oil boom is occurring, is very sparsely populated and historically had minimal infrastructure. It takes TIME to build pipelines to move the natural gas brought up by oil drilling operations to natural gas customers. Pipeline proposals are currently in regulatory review. There isn't even pipeline infrastructure in place yet for all of the petroleum production in North Dakota--much of the oil produced there is brought to broader markets in tanker trucks, and the truck traffic volumes are putting a lot of stress on highway roadbeds until the highways can be upgraded.

Right now there is a boom economy in western North Dakota, with extremely high wages, low unemployment, a shortage of single women,

[http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_22382285/north- dakota-...](http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_22382285/north-dakota-oil- boom-unsettles-gender-balance-some)

and established businesses in the region importing workers from as far away as Illinois just to keep up normal operations as workers quit to join oil field crews. There hasn't been time to build infrastructure yet to move away the natural gas to markets that will pay for the gas--especially because the price of natural gas all over the United States has crashed because of the huge increase in production in the last few years. But given time, yes, there will be infrastructure in place to transport Bakken Shale gas to other markets, and I'm sure that we here in Minnesota will be as glad to have North Dakotan natural gas to supplement our nuclear-powered energy grid as we already are to have North Dakotan petroleum brought in by truck. Once more pipelines are built, the entire United States energy economy will become more flexible.

Still to be figured out is the economics of converting natural gas deliquefaction terminals (those cost BILLIONS of dollars and years to build or convert) along the Gulf Coast into liquefaction terminals, so that the United States can get into the business of exporting liquified natural gas. It could happen. North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula used to flare off all of their natural gas incidentally brought up during petroleum production--there was no local market for it. It took a long time to develop natural gas liquefaction; now there is international trade in natural gas that was undreamed of when I was growing up.

<comment><USER3> I think the raw numbers speak for themselves.

The amount of gas being flared in North Dakota is about 150 million cubic feet per day [0], worth (at $3.95/thousand cubic feet, at the wellhead [1]) $220 million per year.

The amount of oil being sold is 728,000 barrels per day [2], at $95/barrel, worth $25.3 billion (B) per year.

For the oil producers, this flaring is a financial rounding error (<1%). I think it's credible that $200M/year of gas, distributed over hundreds of oil wells, can be unprofitable to recover.

In various metrics: the natural gas flared / oil produced is

* 0.9% of the value ($$$)

* 3.7% of the raw energy (Joules)

* 2.6% of the raw carbon (-> CO2)

[0] [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/business/energy- environmen...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/business/energy- environment/in-north-dakota-wasted-natural-gas-flickers-against-the- sky.html?pagewanted=all)

[1] <http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_a.htm>

[2] [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732429660457817...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324296604578177432510742360.html)

<comment><USER4> This is a perfect opportunity for government regulation. Tax the waste so that it becomes something more than a rounding error. Government gets a source of revenue, get the environmental benefits of increased natural gas use, and it's not like the oil companies are going to pack up and leave because of a tax, because the oil isn't going to leave with them.

<comment><USER3> _Tax the waste so that it becomes something more than a rounding error._

So what exactly, an arbitrary 1,000% tax just to make it expensive, because of a subjective emotional reaction that says _this particular_ 3% ineffeciency is pure evil, where 3% ineffeciencies elsewhere are natural and understandable engineering compromises?

The incentives are absolutely correct in my view. The "waste" here is apparently less expensive than the alternative (low-value gas pipelines). Maybe some peoples' guts say gas flares are an "evil" type of waste, whereas the human labor spent installing thousands of miles of unproductive pipelines is a "good" waste. I hope those peoples' guts aren't put in decision-making positions.

<comment><USER5> It's not entirely subjective. I think the underlying reasoning is that regardless of current prices, gas and oil are non-renewable resources that should not be wasted.

<comment><USER6> The energy content of methane is a lot more interesting than the methane itself.

It is easy enough to harvest from biological processes and if you really need it, it can easily be synthesized:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_process>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _every day drillers in North Dakota burn off enough gas to heat half a million homes_

Oh that will end well. We should definitely let them drill in the arctic.

And note how it's not reducing the cost of gas, it's massively profitable because gas prices are so high. [1]

So all those "drill baby drill" chants, well there you have it. Prices as high as ever and destroy the environment as a bonus.

Let taxpayers pay to clean it up in a decade after they've burnt out the state, simply dissolve the corporation so there is no responsibility, just like the toxic ash piles the coal industry leaves behind.

1\. <http://i.imgur.com/FFof4.png>

<comment><USER8> Maybe I'm the ignorant one but are you conflating gas from oil with natural gas, which actually has been driven to record low prices[1], so much so that utilities have switched from coal to natural gas at such a fast pace that it reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by a considerable amount in 2012[2]? "Prices as high as ever and destroy the environment as a bonus" may be doubly wrong.

[1][http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/12/abundant-natural-gas- lea...](http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/12/abundant-natural-gas-leads-to- record.html)

[2][http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/us-emissions- idUSB...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/02/us-emissions- idUSBRE8710CB20120802)

<comment><USER9> You would be correct. Gasoline comes from Oil using a process called cracking which separates out the heavier components from the lighter ones used to fuel cars. Natural gas (not from oil) has prices that are still extremely low in North America.

It's still a tragic waste showing gluttonous consumption. If North America were to switch cars/homes over to natural gas then they would solve two problems, 1. Reduce emissions from Oil use 2. Not be so damn wasteful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >>> Decades ago, energy companies bought "mineral rights" to the land below those farms — so the companies can move in, create drilling pads where they please, move in trucks and workers, without the farmers' consent...

Huh? Without the farmers consent? When you sell your mineral rights, you're giving consent. What usually happens is that the gas companies _lease_ your mineral rights and in that lease agreement are provisions that give the gas company the right to drill on your property, which includes equipment, trucks, etc. If the mineral rights were actually _sold_ and not leased, I'd suspect the contract included writing in easements on the title for access and equipment.

Since the story is painting sort of a doom and gloom scenario, my guess is that whoever owned the property "decades ago" either bought the property without the mineral rights, sold them off, or did a very long-term lease on them. When this happened, the rights probably weren't very valuable because fracking technology didn't exist. Now that the land is worth a fortune, it's a missed opportunity of the farmer. Whatever the case, the owner either initiated the action or the terms should have come up when the property was sold.

I live in a part of Ohio that is currently in the early stages of a fracking "boom". Whether or not it comes to full fruition is unknown but the industry is certainly developing. I hear lots of stories about people who missed out on fracking leases because they had leased their mineral rights previously. The old scenario used to be next to no upfront lease money, a modest royalty, and free gas if they put a well on your property. When the fracking technology became available and the shale area was suspected to be ripe with gas, the whole game changed. Leases were being written that gave in the range of $800-$5000 per acre up-front, along with longer-term royalties. These were significantly more valuable than previous leases. I've heard stories of people missing out on upwards of $1,000,000 in upfront lease money because they already had leased their property to someone else. Of course, if gas hits on that land, the up-front money pales in comparison to the long-term royalites.

If I were a farmer, I wouldn't buy land knowing that I didn't own the mineral rights to it. You're making a bet that nobody will ever come in and claim those rights, which is unrealistic. If I'm a farmer and I sell of my rights through sale or lease, I'm making a bet that the sale of the rights or the lease and subsequent royalties are worth more than the production of my farm.

<comment><USER11> I've been told that in northern New Mexico most of the mineral rights where sold off long ago, in the 20's and 50's, and sold off pretty comprehensively. Meaning there are parts of the state you just couldn't live in if you refused to live on land that no longer had its mineral rights. Also meaning those people there now where not directly compensated for them, thus have not thought of the issue. (Presumably, this is priced into the market and land values are lower, but with real estate pricing being so dynamic people probably don't consider this either)

\---

It should be noted that my sources are people I vaguely knew about 10 years ago, who where whinging about oil men. So not reliable. But if true, it makes a more compelling story for people complaining about oil men. Also it must be said - oil men are probably going to elicit complaints where ever they move in as their personalities, and manners, are not, as a rule, refined...

<comment><USER12> Something else grandpa did to fuck us over! Fucking asshole.

<comment><USER12> I mean that as a legitimate comment! The guy who owns the farm now who is getting fucked over by the oil companies having mineral rights, was actually fucked over by his grandfather when he owned the land, selling off the rights.

<comment><USER13> The grandfather was under no obligation to leave even the land sans mineral right to his heirs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is the third time in a week I've heard a story about Williston, ND.

First was Planet Money, "Turning a Boom Town into a Real Town": [http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/08/168871212/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/01/08/168871212/episode-428-turning- a-boomtown-into-a-real-town)

Second was an NY Times story about how the overwhelming number of single men in Williston makes, in the best case, dating difficult, and in the worst case, has caused an increased in reported sexual assaults: "An Oil Town Where Men Are Many, and Women are Hounded": <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/us/16women.html>

And when I searched Google to find the article I read yesterday, I discovered several stories on Williston from last year: [http://www.google.com/search?q=ny+times+williston+north+dako...](http://www.google.com/search?q=ny+times+williston+north+dakota)

<comment><USER15> The pay at McDonald's in Williston is around $18/hour starting. Kids keep leaving for the fields, though, because if they have a skill, they can make twice as much.

It's not without problems, though. Public school teachers in Dickinson are being bunked in community housing because the rent has skyrocketed. Most people will building skills aren't building houses, either, so many of these men working the fields are living in their trucks or in temporary housing or in RVs at Walmarts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is disgusting.

Next time someone publicly says that we should be careful with fossil fuels show them this. This a big FUCK YOU EARTH coming from America.

<comment><USER17> Is this really disgusting? There's very little context given at any point during the article. My understanding is there are around 85,000,000 barrels produced per day globally. Is ND now responsible for 10% more gas being burned globally? 0.5%? It's great that it shows up at night but there's a reason they have to circle the thing. It still pales in comparison to the intensity of Chicago nearby let alone the East Coast or Bay Area.

Fracking worries me and the wild west mentality that shows up whenever there are quick riches - be it energy, internet stocks or real estate - always leads to an ugly hangover. I just think it's better to take a step back and wonder about context vs getting sucked straight to this point.

<comment><USER18> You are comparing a drilling operation by ~150 businesses to cities dozens of miles large and housing millions of people. It's HUGE.

What if burnt gas is evenly distributed so that no one drill site is burning more than 0.5%? Who's responsibility is it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> How is it that possessing mineral rights underneath land allows companies to violate land rights by putting their drilling pads on a farmer's land? And how did they buy mineral rights underneath someone's land, anyway? The farmers had to have had some say in such a sale, right?

<comment><USER20> "energy companies bought "mineral rights" to the land below those farms"

Presumably someone (the farmers?) sold those rights in the past?

<comment><USER21> In most places mineral rights and land rights are separate. I may own land but if diamonds are found under it by somebody else, I have no particular right to extract them. It appears the US may be different though.

<comment><USER20> But if I start of owning both the land and the mineral rights, surely I can sell off the mineral rights and continue to "own" and farm the land? It would seem a surpising legal requirement that the land and the mineral rights always remain part of the same item.

[NB I come from somewhere with quite remarkable land ownership issues, so perhaps I'm introducing complexities where they don't exist].

<comment><USER22> Usually. It depends on the deed titles you possess, which may preclude such actions. Also, sometimes they may not be severable based on jurisdiction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > The few ranchers who lived here produced wheat, alfalfa, oats and corn.

I think "farm" is technically more accurate. Ranchers are the ones with cows or other animals.

<comment><USER15> It depends on where you are in western ND. Ranching is a big industry there. Much of the alfalfa and oats are grown to sustain the ranching. The "farms" as you'd more traditionally think of them are more to the central and eastern portion of the state, where wheat, soy, canola and some corn is grown. As you get toward the Red River, you'll find a lot of sugar beets, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> From the article—

every day drillers in North Dakota "burn off enough gas to heat half a million homes."

I feel sick.

<comment><USER25> Why?

A trillion times more solar energy lands on the planet every day and is wasted.

<comment><USER24> I presume you're simply being contrary, but in case it needs pointing out, that represents huge and highly-avoidable human-caused carbon emissions.

The sun's beat down upon Earth for 4.5Bn years and will hopefully do so for about the same again.

Short-termism's just sad and puts a knot in my belly.

<comment><USER26> As was said elsewhere in the thread, they are safety fires and the whole operation would be incredibly dangerous without them.

<comment><USER24> Sure, i get that—but thems're free fuels they be wasting.

That's the only point I think I've tried to get across, from when I was the first person to comment on this thread...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Fracking scares me. Watched the movie Gasland, makes me depressed.

<comment><USER28> Is that the same one that shows someone burning gas coming of their faucet, which was debunked a long time ago as a result of poor well construction (or was it ground contamination).

<comment><USER29> I didn't see the movie, and I'm sure it sensationalized things as movies have to do (matt damon!).

But. You're saying "oh that won't happen unless people screw up". Guess what, in the real world, people screw up _all the time_. Screwups should be a major part of the math when people make decisions about fracking.

<comment><USER30> The gas coming out of his faucet apparently had nothing to do with the natural gas exploration in the area, screw-up or otherwise.

From: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasland>

"Regarding Mike Markham - In a scene from the film, Weld County landowner Mike Markham is shown with director Josh Fox igniting gas from a well water faucet in his home with a cigarette lighter, which the film attributes to natural gas exploration in the area. In 2008, The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) investigated a complaint made by Markham alleging that nearby natural gas operations impacted his domestic water well. A Colorado Oil and Gas Information System (COGIS) report stated that Markham's water "appears to be biogenic in origin." The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission uses the origin of the methane, either biogenic or thermogenic, to determine whether or not the groundwater contamination can be attributed to natural gas drilling. According to the agency, natural gas drilling does not lead to the presence of biogenic methane. The 2008 COGIS report concluded that "there [were] no indications of oil & gas related impacts to [Markham's] water well." Markham's water well was drilled through four different coal beds containing biogenic methane gas."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I for one am not sick about this at all as others here are. Cutting our energy dependence by 20% and unemployment under 1% when the nation is at 8%. There are trade offs in life, and this is a good one. I'm sure they are working on the infrastructure needed to capture the gas, but its not like that can be done in a day. Give it time.

<comment><USER18> In a decade the jobs will be gone, the energy will be gone, and you're left with large areas of f* up land, pollution and health issues. It's not worth it in the long term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> i wonder how this relates to the numbers behind the peak oil predictions?

but, i agree completely that simply burning off excess is amazingly shortsighted and stupid. they could use the natural gas to power their own operations, right there. or just the AC for the workers. have their fleet of vehicles run on it.

it's the same with refineries, driving by you always see the large torches blazing. why not use this energy for something?

<comment><USER33> Those flares are safety releases. Refineries would be _extraordinarily_ dangerous without them.

<comment><USER34> Not really, you can pipe the same gass to holding tanks. It's just not cost effective to do so.

<comment><USER33> I'm talking about the flares you see at oil refineries, not drilling sites. Those are pressure relief valves and are essential safety equipment.

The flares you see on a day-to-day basis are just pilot flames which are always kept lit in the event a flare is required during an emergency such as an over-pressurization.

<comment><USER34> The pressure relief values are essential, what happens after that point is a separate issue. The advantage of Flares is there simple, cheap, can quickly deal with a lot of gas, and render the gas inert. Holding tanks on the other hand need a lot of piping, pumping equipment, and then some system to deal with whatever miscellaneous gas ends up in there. However, if C02 start being taxed expect to see far fewer flares.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > This time it's corn folks versus oil folks.

Ugh. I'm from North Dakota. That's cattle country out there, primarily, with soy, wheat and canola as the main crops. City folk don't know their head from their ass on a farm.

Anyway.

If we're flaring off 29% of our gas, a fairly good reason is that we've got nowhere to put it and nobody wants to invest in more infrastructure at the moment because 1) Natural gas (which we've also got in abundance) is meeting needs at already low prices and 2) The oil development isn't anywhere near completely built out.

</comment><comment><USER35> Sounds like a nice place for a data center. cold with plenty of cheap natural gas to power it.

<comment><USER22> The burn-offs are probably not reliably schedulable or consistently locatable. Not all the bright spots in the infrared visualization are "ablaze" with burn- off flares.

<comment><USER4> Not consistently locatable? Do you think this is just oil fields catching fire? The burn offs are a conscious decision to burn off excess, made by the well operator. All you need to do to locate a burn off is to ask the well operator to tell you when they are burning.

And as far as scheduling: gas power isn't like wind or solar power. You don't need to schedule it. All you need to store gas is a big tank.

<comment><USER22> No, I have no reason to assume the need to burn off at any particular location at any particular time is consistently reliable (it may or may not be; I was a geographer, not a geologist). The decision to make the action may be conscious, but the timing of the implementation may be reactive to conditions either with a stochastic build-up, a pocket of gas being hit, or when the equipment is down for maintenance (the latter of which probably would be schedulable)

Even if it were schedulable and constitent in quantity, the catchment area is fairly wide and would require considerable infrastructure to gather, which the oil companies were not geared to do to begin with (they were going for petroleum, not methane). From what another local poster mentioned, there are plans in the works to capture some of that methane, but they require studies, licenses, etc. etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> If one could get the gas from the flare towers to a combined cycle natural gas reactor for under 0.9 cents per cubic foot, or, about $170 per well per annum, there could be room for a small profit ($900k/year less operating costs). Note that I assumed you're paying the well owner market price for the natural gas they're presently flaring off, a conservative assumption.

Gas flared per annum (MM cubic feet) = 150 [1]; 100 cubic ft gas in MWh = 0.0302 [2]; »Natural gas flared (MWh) = 45,300

Plant efficiency = 61% [3]; »Available energy (MWh) per annum = 27,633

North Dakota electricity price (kWh) = $0.0681 [4]; Value of available energy ($ million) = $1.882 [5]; »Value per cubic foot gas = $0.0125

Market price of gas ($/MMBTU) = 3.48 [6]; BTU/cubic foot natural gas = 1020 [7]; »Market cost of gas ($ million) = $0.532

Excess value of gas in fields = $1.349; »Excess value per cubic foot gas = $0.0090

Number of wells = 8,000 [8]; Mean gas per annum per well (cubic ft.) = 18,750; »Expected excess value per well per annum = $168.67

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5073583>

[2] [http://www.convertunits.com/from/hundred+cubic+foot+of+natur...](http://www.convertunits.com/from/hundred+cubic+foot+of+natural+gas/to/megawatt+hour)

[3] [http://gigaom.com/2011/05/25/ge-to-crank-up-gas-power- plants...](http://gigaom.com/2011/05/25/ge-to-crank-up-gas-power-plants-like- jet-engines/)

[4] [http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/state- regs/pdf/Nor...](http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/state- regs/pdf/North%20Dakota.pdf)

[5] Expected revenues per annum if you burnt all the gas flaredin Bakken & Three Forks in a combined cycle reactor

[6] <http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/>

[7] <http://www.onlineconversion.com/forum/forum_1038451235.htm>

[8] [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020370750457701...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203707504577010463934234498.html)

</comment><comment><USER37> I keep hearing about ND all the time. I bet there are some business opportunities there, but I have no idea what they are.

<comment><USER38> Most business opportunities there are currently severely constrained by an insufficient supply of labor and housing. Fast food jobs pay $15/hr. I've heard Menard's (a Home Depot-like chain in the midwest) flys people in from Texas for a week at a time to work at their retail stores because they can't find any local help.

<comment><USER39> It's actually Wisconsin (where the Mendard's headquarters is[1]), not Texas, but I don't think that affects your point.

Walmart is paying $17/hour, too. With unemployment below 1%, it's going to take awhile before labor supply and demand fall into equilibrium.

[1]: [http://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167467703/the-downsides-of- liv...](http://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167467703/the-downsides-of-living-in-an- oil-boom-town)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Pan north into Canada. I believe that northern-most bright dot is the tarsands in Fort McMurray.

[http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/712130main_8246931247_e60...](http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/712130main_8246931247_e60f3c09fb_o.jpg)

<comment><USER41> It is. The two joined dots just east of the mountains are Edmonton and Calgary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> If the gas is simply being flared, wouldn't it be more profitable to bring in some large gas turbines (converted 747 engines would work) and generate power to sell to the grid and neighboring states until pipelines are ready?

If transport is likely to be a recurring problem, it seems obvious that an entrepreneur could step in and arbitrage the price gap between energy and the glut of natural gas in the region by generating power and upgrading power lines.

Even when more natural gas production goes to pipelines, those power lines could later be used to transport North Dakota's wind power.

</comment><comment><USER43> Not very mysterious.

</comment><comment><USER44> Shouldn't it be forced to store gas for future use instead if burning it? Underground storage wouldn't be that expensive and we will probably need that gas at profitable prices in the next 20 years.

<comment><USER22> Between releasing CO2 (a by-product of the burn) and releasing methane, CO2 is consindered the lesser of the two waste gases. Underground storage would be expensive, volatile gas stored anywhere is a potential liability waiting to happen, especially in areas where there is fuel being moved about. Since the companies have extraction rights, they may also lack the legal capacity to build storage facilities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> A closely related thing is happening in the Western Australian desert: [http://www.quora.com/Australia/What-is-going-on-in-the- Weste...](http://www.quora.com/Australia/What-is-going-on-in-the-Western- Australian-desert-to-have-all-these-lights-so-visible)

Mining companies operate 24hrs a day with huge lighting rigs illuminating the pits. One of the motivating reasons for the automation work I did for Rio Tinto was that autonomous trucks can drive perfectly happily in the dark, saving a fortune in energy bills.

</comment><comment><USER46> Speaking of mineral rights, if say a barn is right over where the company needs to drill, will the pay the farmer for the barn?

<comment><USER47> Oil wells don't have to be plumb: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directional_drilling>

<comment><USER48> "I drink your milkshake!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> The video shows Australia. Particularly curious to me was the abundance of light in Western Australia, given a lot of it is unpopulated (sure a bit is mining operations).

Turns out it's bush fires.

</comment><comment><USER25> From the article:

> to a disturbing degree

I dislike it when government-run media tries to tell me what to think about something.

<comment> alex-g NPR is not run by the government, though it is partially supported by government grants. It's not Voice of America.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> The Eagle Ford formation is similarly lit up in an arc south of San Antonio, TX. Cool stuff.

</comment><comment><USER51> Good for ND. At least they are providing jobs.

</comment><comment><USER52> Fracking is a topic fraught with controversy, and the issues are indeed complicated.

If by fracking you're talking about that wonderful process that extracts that bountiful nectar of progress deep from within our mother earth, creating jobs, building commerce and bringing warmth into our family homes, I'm all in favour of it.

If by fracking you mean the systematic destruction of our ecosystem, and the wanton waste of our precious resources, while causing earthquakes and the toxification of the water table, then I oppose it.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must be strong, and hold our opinions close to our hearts, for the future is in _our_ hands.

<comment><USER53> Recycling old stories, turning them into memes, and posting in other stories for the lulz... I thought this was HN, not Reddit.

<comment><USER52> Not "doing a meme", making a point. There _are_ arguments for fracking from both sides - unfortunately the pro side takes a very short term view, and the con side takes a long term view.

The length of politicians' terms fundamentally shape the direction policy takes, along with the fact that, whether it's conscious or not, there's the "well, I'll be dead by then" phenomenon.

It turned into if-by-whiskey as I wrote it. There's a difference between lolcats and discourse.

<comment><USER53> For this reader, whatever point you were trying to make was lost. There are arguments on both sides about everything, but there's no value in posting an if-by-prosecution on every Aaron Swartz story. To me, your original post reads as:

      [generic topic statement]
      [endorsement via obvious positive traits]
      [condemnation via obvious negative traits]
      [trite conclusion]

I fail to see how this format furthers discourse since there was nothing clever in its use; it's essentially a search and replace of whiskey terms with fracking terms. What you've said above about long and short term views and how this shapes policies introduced by politicians is what you should have written in the first place. _That_ is interesting and encourages discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> No need to go on the space station or in suborbital flights: you can see them from regular commercial planes and the first time you experience it it's a bit frightening, because supposedly most people do not know what's going on.

You can see the same while flying over Russia for example.

If there are clouds you see lights at night illuminating the clouds from below and it is really impressive.

</comment><comment><USER55> This will make your grandchildren happy with you:

"When oil comes to the surface, it often brings natural gas with it, and according to North Dakota's Department of Mineral Resources, 29 percent of the natural gas now extracted in North Dakota isn't captured. Gas isn't as profitable as oil, and the energy companies don't always build the pipes or systems to carry it off. For a year (with extensions), North Dakota allows drillers to burn gas, just let it flare. There are now so many gas wells burning fires in the North Dakota night, the fracking fields can be seen from deep space."

</comment><comment><USER56> Is it a UFO?

<comment><USER57> If F stands for "fracking" and U for "unregulated" then yes.

<comment><USER58> Unregulated Fracking Operations :)</comment></comment></comment>


Apple Releases 2019 Retina MacBook Air with True Tone Display, Lowers Price - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2019/07/09/apple-updates-retina-macbook-air-adds-true-tone-lowers-price-to-1099-999-for-students/ <comment><USER2> This isn't the actual story—the story is that Apple killed two machines today:

\- The non-touchbar MacBook Pro (RIP, function row)

\- The 12" "MacBook" (which I adored, largely because it was so tiny)

What's strange is that it appears that this was a streamlining effort—but if you get into the weeds and look at the "base" model 13" MacBook Pro, it's not the same machine: it has two Thunderbolt ports, rather than four, despite sharing the same moniker as the higher-end MacBook Pro. Go up a model, and you get four for more money along with the better processor, which isn't immediately clear, either.

That means it's got fewer thunderbolt lanes, as well, which is a classic nickel and dime move that's going to make it even more confusing given most people just buy the base model.</comment>


"DuckDuckWin" - Abandoning Google Search for DuckDuckGo - <AUTHOR> http://www.one37.net/blog/2012/1/24/duckduckwin.html <comment><USER2> I switched to DuckDuckGo about a month back after challenging myself to "switch for a week". I didn't think I'd survive and I still use Google search a bit, however, for the most part I do all my searching through DDG.

The accuracy of DDG is not as good as that of Google, that's for sure, however it is good enough a lot of the time. Strangely, DDG is actually superior for accessing Google's non-web-search services. It's quicker to type "!gm London, UK" than press your homepage button, click "Maps", then search. Same goes for Google News and Google Shopping. And, if you can't find what you're looking for on DDG, you can just type "!g" before your search to check Google instead.

Highly recommend people give it a go - just for a week. You might like it :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wholeheartedly agreed. The !bang feature is fantastic.</comment></comment>


This is very, very cool  - <AUTHOR> http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com/

<comment><USER2> Not to self boast but it has been posted before. It is however a very impressive website.

Curious, why didn't the submission page find the old post?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1646856>

<comment><USER3> That's weird - possibly because this listing was for <http://thewildernessdowntown.com> while the first was for <http://www.thewildernessdowntown.com> (note the missing www. subdomain).</comment></comment>


Why I'm Willing to Pay a Premium for Security, Privacy, and Peace of Mind - <AUTHOR> https://tirania.org/blog/archive/2020/Aug-28.html <comment><USER2> This is an exercise in self-validation because author has invested into an ecosystem. The examples are cherry picked, and motivations are invented to justify author's own bias, while ignoring all the evidence that would discredit the arguments. Notice additionally how the legal 'mitigation' is assumed to be flawless and can only ever be used against bad actors, it's the classic cartel defense of "their store their rules". Think _very_ carefully to when you saw a similar set of behaviors and what impact those had on the technology ecosystem.

This is a legal between two greedy, monopolistic bullies. It is not necessary to pick sides, and it baffles me that so many commenters feel the need to do so. Neither company cares for you; their interests may sometimes _align_ with yours, and they will exploit whatever means necessary, market whatever features necessary to focus your attention on those specific attributes. But make no mistake that their first duty is to their investors.

No dear author, I disagree that you are paying for any of those virtuous virtues that you tout. You are paying to enable a terrible set of behaviors which you are unable to forgive in another company, while you advertise your iBlinders™ to the readers.

<comment><USER3> I think you were a bit unfair because this is Miguel de Icaza, Google him up. He has probably invested (both in money directly and/or programming hours) into EVERY ecosystem you can think of in the last 25 years, paid and unpaid ones.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. Coming from Miguel, this has 100x the weight of some random schmoe on the internet. Tons of respect for what he's done over his career, and his position on technology and freedom issues.

<comment><USER5> >and his position on technology and freedom issues.

In the linked article he is cheerleading in favour of closed-off platforms, and promotes ceding control of your software to a third party as a good thing.

But even before this Miguel de Icaza had no integrity left to speak of in my opinion. Some random schmoe actually would have been more believable.

<comment><USER6> Well, the alternative we all face is ceding control to many various hidden, anonymous, and often malicious actors. Thereis a lot at risk: your privacy, avoidance of falsified information, your possessions. I am all for closing that off.

<comment><USER7> >Thereis a lot at risk: your privacy, avoidance of falsified information

Like Facebook Google and Amazon?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I completely understand the argument here, but the problem is that there is no other option. I think that there is a middle ground here if Apple allowed users or apps (i.e. a secondary app store) to install other apps without going through the Apple app store. If you want to stay in Apples walled-garden you have that choice, otherwise, install your own apps.

There are arguments about how well this works in the Android ecosystem, but I think that simply having the ability to do it, even if inconvenient is a world of difference than being beholden to a single entity. Imagine if Windows only allowed you to install apps from its app store. You could make all the same arguments that it should be able to do this just as you would for the Apple store.

<comment><USER9> _> If you want to stay in Apples walled-garden you have that choice, otherwise, install your own apps._

That's not the only option here — you could also just use an Android phone to begin with.

I'm a happy iPhone user and the fact that it _is_ a closed ecosystem is part of the reason why... I'm happy to pay that premium (both in cost and flexibility). I don't want my phone crashing because some developer pushed out a buggy update and they didn't want to pay the iOS developer fee.

<comment><USER10> You can be perfectly happy so long as the app you rely on is available. If Apple decides to axe it ( _cough_ Hey _cough_ ) you and the developer are at their mercy. It doesn't matter that you could've bought an Android to begin with. The rules are changing while you're holding onto a device and that should not be possible.

<comment><USER9> I like to play Fortnite with my kids. I hook up an Xbox controller and play on my iPad Pro. One kid is on a Switch, the other on an Xbox. As of yesterday, I can't play with them. I very much miss that experience.

However, I still support Apple's decision to pull them from the App Store. Why? Because I don't want there to be another mechanism for in-app purchases on iOS that isn't subject to parental controls. I love my kids, but there is no way that they should be able to buy anything from an App that I haven't approved.

Note: I'm _sure_ this would never happen with my kids as they know better and we've discussed the perils of in-app purchases and avoiding installing games they see in ads. But their accounts are locked down, just the same.

<comment><USER10> I absolutely agree with Apple's decision to pull the app. However I don't agree that you should be forced to use the App store. If Epic had the choice maybe parents wouldn't let their children play because of the lack of parental control. That would be a good thing, since that's actually market competition at work. As it is now, Epic's model isn't even allowed to fail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Since apps run under a "sandbox" that limits what they can do, you do not > need to reinstall your iPhone from scratch every few months because things > no longer work.

One thing I really wish, is that this would apply to all apps that ship with iOS as well. That you'd be able to remove any application from your phone and reinstall it, including things like Camera, Notes, Messages, Calendar, Wallet, etc, etc. I realize that this is probably not feasible, because these included apps might be integrating with the system in a deep way. But it'd be really nice if it was possible. As it stands, Photos on my phone is consuming a lot of storage space from photos that were removed months ago. The only path forward in order to reclaim my storage is to do a factory reset – I just haven't gotten around to it yet because I have some device-only data that I need to save elsewhere first.

And furthermore, in this way, if I could replace some of the built-in apps along with their integrations, with custom alternate apps of my own. But this I think will never happen. Still, it is the one thing I wish iOS supported. So that I could for example use a custom camera app directly from the lock-screen instead of only being able to use the built-in camera app from there.

<comment><USER12> Apps that you can remove.

[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208094](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT208094)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I totally agree with Icaza's points and they are the reason I'm still an Apple happy customer but there's another side to this that of all the players that could fight Apple it just happened that Epic was the first one to gather momentum (and have the actual balls). What I am saying is that it's a bullies fight and just because the one pointing fingers is an old dirty bully at the school yard we can't ignore the uncompetitive bully Apple is right now. It's easy to forget this after all the arguments of the article.

<comment><USER13> very true and this scenario can play out like this, when Google is broken up and we are left with only Apple for mobile solution, what do you think Apple will do then if not checked right now ? If we are looking at a future of Apple only mobile phones then it is good to check em.

<comment><USER14> What reasonable scenarios do you see that would lead to a world where only Apple made smartphones?

<comment><USER13> Google being broken up

<comment><USER14> So if Google broke up (and you give this a high probability of occurring?) you think every smartphone manufacturer besides Apple would fold?

<comment><USER13> yeah because you lose Google Maps, Gmail etc etc....all the other services that make Android. Without that all those other manufacturers are making bricks.

Google is facing anti-trust with the DOJ looking to split them up, so its a very certain future.

That future is already there with tablets and smartwatches

<comment><USER14> Ok, so in your scenario it's not a break up. But a nuclear strike. Everything Google has ceases to exist if this happens and no one else steps up to take over or fill the gaps?

There are no other email providers? There are no other map providers?

<comment><USER13> email sure, who else other than Apple maps comes close to Google Maps ?

<comment><USER14> Maybe Open Street Map? But if your fear is that Android would die without Google Maps I'm reasonably confident a replacement could be found that isn't an Apple hardware device.

The same is true for the other services that Google provides.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Non-quantitative security arguments are nonsense and really need to stop.

"Consider the iPhone. The hardware, operating system, and applications were designed with everything a security professional loves in mind. Even so, modern systems are too large and too complex to be bullet-proof."

That statement, and many others like it in the article, leads you to believe that the systems are good, but provides no actionable information other than a hedge saying that the system is imperfect. How imperfect is it? What is a viable threat? What quantitative effect do the mitigations have? Without this type of information it is just parroting content-free marketing speak.

Here is actionable information. Bug bounties correlate strongly to the cost of discovery for a class of attack. Therefore, Apple thinks it takes less than $1M to create a remote no-install zero-click kernel arbitrary code execution [1]. If you need one click, then $250K. If you need an install, then $150K. Given the nature of software, after such an attack is discovered it can be deployed in bulk with minimal extra effort, so you really need to divide the cost over the number of targets that can feasibly be attacked to evaluate the "marginal cost per attack". How widely you think a remote no-install zero- click attack can be distributed will tell you what that number is.

To provide an example of such an attack here is a post-mortem done by Google Project Zero of 5 exploit chains being exploited for 2.5 years before discovery [2]. They mention that the sites received thousands of visitors per week, so a conservative estimate would be 130k visitors/5 exploits for an average of 26k targets per exploit. Assuming this falls under the first category of attack, that means the marginal cost to fully compromise an iPhone is ~$40.

So, the total effect of every mitigation they do is raising the cost of exploiting to $40/iPhone which is not secure by any objective metric.

[1] [https://developer.apple.com/security- bounty/](https://developer.apple.com/security-bounty/)

[2] [https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-very- deep-d...](https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-very-deep-dive- into-ios-exploit.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> "In the battle over the security and privacy of my phone, I am happy to pay a premium knowing that my information is safe and sound, and that it is not going to be sold to the highest bidder."

Meanwhile, "Secret Service Bought Phone Location Data from Apps, Contract Confirms". [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jgxk3g/secret-service- pho...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jgxk3g/secret-service-phone- location-data-babel-street)

<comment><USER17> Um, that would tend to support de Icaza's argument, no?

The app in question would presumably be denied by Apple.

<comment><USER16> > The app in question would presumably be denied by Apple.

Why would you presume that? How would Apple even know?

Many popular apps collect location data, and this is allowed on iOS. Once the location data has left the device and been transmitted to 3rd party services, Apple has no control or knowledge of what happens to the data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This article does not answer the question how Apple's privacy and security model would be impacted by 3rd party stores. In fact, there already have been 3rd party stores with business certificates and you can sideload without a developer subscription, although the app will stop working after a week. None of this has impacted the App Store model so far. I have yet to hear a good argument that this will be the case.

<comment> abc-xyz Because most people are not tech-savvy and will accidentally end up installing malware and whatnot?

I've had to help factory reset quite a few Android phones because they were being spammed with sex ads notifications and the search engine was being hijacked (wouldn't be surprised if they had also been infected with keyloggers and secretly uploading photos and such).

<comment><USER10> As I said these issue already exists with sideloading and private App Stores. Some of those issues are alleviated with the OS model, which simply doesn't allow to change the search engine and install keyloggers. If someone chooses to leave the App Store and be vulnerable to issues such as sex ad notifications and secretly uploading photos the issue should be how it's communicated. I haven't used an Android device in a while, but the last time I used one it was a simple dialog and you could install whatever you like. On the Mac you have to open the settings and permit every unsigned application if gatekeeper is active. Something like this seems like a reasonable solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> That's fine, Miguel. But it should be a choice. Apple's market share is large enough to have them forcibly unbundle their app store and OS businesses (like Microsoft and IE in the precambric era).

<comment><USER14> Is your position (that they should unbundle the App Store and OS) based on their market share or actual principles?

As in, do you think that console platforms should also unbundle those things to make it easier (or possible in some cases) to run separate app stores and/or apps on them?

Because, and maybe this is just me, I really don't see what market share matters here. Certainly not as a comparison to MS of the 90s.

<comment><USER19> I see an obvious benefit to having unbundled console stores -- if I could buy the game from steam, I could run the same game on whatever console I have

Then. They'd have to compete on the quality of the console itself, rather than exclusives or moats based on sunk costs in owning copies of games

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This article seems to simply use "iOS shouldn't be Windows" as a strawman for "iOS must be iOS." GNU/Linux doesn't have the garden walls of iOS and yet I somehow don't feel any need for an antivirus or any of the other Windows problems this blog seems to be erroneously alleging are inherent to freedom- respecting OSs.

<comment> abc-xyz Perhaps because targeting Linux users isn't worth the trouble? It would be trivial to implement malware on Linux (e.g. here's Valve accidentally deleting people's home directory [https://github.com/valvesoftware/steam-for- linux/issues/3671](https://github.com/valvesoftware/steam-for- linux/issues/3671)).

Windows, and increasingly Android, suffers from viruses because they're valuable targets. If Apple made it possible to install apps from third-party stores or websites then they'd similarly suffer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The problem with his argument is that his premise just isn't true. TikTok is still able to spy on the user, so we are not much safer in an Apple world.

<comment><USER22> Yes, and Apple considers any ability for any app to do that to be a security flaw that needs to be fixed.

Why shit like this hasn't gotten apps pulled annoys me :-/

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you don't know who Miguel de Icaza is, read this first. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Icaza)

It will put his thoughts (and those of uninformed commenters) in a very different perspective.

<comment><USER23> Thank you so much for posting this link. I already knew he'd written Mono, the open-source implementation of .Net, but am now in awe at seeing his many other accomplishments, such as starting the GNOME project and making major contributions to initial RAID and Sparc support in Linux.

Thanks Miguel!

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Great, but this really doesn't anything to do with the conflict.

As a parent concerned with his children being coerced into in-app payments likely tied to his credit card, he gets utility out of Apple being the go- between, even though .. he pretty much complains that he wants it to be more stringent, so they aren't really delivering the utility he wants for that 30%.

As an adult, if I want to put my own credit card into a vendor's website, what utility is Apple providing except for slight convenience? I don't even keep my credit card attached to my Apple ID because I don't like how they batch payments and always seem to want to pull one 3 days before payday. I go onto Amazon or other sites and buy digital gift cards which I preload into my Apple ID.

And for this _extreme_ inconvenience, I pay a 30% premium. Funk Dat.

BTW, because someone will come here and say, "Why in the world would you do such a convoluted thing?", an apple payments support tech suggested it to me. In fact they outright recommended against anyone attaching a payment method, ever.

</comment><comment><USER25> Apples rules are arbitrary and protect nobody, probably don't even Apple itself.

</comment><comment><USER26> Please Apple continue on this this path and force every bit of tracking to be opt in through very annoying popups and hopefully decimate the whole targeted advertising segment and this greed of extracting as much data as possible from devices.

</comment><comment><USER27> It is amazing that while Americans are trusted to hold guns, they can't be trusted to run apps. Isn't pulling triggers much more dangerous than clicking on OK buttons?

</comment><comment><USER28> This is why I started building my latest project.[1] I want better privacy from all digital services (that use my personal email for logging in), and better security for my inbox (eliminating spam, phishing attempts, malware).

A world where digital advertising fades away, and security and privacy are always prioritized, can't come fast enough.

[1] [https://owlmail.io](https://owlmail.io)

</comment><comment><USER29> I would and do pay a premium for all of those things too, but that doesn't mean I'm ok with not being able to buy books directly in the Kindle app, or genuine (sandboxed) terminal emulators not being allowed on iOS for arbitrary reasons. Several of Apple's policies around the App Store are user hostile and prevent innovation, and have nothing to do with security or privacy.

</comment><comment><USER30> Personally I understand the arguments of Apple's ecosystem being locked down.

But I think Apple and Google both have a significant revenue stream from world society as most people use smart phones.

Like AT&T and RCA of days gone by they need to have their free money spout regulated.

They've clearly made billions but that 30% cut needs to go down. At least that's what I see as a solution.

Something like 7 to 10%. Thoughts?

<comment><USER31> I don't think we should get to tell Apple what the % is, they're a private company.

However, i am ok with adjusting the amount we charge them for use of public services - their reliance on the rule of law, that we're not at war etc. etc. becomes more valuable in absolute terms to a company, the more payments it accepts within a jurisdiction.

I think it's totally fair to invoice for govt services based on the value of them to the company.

To be clear this would not be like taxes on profits, i'm proposing an invoice against receipts.

<comment><USER9> That would introduce a level of red-tape that would make any bureaucrat faint. Can you imagine billing any company for the cost of government services directly? Billing for the "rule-of-law"? That would be a completely unworkable system.

Plus, if you did this, what would stop the company from increasing their percentage in order to pay for your new taxes?

But what you're describing is the logic behind a progressive income tax. The more money you make — the more important the system (rule of law, security, etc) becomes to you, so the more you should pay. At least, that's the theory...

<comment><USER31> >> That would introduce a level of red-tape

        Jurisdiction X hereby decrees the tariffs for tax year 20/21 as:

        Receipts not more than $X = tariff of $Y
        Receip...

    ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Too bad he gobbles up Apple's speech... he should know by now that actions speak loader then words.

</comment><comment><USER33> Author works for Microsoft: company which ships un-removable spyware in their flagship product (Windows).

<comment><USER34> Do you have thoughts on the merits of his argument or only ad hominem attacks?

<comment><USER33> I prefer not to argue with hypocrites - it's a fruitless endeavor 100% of the time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Given people like pointing out that consoles lose money on each sale, I wonder what the profit margin of an iOS device is over the average supported life time?

Major Android vendors selling at similar prices to Apple, who don't even have to pay for OS development seem unable to afford to provide support for 6 months, let alone The 5 years Apple supports a device.

What is the margin after 5 years of support?

Who is paying to provide that support, if not the companies that are benefiting from the platform, and that platform's longterm support and consistency?

</comment><comment><USER35> It's the developer who pays, not the user. The price is set according to demand. If Apple takes 30% from that or not doesn't influence what price you can set because it doesn't influence what people are willing to pay.

The author is not paying any premiums. He is happy that the developers pay them for him and he doesn't care at all that the creators now make 30% less and have no way to go around that system.

<comment><USER36> Surely the developers charge more and in the end it's the users that pay more?

I mean that's literally what Epic was doing.

<comment><USER35> No, not surely. This is basic economics. The price isn't influenced by what it costs to produce. The price is set according to what users are willing to pay. What users are willing to pay is influenced by how much money they think it's worth, how much money they have and how costly other options are.

In case of Fortnite there is no competition (no one else can offer that game and there isn't really any similar option) so additional money comes purely from developer's pocket. Sure, they could have been charging more to make a point or because they think iOS users are willing to pay more in general but the users don't really care where 30% of the price goes to. It doesn't influence their buying decisions at all.</comment></comment></comment>


New method better than Gini at measuring economic inequality - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/26/wonkabroad/

<comment><USER2> GoodBadStats praises the intuitive nature of the Palma, but has concerns about the rest of the argument in favor of it.

Especially the part where the author argues Palma can safely ignore the middle 50% because it never changes, but then says Gini is over-sensitive to changes (which apparently don't exist?) in the middle 50%.

Some comments here: [http://goodstatsbadstats.com/?p=1836](http://goodstatsbadstats.com/?p=1836)

The Hoover Index / Robin Hood Index is another interesting measure: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_index](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_index)

Probably good to have several measures kicking around, or maybe any one of them is just as good as any other. If there's a relationship in some study between one of these indices and some other factor (famers per capita, land area of streams, whatever), it's unlikely to suddenly disappear just because you use another index to approximate the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER3> _The Gini overweights changes in inequality that happen in the middle of the income distribution, which is exactly not what we should be looking at, given how stable the middle is._

Except when it isn't.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure why it even matters that its supposedly "better"; its not like you can't look at multiple measures, or that distribution is something simple that can be adequately measured by a single unidimensional measure.

Palma _intentionally_ obscures all inequality within a certain range to focus on the extremes, Gini is sensitive across the whole spectrum. Why not use both together?</comment>


Redis Labs Modules License Changes - <AUTHOR> https://redislabs.com/blog/redis-labs-modules-license-changes/ <comment><USER2> As an outspoken critic of the original change, I applaud this move. I still wish it were open source, but this solves a lot of the confusing nomenclature I took offense with. Kudos.

</comment><comment><USER3> Good move. Getting rid of the naming confusion, and apparently clarifying what's covered and what's not, which seems to remove concerns around consulting etc.</comment>


It's Time To Kill Google Voice - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/its-time-to-kill-google-voice-508956713?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

<comment><USER2> One app that makes Google Voice much more useful is GrooveIP ([https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gvoip&...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gvoip&hl=en)). It routes calls over VoIP instead of using your phone's minutes. It also makes using a tablet to make calls feasible.</comment>


Ask HN: Communication platforms for intermittent disaster relief? - <AUTHOR> Are there good platforms for disaster relief that work well with intermittent connectivity (i.e. spotty 3G/4G/WiFi/LoRa)?
How can major networks improve in terms of e.g. indicating message delivery status, most recent sync time, sync throttling status due to load, optionally downloading images/audio/video, referring people to local places and/or forms for help with basic needs, etc?
What are some tools that app developers can use to simulate intermittent connectivity when running tests? <comment><AUTHOR> How can people find local, legitimate sources for information if they're not already following local disaster relief authorities?</comment>


The EU signs up to ACTA, but French MEP quits in protest - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-01/26/eu-signs-up-to-acta

<comment><USER2> meanwhile in Poland

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ACTA_protest_by_members_of...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ACTA_protest_by_members_of_the_Polish_parliament.jpg)

<http://m.onet.pl/_m/97f16e62164319581cc1a44fd071c744,9,1.jpg>

[http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&#...](http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?act=url&hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pl&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.tvn24.pl/0,1732815,0,1,admin1-chroni- dziurawa-cybergranice- polski,wiadomosc.html&usg=ALkJrhhrOcqCdPhvYmxPLPtEikPea_HvZA)

[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&js...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tvn24.pl%2F-1%2C1732830%2C0%2C1%2C22_latek- zatrzymany-za-atak-na-strone-premiera%2Cwiadomosc.html&act=url)

</comment><comment><USER3> It bears repeating: ACTA as a treaty has been ratified, but the legislative part of ACTA has not been ratified.

You can:

1\. Donate to the EFF - <https://supporters.eff.org/donate>

2\. Write to your MP and MEP - the Wired story has a lot of good points that can be used in a message. Remember paper beats email, but email still counts. Google "find your mep" for many services

3\. Link to the Wired story.

<comment><USER4>
         ACTA as a treaty has been ratified, but the
         legislative part of ACTA has not been ratified

Could you please explain the difference?

<comment><USER3> A treaty is an agreement that happens because diplomats acting on behalf of governments have reached agreement. So for ACTA, the treaty has been drawn up and agreed by various diplomats including those representing the EU.

But these diplomats cannot legislate. The treaty only comes into force when the various parliaments pass laws committing their countries to the treaty's provisions.

<comment><USER4> So I don't get this - who authorizes a diplomat to go forth and sign the treaty?

The country's government? So this issue was discussed in all 22 countries that signed it? When?

<comment><USER5> ACTA was discussed and developed almost entirely in secret over the last couple of years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> EDIT: I think that my conclusion in this message is wrong.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment>----

[PDF / page 8] [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&#...
PES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_European_Socialists and The Green Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Green_Party voted for ACTA.
EPP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_People%27s_Party voted against ACTA.
... and people call the right wing "evil fascists who eat babies".

<comment><USER7> According to the text in the votewatch report you linked, the European Peope party voted against the proposition from the left in order to get their version to pass : "However, to win on this issue, the EPP and ECR first had to reject the joint Motion for Resolution proposed by the centre-left. The EPP and ECR managed to win thanks to 11 defections from ALDE and 13 from S&D members (the entire British Labour delegation)."

<comment><USER6> I think you might be right. Anyway, my distrust for ALL politicians still remains.

The left-wing's MO is "think of the children" while the right-wing's is "we must fight terrorism". But in the end they all have the same goal.

<comment><USER8> Seriously? Maybe this is a European thing, but conservatives pull "TEH CHILDREN" just as much as anyone else.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Did Apple Just Backdoor Their Way Into the Game Console Market? - <AUTHOR> http://www.148apps.com/news/apple-backdoor-game-console-market

<comment><USER2> What would really make this is split-screening instead of mirroring, with the device pushing one image to the tv while keeping another on the handheld. Then the iPhone/Pad could show a controller interface (like the lower screen on the DS) while the game proper was playing on the tv screen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like that's actually officially supported. Developers have the option to render different things on each screen.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Can't Sleep App – AI composed music sleep app for iOS - <AUTHOR> https://cantsleepapp.com/landingpagebetalaunch/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN, Founder here. Can't Sleep is an iOS app that helps individuals to fall asleep faster and wake up feeling fresh. This is achieved through music which is easy, convenient and has no side effects. What makes this app unique is that you can enable/disabled elements of the music, and this personalisation makes the music more effective. The music is then composed in realtime using algorithms, so it never repeats, never gets boring and is never distracting. The app has been presented at the Australian Music Psychology Society, run through CEA's Collider Accelerator and has won an award from MIT. If you decide to download the app, let me know what you think here -> [https://goo.gl/RgHrXZ](https://goo.gl/RgHrXZ) Now that I'm done with the pitch, my about me and why? I've been working on Can't Sleep App part-time for the past 4 years now. I have a research interest in how everyday use of music can improve quality of life, and a background in generative/interactive music. Currently I am doing my PhD in music psychology specializing in music as a sleep aid (with the app as a side hustle). I built Can't Sleep because I think there are opportunities to create music that is different from what we usually hear. Specifically, combining evidence based music, interactive music and music as a "tool"…and also maybe biofeedback/ externally trigger music. I personally really look forward to the development of this niche as the technology & music research improve, and as we as listeners shift our mindset around how we engage with music. What do you think?</comment>


Working with HTML5 & CSS3 - <AUTHOR> http://stuff.contrast.ie/talks/newwebtech2010/

<comment><USER2> I decided to dive in to HTML5 and CSS3 in my last project and I'm really happy I did so. So much so, in fact, that I won't look back -- at least, not for my own projects.

Previously anything that came out of W3C was more akin to something a company that didn't listen to its customers would produce but it seems like they broke that habit with HTML5. There are some technical details that are still up in the air (i.e. video codec -- but I'm not really sure what the status of that is) but one certainly good quality of HTML5 is that you have to be almost stupid to write non-validating markup.

Also, there are a lot of little things that they implemented that are really valuable to rich apps. For instance, custom data attributes -- which I wrote about a few months ago (herp derp, self promotion: [http://bradhe.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/custom-data- attribute...](http://bradhe.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/custom-data-attributes- are-your-frien/)) -- finally fixes the coupling (or decoupling, actually) issue that has been present in HTML + JS apps until now!

</comment><comment><USER3> There is a bit of bad advice in here. You would want to do

something

something else

yet another thing

This allows you to use _display: inline-block_. If you put each _li_ on a separate line there will be a single space between the elements.

<comment><USER4> Yes, it does. However, there are other, nicer ways of doing this. For example, you could use a comment that is broken over the line. Using tags like that is asking for trouble in editing, particularly if your code is shared.

But this advice was intended more generally. If you look at the code, and indeed the full source in the spec[1], you'll see that this is a coding style used for all elements; even elements that will never be rendered. It is ugly as hell, easy to break, and difficult for many people to parse.

That's why I recommended avoiding it.

1: [http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the- secti...](http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#the-section- element)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting article.

I wish he hadn't dropped "Why the $f not?" line. I'm not offended, but it comes off as unprofessional in otherwise well written content.</comment>


An illegal substance sold legally. - <AUTHOR> http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/16/opinion/la-oe-0516-okrent-prohibition-20100516 <comment><USER2> Good thing they didn't have network TV in 1933. Can you imagine the attack ads against supporters of the 21st Amendment? $congressman is _soft on booze!_ He supports _drunkards_ who destroy families and abuse _your_ children! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

<comment><USER3> Those type of widespread attack ads certainly existed in 1933. Candidates would often run grass roots mobs (for lack of a better word) that would spread that type of dirt (and some occasional violence). I've some some interesting pictures of presidential campaigns in Denver in the 20's and 30's that look suspiciously like a modern day attack ad (with less mushroom clouds).

Politics seems not to have changed much I reckon:)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, it's not that political tactics have gotten dirtier, it's just that distribution has gotten easier.

<comment><USER4> I would argue that politics have actually gotten cleaner (in the US). Violence used to be commonplace in political races, and now are virtually unheard of.

<comment><USER5> Physical violence has, but I've still heard all too many reports of vandalism in political races and not just from the US media. I'm a brit living in Canada and I've heard reports of vandalism in political races in the UK, CA and US; incidentally I've only heard it being committed on left wing supporters.

<comment><USER6> _incidentally I've only heard it being committed on left wing supporters._

I don't know why that is, because I've heard of plenty of harassment and vandalism against conservative supporters (or were they opposed?) of California's Prop 8 as well, but it didn't get much media coverage. I don't believe one can say that either liberals or conservatives are more "enlightened" overall, at least in matters of raw politics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article is based on Okrent's "Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition". There's a fascinating interview with the author on NPR: [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1266133...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126613316)

Specifically, the commentary on the prohibition for racial profiling was especially interesting. With 9% of black adults under correctional supervision [1], a significant portion of whom are there for drug-related charges [2], one might argue that the War on Drugs is even closer to the prohibition than this article suggests.

1: <http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-01.htm> 2: <http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/64>

</comment><comment><USER8> I had to double check which site I was at, those pages look remarkably similar to most made for AdSense fluff content sites. I wonder just how profitable those pages are.

<comment><USER9> I actually disabled ad-block out of curiosity.

I don't understand how people browse without it, now.

<comment><USER10> Most sites don't have ads placed and sized in this obnoxious a manner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The author of that wrote [http://www.amazon.com/Last-Call-Rise-Fall- Prohibition/dp/074...](http://www.amazon.com/Last-Call-Rise-Fall- Prohibition/dp/0743277023) which I heard an interesting interview about on NPR.

From that interview I learned that there is a lot about the politics of the day that I didn't know. For instance did you know that the KKK supported the Suffrage movement (giving women the vote) because they believed women would vote for Prohibition, which could be used to target Catholic immigrant groups? (Immigrants were a major target of the KKK at that time.)

I haven't gotten around to getting that book yet, but it is on my list of books to read.

</comment><comment><USER12> _Then as now, the adaptability of the medical profession was impressive._

To provide better care or to make more money?

<comment><USER13> Yes.

<comment><USER14> You must be a programmer.

<comment><USER13> Guilty as charged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Link is down. Here's another URL that works for me: [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la- oe-0516-ok...](http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la- oe-0516-okrent-prohibition-20100516,0,3951629.story)

</comment><comment><USER16> "Take three ounces every hour for stimulant until stimulated."

This is a great story.

Considering how everything you ingest is a drug (affects you both in mind and body) it's interesting how various substances become "dangerous" over time -- and how that can be reversed.

<comment><USER10> That's a tempting definition of _drug_ , but it's easy to dismiss because then the word would have no meaning. The accepted definition, from m-w.com: _a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body_.

Also, I'm not sure what your overall point is. Alcohol abuse still is considered dangerous now. (I say this as someone who drinks socially.) If you want to point out how cultural attitudes change how various substances are regulated, I don't think just "dangerous" expresses that.

<comment><USER17> That is a problematic definition as well. First, intended by whom? Is alcohol a drug if I drink it to get hammered, and not a drug if I drink it because I'm thirsty? Or is it the intention of the producer that matters, in which case how can any naturally occurring substance be a drug?

Looking past that, wouldn't hair gel or plaster used to make a cast for a broken bone qualify as a drug under that definition?

Maybe the word actually does have less meaning than you suggest. I would suggest the following definition: _any substance included on Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act_.

<comment><USER10> Dictionary definitions are typically not scientific definitions in that they are colloquial and potentially ambiguous.

The definition implies that the substance has to enter the body somehow, so hair gel and plaster are out. As for intention, there's potential ambiguity, but for the most part we know what it means. Word definitions aren't programs, we can settle for "good enough." But the parents definition was, to me, obviously too inclusive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Actually, alcohol has therapeutic value for angina.

</comment><comment><USER19> that's why you guys have 5Liter bottles of booze on walgreens and CVS then.

</comment><comment><USER19> that's why you guys have 5Liter bottles of booze on walgreens and CVS then.

<comment><USER19> ops, that comment belongs <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1358144></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which technology/framework will you choose for a brand new applicaiton? - <AUTHOR>

Let us say if familiarity with a technology stack is not a prerequisite which technology stack will be your choice for a web application. This application needs to integrate with external websites and also needs to be written using minimal investment of money. The application will be used by thousands of users per day. What will your choice? <comment><USER2> I have been doing web since 6 months after the first page was developed I have seen every stack from CGI/C to ROR and for me personally I have not used a better stack than an HTML/JS front end communicating via REST backend. I personally used Java to provide my REST services, but have recently switched over to Clojure. The back end language is not as important as the architecture of the application. I think HTML apps that communicate with REST backends is the cleanest architecture the web has seen for web apps.</comment>


Non Software Startups - <AUTHOR>

HN is focused on CS topics, but I've seen posts from and about startups in all other areas of design and engineering like Makani, TechShop, and SquidLabs.<p>Who here is working/has worked at a non software startup? <comment><USER2> my company Deep Therapeutics is working on automating massage for physical therapy. And there will be software involved too. Right now its one man and a vision.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good luck with it. There seem to be decent statistics on the benefits of various physical therapies and the recovery of patients. I suppose it would be a good pitch to narrow your target down to the most successful areas and methods of treatment (deep tissue massage on the lower back, or what have you) and get an industrial designer to make some sexy sketches of devices.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, actually focused on the problem of carpal tunnel syndrome. Or the set of circumstances that are commonly associated with that diagnosis. Its a very costly and painful problem.

What I am looking to build is a programmable platform that can apply gentle pressure all over a limb and then program that with behaviors that interrupt the phenomena that cause and sustain this problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I just wanted to empathize with you on this one. I went to a Seattle area meet up, and came away loving HN, and the community even more, but I was the only one in the room who wasn't talking about software.</comment>


Alarm as China eases 25-year ban on rhino and tiger parts - happy-go-lucky https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46027702 <comment><USER2> Well, we can see how well the Japanese are doing with their "scientific research" whale killing, which is really bad as they are using it as a excuse to continue the practice. Similar loopholes will be found here, for example: if i capture a rhino and send it to a farm for 1 week, is it now a animal that we can do "research" on? What about 1 month?

<comment><USER3> > Well, we can see how well the Japanese are doing with their "scientific > research" whale killing, which is really bad as they are using it as a > excuse to continue the practice.

The whales they research aren't endangered. Also, other nations and people hunt whales.

> Similar loopholes will be found here, for example: if i capture a rhino and > send it to a farm for 1 week, is it now a animal that we can do "research" > on? What about 1 month?

That's a possibility. But more likely, it'll create more tiger/rhino "farms". Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is debatable just like trophy hunting.

Also, the threat to tigers and rhinos aren't poachers. It's loss of habitat due to human population growth. Where humans live in numbers, it's hard to have tigers and rhinos around because they can easily kill humans. It's why most tigers and rhinos in the world today are in zoos or wildlife enclosures.

<comment><USER4> Is the problem with whaling that whales are endangered, or that they're "too intelligent"? If the latter, is there a similar issue with hunting non-human primates?

<comment><USER5> The problem with whaling it's that whales are an important component of the ocean ecosystem, and killing most of the whales will have dire consequences. Cows and chickens are not part of the natural world and killing then to eat them has no effect other than ending an animal's life.

It's not about endangerment, it's about recognizing that the earth is a fragile system that we're pushing closer to the edge with every extinction. We have a responsibility to our descendants to take care of their planet for them until they can arrive.

<comment><USER6> >It's not about endangerment, it's about recognizing that the earth is a fragile system that we're pushing closer to the edge with every extinction. We have a responsibility to our descendants to take care of their planet for them until they can arrive.

Except this literally doesn't apply to Japan. The whales Japan is hunting are not endangered, and there is no proposed mechanism whereby Japan's whale hunting causes ecological harm. The IWC's own scientists recommended the whale hunting moratorium be removed around 1994.

<comment><USER4> If people think whales shouldn't be killed for moral/aesthetic/religious/whatever reasons, and can convince everyone else to agree (presumably at the level of nation states), that's fine even if they're not all endangered or critical to the ecosystem. I just want people to be honest about why they don't want it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> We've got a president trying to actively dismantle the EPA and remove the protections on endangered species. We were the primary pressure being applied to China - why would they stop now?

I would imagine some in the upper echelons of their government know that it's all completely bogus, but if it keeps the people happy, I doubt they care.

<comment><USER8> Your suspicion seems grounded in fact. Traditional Chinese medicine was pushed by Mao because there weren't enough real doctors. He didn't even believe in it, and I imagine the current leaders don't either.

<comment><USER9> And now it and other "natural" cures are being pushed by supposedly educated doctors.

My wife showed up from PT with the signs of cupping. If you think that's bad, let me terrify you further: _insurance company paid for it_

<comment><USER10> Your comment confused me a little bit as it sounded like it was done without her knowing but I would think you would notice that. "Cupping", for those like me who had never heard of it, involves putting devices on your body (There are different sizes, shapes, and materials) that "suck" up some of your skin into the vessel. It's supposed to be good for you but stinks to high heaven of BS (and the lack of any evidence to prove it helps confirms that).

You can google for the images (it's semi-NSFW).

<comment><USER9> The concept that in NYC a licensed physical therapist working out of a medical office can peddle this shit as a medical procedure and bill it under health insurance is ridiculous.

<comment><USER8> I'm not surprised. Look at how widespread chiropractors (and chiropractic coverage under insurance) are, for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Chinese Panda conservation is a kind of 'soft power'. Being a place with Tigers and Rhinos is large bragging rights that I think they would be Keen to hold. Chinese Medicine can be changed to exclude endangered animals if Chinese Govt are able to handpick religious leaders.

</comment><comment><USER12> Tragedy of the commons problems like environmental issues should really be the main reason for international conflict. It's depressing that it's not.

</comment><comment><USER13> I have very mixed feelings about this. Let me explain:

This move from China is definitely going to bring more incentive for illegal poaching. It's just simple economics: by officially bringing a market back, profits to be made are much greater, and people will find any way to get in on the action.

If, however, if we provide more _legal_ means for people to benefit from the tiger and rhino markets, we could provide enough economic incentive for people to be invested in their survival. The big deal here would be the opportunity for private ownership (rhino and tiger 'farms' basically). People will viciously protect what's theirs from poachers and ensure it's continued existence, especially if there is money to be made by doing so.

If people are allowed to privately own, breed, and sell their tigers and rhinos, I think China's move could actually _facilitate recovery_ for both species.

But is that what China's planning to do? I doubt it given their track record and political philosophies, which means this is going to only make the extinction of tigers and rhino's a bigger problem.

</comment><comment><USER14> Surely China is looking to breed these animals locally rather than chase them around the world? like [https://phasa.co.za/hunting- services/](https://phasa.co.za/hunting-services/)

</comment><comment><USER15> I thought a lot of traditional Chinese culture got run over by the cultural revolution, but this stuff never did. I wonder why.

<comment><USER16> > I thought a lot of traditional Chinese culture got run over by the cultural > revolution

Asking as a Chinese myself, can you point to some examples?

edit: improve formatting

<comment><USER15> I don't really know how to address questions when it comes to the answer of "that's just basic history". Maybe history is wrong but I'm always wary of being expected to make the case that it isn't...

<comment><USER16> What I meant was maybe you can help me by pointing out something in history that was very prosperous before Cultural Revolution but died right after (if I understand "run over" correctly).

<comment><USER15> "pointing out something in history that was very prosperous before Cultural Revolution but died right after" I don't understand what you're trying to say there.

You can google up all sorts of things if you like. I've found it's not worth my time to post basic history, particularly with regards to China on hacker news. Too many accounts that amount to "nuh, uh prove it!" and have nothing else to say.

<comment><USER16> I'm not defending Cultural Revolution here (no body can). However, Googling "lost tradition Cultural Revolution" didn't give me much, I found one NY Times article [0] but it doesn't talk much on the traditions that got lost in this period.

The wikipedia page on Cultural Revolution in both English and Chinese didn't mention any tradition being lost either.

> Too many accounts that amount to "nuh, uh prove it!" and have nothing else > to say.

The burden of proving what you said is true should not be on me. You said something bizarre and got challenged.

[0]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/world/asia/china- cultural...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/world/asia/china-cultural- revolution-explainer.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> China recently re-banned Ivory after too much backlash. Makes sense they would open up a new market to placate the population that believes in this crap. Looks like Yao Ming has to come out of retirement again.

</comment><comment><USER18> The ultra solution is to inject to these animals something harm to human, but no harm to themselves. Which can prevent people hunting them for money.

</comment><comment><USER19> Noooooo!! This is horrible news

</comment><comment><USER20> If you look at global warming, the global rise of fascism, and little things like this it's kind of difficult to avoid thinking someone is trying to orchestrate something very bad for the majority of human kind.

 _" the State Council said powdered forms of rhino horn and bones from dead tigers could be used in "qualified hospitals by qualified doctors"."_

Conspiracy aside, this is impossible, since most of TCM is a nonsensical superstition and anyone using tiger or rhino parts as therapy is de facto unqualified as a doctor (or decent human). At least people will die or suffer for harming these animals, since this "treatment" won't impact the course of their diseases at all.

<comment><USER21> How is this specific thing "very bad for the majority of human kind"?

It's very bad for rhinos and tigers, for sure.

<comment><USER22> It's just a disgusting little ornament on the much larger birthday cake we've got baking in our oven.

To the backdrop of mass die-offs, the rules preventing the extinction of rhinos and tigers are cut by a few power-hungry fools seeking the political support of a few greedy fools who will sell those animals' horns and bones as false cures to a few superstitious fools who believe these worthless tusks and bones have magical powers. It's such dark planetary tragicomedy -- with a focus on "tragic", a kind of satanic genius that even Mikhail Boulgakov couldn't have dreamed up, and it's real.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Bye bye tigers.

Stunning, beautiful creatures. Humanity as a while has decided you're more valuable as soup, or ground up into nostrums and magic potions than you are alive, prowling the wild. You're not the first and you won't be the last.

It's shocking that this is still going on in the modern world.

</comment><comment><USER24> China is the number one threat to the US and to the future of the planet. We ignore it and trade with them out of pure greed. It's immoral and there should be more sense of public shame. Doing business with China makes you an enemy of freedom and the environment. Doing business with them is no different than going out and poaching the endangered rhinos yourself.

<comment><USER25> Doing business with China has also helped lift 500 million people out of extreme poverty in the past 35 years. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China)

<comment><USER24> Some seem to think the goal of all humanity should be to "lift everyone out of poverty." Even if it destroys the planet and leads to massive humanitarian crises and ever greater suffering, putting dollars in wallets, that's the point of it all. Homo economicus.

<comment><USER26> Aren't you using a laptop/phone or something to type this comment on? Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

<comment><USER27> Seriously, every single one of us being on HN is the product of being stupidly lucky to be born where we were and be typing on whatever we are.

Millions of potential Einsteins have lived and died as subsistence farmers or worse throughout human history. If any of us were born fifty thousand years ago we would not be savant geniuses bringing about the agricultural era - <AUTHOR> we even lived to adulthood (highly unlikely) we would have spent our days chasing gazelle to exhaustion to survive just like the rest of mankind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Everyone's got to work harder in the west so we can get back to dominating the earth such that we can impose our scientific value system on the superstitious heathen. /s

All you guys going around saying Chinese traditional medicine is worthless are like all the diplomats flying in to Israel saying that the conflict with the Palestinians is just a land dispute and has nothing to do with religion. You don't believe in anyone's values but your own.

Yeah, I like Rhinos and Tigers and if I had a button that said make sure I can keep seeing rhinos and tigers when I go to the zoo once a year, I'd push it, but if they disappeared my world and the world of most people would be largely unaffected except for watching t.v documentaries about it happening in countries I will never travel to. That's what majorly weirds me out about some animal rights issues. None of this stuff will ever have an impact on your day to day life ever, yet people care so intensely about it. How did we come to intensely value Tigers and Rhinos even though our only interaction with them throughout our life is a couple of minutes during occasional visits to the zoo?

<comment><USER8> The worth of traditional Chinese medicine isn't a matter of values. It's a simple factual question with a simple answer.

<comment><USER29> There's a lot of interests in the plants and fungi, or even some animal extracts, used in traditional Chinese medicine because they often do contain active chemicals that may be used.

It's like traditional remedies in the West: The plants used usually really do have medicinal properties.

(I'm not saying that a rhino horn has any useful properties, though...)

Edit: What's wrong, guys?

<comment><USER30> Once a plant, fungus or animal extract is proven to work (or a compound isolated from it, and that proven to work) it is no longer "traditional medicine". It is simply "medicine".

There is no evidence of any use for tiger penis or rhino horn.

<comment><USER29> > There is no evidence of any use for tiger penis or rhino horn.

I made it clear that I didn't think there was.

You guys need to calm down and put the pitchforks away.

<comment><USER8> Why should we put the pitchforks away? The stuff that works isn't traditional medicine, and _at best_ traditional medicine harms people by keeping them away from actual treatment. Its role in driving tigers and rhinos closer to extinction is merely a more obvious, albeit less serious, example of the problems it causes.

<comment><USER29> > Why should we put the pitchforks away?

Lynch away. It's easier than thinking.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Introducing Our Bangalore Region - <AUTHOR> https://www.digitalocean.com/company/blog/introducing-our-bangalore-region-blr1/?refcode=09ae780dba92&utm_campaign=Referral_Invite&utm_medium=Referral_Program&utm_source=CopyPaste <comment><USER2> We've run a latency check from few countries to all DigitalOcean datacenters just now from our CloudPerf last mile monitoring ([http://cloudperf.speedchecker.xyz](http://cloudperf.speedchecker.xyz)) . If anyone is interested to see which datacenter to chose. New datacenter in Bangalore no suprises there works pretty well from India. Also, connectivity from Middle East such as UAE is better than current connectivity to Europe. See PDF here : [http://bit.ly/1UhcfAO](http://bit.ly/1UhcfAO)

<comment><USER3> How is it that latencies from India to Bangalore is 187 ms, while from Singapore is 130 ms and from UAE is 143 ms? Am I interpreting the numbers wrong?

<comment><USER4> I'm in New Delhi, getting 54ms to Bangalore, 84ms to Singapore and 304ms to London.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> News of the day for me. Been a satisfied Digital Ocean Customer for over 2-3 years now. Cheaper services have emerged but the awesome customer service has kept me hooked.

<comment><USER6> The "cheaper" services are those for rent a few dedicated servers - often old generation, and run WHMCS for billing and SolusVM for control, the first it's a matter of time until your private information is leaked, the second only a matter of time until your VM is rooted, do a search for all the comical security issues of reccent years. DigitalOcean or any provider that avoid the trio of tripe WHMCS, SolusVM, cPanel are worth every extra penny, although in this case DO is a cheap as they come.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well ahead of the other major players. Well done.

<comment><USER8> Happy to beat AWS to India ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> awesome !

quite surprised on how they are able offer a dedicated IP and 1TB bandwidth for $5 in Bangalore.

<comment><USER8> We worked very hard with our bandwidth providers to be able to provide the same pricing structure in India as in all of our other regions. It's taken us close to 2 years from first initially investigating the possibility of a datacenter in India to finally getting one launched.

We're very excited about it! =]

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Moisey for such a amazing Infra. It's just perfect time for us as we are going to launch our production services within one week.

<comment><USER8> Awesome! =]

We timed it just for you ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Waiting for DO's storage service as well. :)

<comment><USER8> Will be here before you know it =]

Our beta test is in full swing with customers who opted in and we're constantly adding new customers into the beta test in the order in which they subscribed to it.

So this will be rolling out very soon =]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Traceroutes from 3 agents in India, unfortunately all 3 are in Bangalore. : [https://pulse.turbobytes.com/results/574f0cd7ecbe406cc400157...](https://pulse.turbobytes.com/results/574f0cd7ecbe406cc4001574/)

Surprising that for AS24309 and AS17488 (Both TATA upstream) it goes via Delhi, so inefficient.

<comment><USER8> If you have any latency issues please open a support ticket so that our network engineering team can take a look at it. There maybe some additional peering points that we need to add.

Thanks!</comment></comment>