Minecraft creator says he's canceled talks for Oculus Rift version - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2014/03/25/minecraft-creator-cancels-talks-oculus-rift-version-facebook-creeps/ <comment><USER2> > "Facebook creeps me out."

Whether or not you agree with his decision, having Notch pull away from talks with you creates an instant credibility "situation".

It's also noteable that Notch had been meeting with the Oculus team just two weeks ago[0], was tweeting about them in rather gushing terms[1] and seemed incredibly inspired to work on VR ideas[2].

He is now the personification of the a near universal feeling of betrayal in the community. Will be interesting to see how this develops.

[0] [https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/443541395543162880](https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/443541395543162880)

[1] [https://twitter.com/notch/status/443461570195378177](https://twitter.com/notch/status/443461570195378177)

[2] [https://twitter.com/notch/status/446312677745254400](https://twitter.com/notch/status/446312677745254400)

<comment><USER3> Heh, from Carmack's twitter 1m ago: [https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/448629403740692481](https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/448629403740692481)

 _For the record, I am coding right now, just like I was last week. I expect the FB deal will avoid several embarrassing scaling crisis for VR._

Glad to see Carmack is still being Carmack.

EDIT: By the way, if anyone is wondering why people are having a negative reaction to this Facebook deal, I think one way to understand it is to watch this video fullscreen and try to imagine any way that Facebook could add to the experience, or at least not detract from it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DGZc0Dd9Hc#t=5s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DGZc0Dd9Hc#t=5s)

It's hard to.

<comment><USER4> nah, all the angst is because far too many nerds like to think they "own" up and coming cool technology even if they are not even involved beyond having read about it. When it goes to company that the clique no longer favors, usually after incredible success or the unwashed masses show up, then they act as if the world collapses.

It happens so often many of us just laugh if not smirk the whole time we watch the familiar process play itself out. Eventually they learn they are not the center of the universe.

<comment><USER5> This is upsetting because it means Facebook is building the software platform for the Oculus, not enthusiast developers or hundreds of independent startups. This has economic impact, and it's personally disappointing for anybody who gets excited about building VRUI.

Or, yeah, angst.

<comment><USER6> _Facebook is building the software platform for the Oculus_

The core services sure but why wouldn't it be like FB in general(full of third party apps and games)?

<comment><USER7> And how many developers have found success dealing with the FB APIs and platform?

There's a reason people only integrate with FB to try and take traffic, and even then they become the customer paying for ads. It's not worth your time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _" And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."_

I'm guessing that pretty much sums up the reaction of everyone who backed the initial kickstarter. Sounds like a serious lapse of "dance with the one who brung ya" to me.

<comment><USER9> When I said that it was silly to simply donate money to a commercial venture without gaining any stake in it, they called me a naysayer. Who's saying nay now?

<comment><USER8> You are quite right, of course. But kickstarter is a brand new animal in the world of products and financing. There aren't any laws or even any concrete social norms around it yet. Perhaps people should "know better' but I'm not sure that's helpful.

In the absence of laws or codified rules we should expect to fall back on _manners_. What Oculus did feels bad because its _rude_. At the very least, they should recognize that they are in uncharted territory. A bunch of random strangers gave them gifts because they believed in the vision. If that vision turns into a multi-billion dollar payday, they might consider giving a few gifts _back_ to those kind strangers. Its not like they don't have a list of them all with contact info and everything. It would be _polite_ to do so.

<comment><USER10> What do you mean there aren't any laws? You hand people money in exchange for their non-legally binding vague promises. This model of exchange has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. Legally speaking Kickstarter is nothing new.

If I meet someone on the street that promises me to try out some new idea and I give them money the courts aren't going to give me any more credence than someone who handed a $50 bill to a bum. How is this in any way a new and novel legal situation?

The only thing that's new is that now due to the Internet more people have the ability to easily give out their money to potentially stupid initiatives.

<comment><USER8> In that reguard, its the same thing it's always been. A gift. Reciprocity is not required by law, only common decency. The new about kickstarter is it seems we're looking for something more than a gift, less than a regulated investment and not quite a sale. That's novel.

<comment><USER10> Maybe you're looking for something more than a gift, but are you actually entitled to more than that? Are you a shareholder in these companies than you fund through Kickstarter? I think not.

So why do you think you have any rights beyond someone who's donating money to a cause that may never pan out?

It's perfectly fine to fund something through Kickstarter, but for some reason it seems that some people doing it think they're entering into a deal that isn't really there.

Generally when you give money through Kickstarter you're _giving it away_ without any string attached, only if the company pans out might you actually get some small gift, not a share of the profit.

What's so hard to understand about that? The model's fine. The problem is that for some reason people donating to it think of themselves as shareholders, not donors.

<comment><USER11> You are not listening to the person you are responding to. Nobody is going to argue that kickstarter backers are entitled to equity in the company, or that they have legal rights beyond what is guaranteed in the kickstarter.

What the person is trying to get across is that in any financial transaction there are non-legal aspects involved. There are human relationships. The world runs on favors as much as it runs on contracts. No single transaction stands alone: you have a personal reputation based on your actions and ethics dictate what other people are going to think of you. If someone gives you a deal on favorable terms, it's generally understood that you will remember that and act accordingly in the future.

It's not specifically outlined and it's not a hard rule, but _in general_ , when people donate to a kickstarter they are doing so under the assumption that the person receiving that money is going to act in a way that doesn't undermine their trust. Turning around and selling your company to Facebook leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths, since the company was built on the money they donated to make it possible. Do they have a _legal_ right to compensation? Of course not. Do they have a right to be emotionally hurt by this? Sure, and it's not unjustified.

<comment><USER10> I'm listening. Are you? The parent of this thread quoted: "And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."

If you didn't chip in ten grand of seed money for that purpose _why didn 't you make that part of the deal then_?

There are no non-legal aspects of financial transactions. When you give someone money they're going to try to retain that money and not give it back to you to the best of their legal ability. There really isn't a non-legal aspect involved in it unless you're a sucker who's willing to get screwed over.

Who cares about the value of their reputation when they've been bought by Facebook for some undisclosed value? Surely that's worth more to them than their reputation, seeing as they now have enough money to never work again with the people who'd care about their reputation.

<comment><USER11> I mean, we're going to disagree on this:

> There are no non-legal aspects of financial transactions. When you give > someone money they're going to try to retain that money and not give it back > to you to the best of their legal ability. There really isn't a non-legal > aspect involved in it unless you're a sucker who's willing to get screwed > over.

This isn't really true, if you plan on doing business for more than one transaction. If you put a poison pill in a contract, guess what, you are blacklisted and can't do any deals in the future because nobody trusts you.

A similar thing is here. People chipped in money with the general expectation that Oculus was not going to sell out on the drop of a hat. It wasn't in the terms obviously but that was the expectation for many people. As such it's pretty much guaranteed for example that Palmer will never be able to do a kickstarter ever again (not that he cares at this point.) But it's a very real consequence, and so even though it was not in the deal in terms of legal consequences it is a very real outcome.

If you look at negotiations and transactions as if they are strictly independent events completely detached from human relationships you're probably a terrible negotiator slash businessperson. It's the difference between law and politics. I'll happily do a deal that isn't exactly a home run for me if I want to be sure I'll have a good relationship with that person for future opportunities.

<comment><USER10> Don't get me wrong. I'm disappointed in Oculus too, and I'd be even more disappointed if I'd actually invested in them.

I'm just saying that people need to learn the hard lesson that when they're "investing" in something like Kickstarter they're not actually "investing" in the general sense. They're making a donation with little or no string attached, at best it's a "you give us money and we send you some doodad in the mail" investment.

So they're effectively donating money with no string attached.

So if you donated money to the company thinking they were going to do X and they actually do Y they _can and will fuck you over_ if they think they can make more money doing Y than they can doing X, accounting for all the alienation from their existing customers from doing not doing X.

So please everyone, if you want to invest in something and you want to have the expectations of an investor make sure you're actually _investing_ , not just _donating_.

<comment><USER12> _when they 're "investing" in something like Kickstarter they're not actually "investing" in the general sense_

I'd say they are only investing in the general sense, but not the specific one. Because, as we've seen with the Kickstarter failures and flake-outs, regardless of the HN-conventional definition of the word, the donors are certainly and legitimately _invested_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can't honestly blame him here.

I doubt the issue is Facebook 'creeping [him] out', so much as it is that it's uncertain what exactly Facebook is going to want out of the deal. Facebook isn't primarily a games company, and it's even less a 3D/desktop games company. There doesn't appear to be any obvious motivation for Facebook to use this tech for its intended purpose, so the question becomes what exactly they _do_ want Oculus Rift for.

I assume Notch is worried about those implications. Will Facebook start demanding that every Oculus Rift game have tight Facebook integration? Will Facebook do something strange, like have Facebook wall updates appear in the game world irrespective of whether it fits into the game? If I were a game developer, this'd creep me out too.

<comment><USER14> >>I doubt the issue is Facebook 'creeping [him] out'

I think that's very much the issue.

Seriously, "virtual reality" and "Facebook" are two things I don't want to think about in the same context. The former is an extremely promising piece of technology that can change the way people work, talk and play. The latter is a gigantic online advertising engine. Put them together and there's only one direction virtual reality can go: a new way to advertise to Facebook users (once they "bring virtual reality to everyone" of course. /eyeroll ).

<comment><USER13> Okay, let me play devil's advocate:

Perhaps Facebook are thinking "What's the one thing that could truly set us apart from all other social media sites, and place a prohibitively high barrier to entry on this otherwise very easy to enter field?", and perhaps the conclusion they've reached is to take social media to the next level, and have it simulate life in virtual reality.

Perhaps Facebook are going to aim to have a FacebookVR some time in the future, where you can meet up with other avatars 'in person' in their virtual reality community?

... Or perhaps this is just a sleazy cash in where they think they can recapture the video-game-enamoured youth market by shoving Facebook into every Oculus Rift game.

<comment><USER15> It'll fail.

The hard lesson over the coming decade or 2 is going to be that UI design for virtual reality tolerates much less intrusion then a desktop PC.

If you're remotely computer literate and organize your desktop the way you like, it hurts when you lose that and it already feels like an invasion when a program does something you don't want it to.

I suspect transposed to virtual reality, people are going to be even less tolerant of trying to force things on them because the experience is _much_ more intimate.

<comment><USER16> > _"... people are going to be even less tolerant of trying to force things on > them because the experience is much more intimate."_

Perhaps not if that's how you 'grew up with it' (so to speak). If you're clever enough and insert yourself into the system early enough then you get to shape all the 'norms' that will eventually emerge.

<comment><USER15> Except that's not what's happening. Virtual reality isn't an abstract interface to a complex piece of hardware - it's intended to mimic your everyday experience of reality.

A lot of UI paradigms will simply disintegrate against that issue. You'll be able to transpose _existing_ ideas into virtual reality by projecting them onto things which are those abstract interfaces (virtual displays etc.), but you're not going to be able to expect to control how the user moves or interacts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> [http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/25/5547584/facebook-buys- oculu...](http://www.polygon.com/2014/3/25/5547584/facebook-buys-oculus-rift- game-developers-reaction)

> Mojang's Notch was more direct in a tweet. "We were in talks about maybe > bringing a version of Minecraft to Oculus," he said. "I just cancelled that > deal. Facebook creeps me out."

> We reached out for further comment, and he clarified his position. "Well, VR > has huge potential in many fields, including social. I can see why Facebook > would want to get in to this," he told Polygon. "As a game developer, > however, I don't ever want to get stuck trying to target a platform not > focused on games. People have made this mistake before."

<comment><USER18> The Android version of Minecraft is very nice. Looking forward to more and better. (My son would love more raising sheep/pugs/cattle game options--he's a rancher at heart)

<comment><USER19> Notch sayed that console versions were almost fully reimplementations rather than portages, so some features will probably go missing for quite a long time.

<comment><USER18> I know. I have normal minecraft on my PC. I like the Android version better. It's too boring to make the items in the crafting table on the PC version.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What company isn't creepy these days? Google, Facebook and Amazon are a few companies of many that come to mind when I think of all the user data they hold, what they know and what they could use it for. Thems the breaks unfortunately.

I admire Notch standing up for what he believes in, but I just can't see how Facebook is creepier than anything else or affects the acquisition of Oculus. It's not like the gaming device is going to give Facebook any extra information it most likely doesn't already have on you.

It is also a known fact that Amazon are trying to move into the gaming space, as are others and what better way to move into a space that is largely undominated than buying the Oculus? If Facebook didn't buy Oculus, someone else would have, maybe Google or Amazon.

People keep iterating the statement, "But Facebook aren't a games company" which reminds me of a few years ago when people (especially Steve Balmer) were saying that Apple isn't a phone company and won't gain any market share.

Facebook have the funds, talent and workforce to go into any area they choose. Look at Google, what did they know about clean energy, driver-less car tech, cloud infrastructure hosting when they started? Nothing. And now look at them, through various acquisitions and talent hires, Google have become an empire and this is what Facebook are doing: building an empire.

Through previous acquisitions Facebook have proven that they leave them mostly untouched. Besides tighter integration with Facebook, what has changed in Instagram since it was acquired by Facebook? Nothing.

If anything, this is great for Oculus, because it means they won't have to repeatedly seek VC capital every time they want to iterate and improve the product: we the consumer win out of this.

The backlash is unwarranted and ridiculous in my opinion. People complaining over nothing.

<comment><USER3> Notch didn't say Facebook acquiring Oculus was creepy. Notch said Facebook is creepy.

 _Besides tighter integration with Facebook, what has changed in Instagram since it was acquired by Facebook? Nothing._

You just pointed out exactly what changed with Instagram, and what everyone is afraid of changing with the Oculus.

"Log in to your Facebook account to continue playing."

<comment><USER21> No no guys Instagram also released direct messaging.

<comment><USER22> Props to them for understanding the benefit in competing with Snapchat. Kind of late in the game, but better late than never?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> 'Within the last hour EVERY friend I know was developing a rift game has canceled. That's around 11 projects just gone.'

from a Reddit comment

<comment><USER24> The backlash is phenomenal. And completely predictable.

<comment><USER25> And ridiculous.

<comment><USER26> And over in a few days/weeks. It's a trend that comes from a gut feeling more than rationalization.

I really believe people will change their mind about Facebook now that Facebook is not just the social network but also Instagram, WhatsApp and Oculus.

<comment><USER27> Facebook is now three things I don't want, plus a thing I don't want anywhere near the things I don't want, so I'll change my mind?

What?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> "And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."

The community raised $2.5 million, which (in part) enabled Oculus to build the first round of prototypes. That's great. I'm sure that the Kickstarter money was burned through a long, long time ago. And as far as I know, Oculus has delivered on every backer reward it offered. So backers got to do two things: they got the rewards they were promised, and they got to support Oculus' growth -- as far as I know, that is exactly the premise of Kickstarter.

So now Oculus has grown, and as Notch himself says:

"They had fixed all the major issues, and all that remained was huge design and software implementation challenges."

Huge challenges. Including scaling up from building limited quantities of developer kits to trying to mass produce consumer hardware. Oculus was helped to get to this point by Kickstarter money, but that money wasn't going to get them any further, and there's still a very large gap between where Oculus is now and where they (and their backers) want them to be.

Do I trust Facebook? No. Would I trust Microsoft or Google or Amazon or Apple? Not really. But I don't need to trust; I can simply wait and see what Oculus does with the money Facebook is giving it, and see what Facebook expects of Oculus in return. It COULD be bad. Or it COULD help Oculus grow. But the feeling of betrayal by the Kickstarter backers seems to me misplaced; you paid money to help Oculus grow and succeed, and they have.

<comment><USER29> There are literally hundreds of product design firms that could have helped them with this that you never hear about, that are well versed in bringing mass produced technology products to market.

Facebook doesn't have any of that: all it has is money, which I am certain that Oculus wouldn't have any trouble raising on its own.

Source: a family member works for one, and is in China right now, producing headphones for Dr. Dre.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> He has my respect. Facebook needs to be shunned by anyone with a brain, until they are a footnote in Internet history. Their privacy violations are unforgivable.

Really disappointed in the Occulus Rift board right now. I guess money overrides any sort of values.

</comment><comment><USER31> You could say the Facebook aquisition... took it down a Notch!

(Sorry, had to do it. I accept the inevitable downvotes as long as I make one person smile)

<comment><USER32> Maybe that new comment system was a good idea after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm wondering, what's John Carmack take on this, he quit idSoftware to join Oculus, which was very open by that time. He always was proponent of openness... right now from a laik perspective it looks it was mistake to leave id.

<comment><USER34> A year or two back Carmack gave the keynote to Quakecon and mentioned his space program ran out of money. He said he promised his wife to not put more money in, until a liquidity event.

This I assume counts as such a liquidity event. He must be a bit conflicted. He gets to restart his pet company, but facebook.

<comment><USER35> Or he could be taking an executive position as the head of Facebook's new fully-capitalized Virtually-Piloted Space Drone division.

I'm only half kidding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "I did a midnight mind dump on the situation. I'm jetlagged and tired, so it might not make sense: [http://notch.net/2014/03/virtual-reality-is-going-to- change-...](http://notch.net/2014/03/virtual-reality-is-going-to-change-the- world/) "

-@notch on twitter.

</comment><comment><USER37> That's a shame, because Minecrift[1] is the most astonishing Oculus experience I've had so far. Just being inside a world I had created, surrounded by peaceful ambience, floating above the treetops (fly mod, heh) - I can't express just how beautiful that experience was.

[1] [https://share.oculusvr.com/app/minecrift](https://share.oculusvr.com/app/minecrift)

</comment><comment><USER38> It's great to see some people maintain their integrity even while others are selling out.

<comment><USER39> Apples and oranges: Notch is made $100 million, just in 2012 [1].

That being said - I am truly thankful that he is taking a stand, I certainly hope others will follow. Either way, Zuckerberg will learn his lesson; you do not fuck up a crowd-funded project.

[1] [http://venturebeat.com/2013/02/01/minecrafts-notch-on- earnin...](http://venturebeat.com/2013/02/01/minecrafts-notch-on- earning-101m-in-2012-its-weird-as-f/)

<comment><USER40> "you do not fuck up a crowd-funded project"

Oculus raised $75M after their Kickstarter. Crowd-funding was a stepping stone.

And it remains to be seen whether Facebook "fucks it up" or turns it into something amazing look Google did with Android.

<comment><USER39> Google did fuck up Android (privacy wise).

(1) Requirement of a Google account (i.e. forced correlation of your phone with youtube, google searches, google analytics, google ... ), (2) Ever checked those privileges on the default applications - that you can't disable or remove? Why are those closed-source by the way?, (3) Search the web for more examples.

Either way, I agree that I made an assumption - but - this is kinda related: [http://bgr.com/2014/03/06/facebook-android-app- permissions/](http://bgr.com/2014/03/06/facebook-android-app-permissions/)

Crowd funding is not only about money. Your funders also invest emotions into the project. I am mad, I think others will be as well. To quote Notch[1]: "And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."

[1] [http://notch.net/2014/03/virtual-reality-is-going-to- change-...](http://notch.net/2014/03/virtual-reality-is-going-to-change-the- world/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I don't really understand this decision. From an experiential standpoint, the Rift seems like a pretty obvious platform to have a release of Minecraft available. Within a short time it will likely have a solid user base which makes it a good business decision as well. Now support for that platform is being pulled, not because of any technical, financial, or licensing issues, but because Notch thinks the new owner is creepy? That seems like a knee-jerk reaction drawn more from emotion than logic.

<comment><USER42> He's always been childish like this, this is no different.

He did provide a better explanation to one of the gaming sites, talking about how he doesn't want to put time into a platform that won't be gaming focused, but we have no indication of that happening.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> >"Facebook creeps me out."

So you lose out on an audience of 1.2Bn people for Minecraft and comment on the situation on Twitter -- a social network that does pretty much all the same things Facebook does.

<comment><USER44> Who are these 1.2 billion? Facebook's users? Notch already has access to that audience. Plenty of them already play his game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Am I way off in thinking Zuck wants to make Oculus Facebook's response to Google Glass?

<comment><USER46> I don't see it, they're completely different products

<comment><USER47> There are already developments towards blending in the real world into the VR space again. Attach stereo cameras to the front of the device detect certain important features (like other persons or mouse and keyboard) and merge them into the picture created by the VR device. In my opinion, this is much better than the Google approach because it gives you more control over the visualization. Now imagine the devices having the size of regular sunglasses. Imagine all the possibilities. I have seen a project displaying the picture from the front cameras in HDR mode. Therefore, making reality looking better that it really did. Now think of Facebook having the lead in this development… Still makes me sad if I think about it, because they are not going to use this power responsibly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Now's your chance Sony. Do to Facebook what you did to Microsoft: Nothing.

</comment><comment><USER49> [an optimistic thought] I feel like a lot of people might be overthinking the Facebook/Oculus integration. FB is a big company with lots of money that is still figuring out how to make money. Oculus seems like a company that could make money in a way that diversifies FB's income. Maybe if they just own Oculus and let the smart people at the helm do what they do best (I feel like Zuckerberg can recognize the smart people in charge of Oculus) it will just be a good company that earns money for Facebook so Facebook can keep doing what it does. I know Zuck mentions VR and social together in his post, but maybe he just feels compelled to justify the purchase in relation to what Facebook is known for.

</comment><comment><USER50> Good for him. Not for what he did, I have no opinion on it. But for actually having some principles other than how to make more money.

<comment><USER51> Couldn't really have been on how to make more money - as it wouldn't have been minecraft itself getting VR, but a freebie version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'm still waiting for Jonathan Blow's take on all of this. He's another one of the "big" indie developers and he had previously stated that The Witness would work with Oculus, I wonder if the acquisition changes that.

He already tweeted about the news and RT some stuff, but no word on his plans yet.

</comment><comment><USER53> "And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build value for a Facebook acquisition."

Actually, that is _exactly_ what he did, and I'm somewhat surprised that folks didn't see this coming. If not FB, then it would have been one of the other large and evil (hi, Google!) tech companies.

The thing that makes me sad is that it _wasn 't_ one of the 'old media' companies, seeking to update their offerings for a new generation of customers.

</comment><comment><USER54> Does Notch speak for Mojang? Can he say what Mojang will and will not do with Minecraft? Carl is the CEO.

I suppose Notch is still majority shareholder, but this is the type of thing I expect the leader of the company to say.

Imagine if Mojang decided to do differently than what Notch wanted here and ended up porting Minecraft to Oculus despite Notch's protests. What an interesting story that would be!

</comment><comment><USER55> A decent open source hardware standard and dev kit for VR/AR would be really popular about now. Are there any good ones out there?

</comment><comment><USER56> > "And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build > value for a Facebook acquisition."[0]

I'm beginning to feel the same way about participating in Kickstarter.

[0] [http://notch.net/2014/03/virtual-reality-is-going-to- change-...](http://notch.net/2014/03/virtual-reality-is-going-to-change-the- world/)

</comment><comment><USER57> I can understand shying away from any direct integration with Oculus itself from now on, but that doesn't explain why a game dev wouldn't want to still add VR support in at least a platform-agnostic way. I'm under the impression that there's an effort to create a standardized API for capturing head tracking data, anyway.

</comment><comment><USER58> Third party mods will likely make it happen.

<comment><USER59> They already do: [https://share.oculusvr.com/app/minecrift](https://share.oculusvr.com/app/minecrift)

<comment><USER57> And that mod is incredible, too. Standing in the Minecraft world in VR while it's snowing is pretty gorgeous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I don't blame him.

</comment><comment><USER61> This is going to be just like how Facebook ruined Instagram and WhatsApp. Oh, wait. They didn't. I'm quite certain, based on Facebook's history, that they'll let Oculus be their own thing, and we'll enjoy the benefit of Oculus being injected with huge amounts of funds.

</comment><comment><USER62> Does anyone have any insight into Occulus' incentive or motive to do this deal?

Edit: beyond the obvious monetary incentive, which I'm not sure was that much of an incentive since hordes of people seemed ready and willing to throw money at the oculus rift. 2 billion sounds like a bargain right now.

<comment><USER63> Sony was about to steam roll them? and Microsoft in the next year as well?

The Sony morpheus system is already better than oculus feature wise, with better position tracking, and accessory tracking as well. And don't under estimate that, I've read some pretty strong "never again" comments from people using VR headsets and loosing grip of the controls and floundering and/or having to take the headset off to get the controls back into there grips again... even just moving your hand on the keyboard is apparently quite annoying.

Essentially without backing they will loose all market capabilities and be relegated to experimental hardware and not a mass market device.

Being brought out by other companies probably wouldn't of been a reality. MS probably have there own tech and wouldn't gain much more than branding... and xbox is a stronger brand anyway... and Valve would no doubt have chosen to partner rather than buy out... so waving $2bil in your face and the guarantee of ongoing funding and launch platform... its a no brainer.

<comment><USER62> It's hard to knock that logic. Initially I was disappointed that the Occulus team made this move, but against the backdrop you paint, it's hard to see it as anything other than a smart move. My only criticism would be... surely there's someone better than Facebook to do this deal with. But most likely there isn't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Now this kinda sucks because oculus + minecraft is pretty much the metaverse.

</comment><comment><USER65> Good. I hope everyone ditches Oculus Rift for non-facebook-owned-alternatives like they ditched Instagram for (the far superior IMO) Telegram after that acquisition was announced.

<comment><USER66> things_which_did_not_happen.txt

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Essentially the kickstarter backers feel cheated when the founders sell out? Didn't they know this could happen? That in the case of Oculus VR it was probably bound to happen?

</comment><comment><USER68> Well, I was initially pretty against the idea. Then again, maybe I'll write a Facebook app called snowcrash >=) and tear it all down.

</comment><comment><USER69> > And I did not chip in ten grand to seed a first investment round to build > value for a Facebook acquisition.

That says a lot.

</comment><comment><USER70> they could have been a competitor to apple, google and facebook if they had gone it alone.

</comment><comment><USER71> +1 for Notch once again

</comment><comment><USER72> Facebook buys WhatsApp - hundreds of thousands creeped out, go to Telegram app.

Facebook buys Oculus Rift, Minecraft creator cancels talks, creeped out.

Feels like that Facebook brand has taken a hit or two with all the privacy violations, huh?

<comment><USER73> WhatsApp lost hundreds of thousands of users out of 450 million. Yeah, I bet they're losing sleep every night over that 0.1%.

<comment><USER74> Still, that's hundreds of thousands the competition didn't have.

<comment><USER73> Crushing. Their competitors now must have enough extra revenue to buy an expensive couch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> I hope that this illustrates for some that the distaste over this deal is more than a few "irrational" / cynical malcontents on Hacker News. A _lot_ of people have a serious problem with Facebook the service, the cultural shift, and the company.

On another note, I was _so_ looking forward to Minecraft on Oculus. I sincerely hope that Valve picks up the torch here.

<comment><USER76> Anecdotal data point; I just informed my girlfriend of this deal. My girlfriend, who knows of Oculus as "that virtual reality thing you were talking about." She also uses FB. Her response, verbatim; "that's not good."

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Incredibly immature.

Disappointed in Notch. I guess he's just a game designer at the end of the day, not an activist, so I guess meh.

Oculus is hardware, hopefully Facebooks billions will bring forward adoption, reduce hardware dev times and create some crappy software that people can chose not to use.

How this can been seen as a bad thing, boggles my mind.

I want VR decades ago. At least Facebooks billions might make the current timeline somewhat bearable.

<comment><USER78> "I want VR decades ago" is not what I would call a mature response. I'd hardly call Notch immature, he has ethical issues with Facebook and it doesn't fit his worldview. Rejecting any collaboration is the _most_ mature way forward.

<comment><USER79> I experienced VR decades ago in an SGI cave, circa 1995.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_automatic_virtual_environm...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_automatic_virtual_environment)

Which is about the same time PC graphics were picking up, and games like Descent came into existence.

So, like GP, I agree that widespread VR has been overdue for a long time.

What does maturity even mean in a capitalist system? All hail the philosopher entrepreneur? Give me a break.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> When will notch delete this page [https://www.facebook.com/minecraft](https://www.facebook.com/minecraft). Or is it more do as I say not as I do.</comment>


Picotorrent: a tiny, hackable BitTorrent client - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/picotorrent/picotorrent <comment><USER2> They decided to call it "pico torrent" even tho the client is several times larger than uTorrent?

<comment><USER3> Well, not several times.

uTorrent for Windows: 2.84 MB [https://www.utorrent.com/downloads/win](https://www.utorrent.com/downloads/win)

picotorrent.exe: 3.98 MB [https://github.com/picotorrent/picotorrent/releases](https://github.com/picotorrent/picotorrent/releases)

picotorrent also seems to come with a language pack while you download uTorrent's separately at 1.3 MB. Not that I think it matters.

Also, don't forget to include any ads or malware that might download with your next version of uTorrent: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9CTorrent#Ads_and_malware](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9CTorrent#Ads_and_malware)

<comment><USER4> macOS Transmission : 10.6 MB macOS Slack : 185.8 MB

But it must be noted that Transmission doesn't support animated emojis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > _PicoTorrent depends only on what Rasterbar-libtorrent needs_

The UI appears to be based on wxWidgets, so that would be another dependency.

<comment><USER6> Author here - the readme is a bit outdated, sorry about that :) wxWidgets is a hard dependency since a few versions back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> 2016: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11587039](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11587039)

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm still waiting for WebTorrent to be implemented in more clients (including libtorrent, which AFAIK underlies Picotorrent). I'd love to be able to quickly deploy headless WebTorrent video seeds, especially if they were sequence-aware (sending chunks in order, possibly incl. MPEG DASH format, though that is patented somehow); and maybe commodity BitTorrent + WebTorrent CDNs could become commonplace.

<comment><USER9> I'm a huge fan of the WebTorrent protocol too, and think it has potential to completely transform the content distribution paradigm on the web.

However, the JS implementation leaves much to be desired. It's a huge resource hog compared to native libraries like libtorrent and torrents often freeze for no apparent reason on faster connections. Development seems to have also stalled quite a bit in recent times.

At this point I'd be more confident betting on something like IPFS in the long term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For years I've actually been looking for a client that can handle seeding 500+ files and not just completely crap itself all the time. uTorrent seems to be a bit 'unsafe' and full of ads, deluge's web interface regularly falls over. What options are there out there right now?

<comment><USER11> I've been a happy Transmission user for a while now.

      - nice variety of clients/platforms

      - webui isn't completely terrible

      - works well in daemon mode

      - haven't encountered perf issues seeding 2k+ torrents/~5TB data

      - supports modern features (DHT, PEX, magnets)

<comment><USER12> Yes, Transmission is the most stable client I've ever used (Win or Linux), but like so may others, don't run out of disk space, or you're in for a major hassle rebuilding your index.

<comment><USER13> Only problem is Transmission uses its own core, and as a whole, core + UI it doesn't seems to be getting anymore development.

Which libtorrent just had its 1.2 released that has lots of changes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is it the only BitTorrent client with regex file filters?

Is there any client able to perform scripts to interact with the client API and downloaded files?

</comment><comment><USER15> What makes this any better than Transmission?

<comment><USER16> Maybe it doesn't have any legacy cruft?

It's worse than Transmission because it has no mention of any good modern-ish features such as DHT, PEX, LSD(LPD) and it lacks both Linux, OSX and BSD support. Oh and it's banned (not-whitelisted) from all the private trackers.

<comment><USER17> In my experience most private trackers allow clients that use libtorrent in general rather than specific clients that use it (e.g rTorrent).

<comment><USER18> The readme for this project specifies the user agent of the client as Picotorrent/x.y.z, which makes me think that most private trackers would block it.

<comment><USER19> Spoof it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I wonder why is not not Bittorrent built into browsers ?

<comment><USER13> I initially wrote a reply about usage pattern being different because uploading tends to be slower and requires the browser to be always on. But then there is no reason why it can't resume uploading to at least 1:1 Ratio next time it is opened.

Yes, why not? BT have many legitimate use-case.

<comment><USER21> If I remember correctly, the Opera browser used to have a BitTorrent client.

Then again, back then pretty much all browsers used to have an RSS reader as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Windows-only?</comment>


JavaScript style: always use semicolons - <AUTHOR> http://www.codingstyleguide.com/style/26/semicolons

<comment><USER2> I always mean to explicitly end a statement. say what you mean. avoid any kind of ambiguity.</comment>


Soon, Cars in Denmark Will Only Be Taxed at 100% (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-29/soon-cars-in-denmark-will-only-be-taxed-at-100 <comment><USER2> Now, I don't live in Denmark, but am I the only one here who wouldn't like (excessive) tax policies like that? A 180% tax (now to be lowered a bit) on a vehicle seems madly excessive.

It's like a ban, without actually having the guts to call it a ban. I'm assuming most normal people are unable to afford a car then.

I'm not a car nut (don't even really like cars, though I do own one and don't use it often) but wouldn't want to live in a country with that line of thinking. The same applies to alcohol etc. Let people be free to decide and do what they want to do.

<comment><AUTHOR> They're not excessive - they're more in line with true cost of car dependent society. In the US we shower subsidies on car owners. Some examples: using general fund money to build highways, charging low gas taxes that don't cover cost of maintenance of roads, providing free/underpriced parking in every downtown in the US, undercharging for pollution and other negative externalities of driving, requiring minimum amounts of parking in new developments (instead of capping parking quantity or letting developer choose how much to provide), qualifying infrastructure using car centric metrics like Level-of-Service, federal gov't providing automatic 10-to-1 match for highway projects but 1-to-1 (in good cases) for transit projects to name a few

<comment><USER3> > using general fund money to build highways

You're forgetting about trucks (and other service vehicles), and though trains are better, you can't have trains everywhere

> providing free/underpriced parking in every downtown in the US

Downtown is predominantly paid parking, and not underpriced either

<comment><USER4> > Downtown is predominantly paid parking, and not underpriced either

Yes but the vast majority of American cars don't park in downtown.

<comment><USER5> The message he was replying to included this:

> underpriced parking in every downtown

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I noticed most of the comments in this thread were about not wanting a high tax rate of 100%. I just want to offer a counterexample where people are all for it: in Costa Rica there is a similar import tax on luxury and technology items and is roughly 50-80% on cars:

[http://www.costaricatax.com/import- tax.htm](http://www.costaricatax.com/import-tax.htm)

[http://www.costaricatax.com/luxury-tax- cars.htm](http://www.costaricatax.com/luxury-tax-cars.htm)

One of the main reasons for this is that everyone wants to go to Costa Rica because it's one of the nicest places in the world. So in a very real sense their import tax is a "pay to stay" tax. As Denmark is also one of the nicest places in the world, they do this as well.

Everyone forgets that in the end, the people are the beneficiaries of these taxes by way of government services like free healthcare and education. Eventually benefits will come as universal basic income (UBI) as well.

Now for the opinion part - I find it sad that the United Stated of America no longer has any appreciable tariffs, so in a way doesn't think of itself as a really nice place to go anymore. 40 years of so-called conservative thinking on this (that government of/by/for the people is somehow the enemy) has done a great injustice to our culture and global image as a beacon of democracy. I was born in 77 so just barely remember that it didn't always used to be this way. I fear that young people today are experiencing their cultural worth being stolen and that their feeling of ineffectualness is being amplified by divisive political tactics that will never pan out. Low taxes generally cause these sorts of problems; lower taxes will make them worse. And taxes just got lower, supposedly, even though the US already pays some of the lowest taxes in the industrialized world. The very fact that the US is unlikely to raise taxes appreciably anytime in the foreseeable future does not bode well for our quality of life IMHO.

<comment><USER7> I used to live in Northern Denmark and I have experienced their healthcare first hand and witnessed social welfare which helped my friends and colleagues. And I still do think this is excessive tax not well justified for the following reasons:

1\. I would expect a state of the art public transport in the whole country. The rail system connecting different cities in Denmark is pretty dated and slow. Even using diesel engines in some parts. Now I would expect some part of that 180% tax to be invested here. But the fact is people are often forced to drive with car due to poor public transport connectivity in many places.

2\. Even electric cars are not exempt from these high taxes anymore. This eliminates the benefit of the doubt that this was for the good of the environment.

3\. The high tax for cars has historical roots. Many in Denmark believe it is no longer necessary today to fund the welfare state. [https://www.thelocal.dk/20151120/whats-the-deal-with- denmark...](https://www.thelocal.dk/20151120/whats-the-deal-with-denmarks-car- registration-tax)

4\. These high taxes are also defeating the purpose of keeping the environment clean by creating a huge market for used really old cars which are often the worst polluters. [https://mereconomics.com/2016/02/09/on-the-efficiency-of- dan...](https://mereconomics.com/2016/02/09/on-the-efficiency-of-danish-car- taxes/)

5\. Opinion: It all boils down to having free health care, free education, really good welfare system and not being able to afford a car. Other European countries like Germany seem to have worked out a model which can make all of them affordable to most people.

I can go on but got bored.

<comment><USER8> Car ownership in Denmark is only marginally lower than here in the UK. And not that far behind the rest of Europe. So it obviously doesn't put off those who want a car.

<comment><USER7> I am not saying people are not buying cars but the 180% or 150% or even 100% tax is not justified. From what I read it is now down to 85% tax which is much better. Dont know about UK my baseline for comparison is Germany (I lived there for 4 years) and I would move back to Germany any day if I can find the same job there. Cost of living, social welfare everything is a good balance between socialism and capitalism there.

<comment><USER8> Why is it not justified? What you you replace it with, or cut from current government spending. Most Danish on this thread and the few I know have been in support of the tax, which I find interesting.

<comment><USER7> If it is so critical for the welfare state why is there even a debate about cutting it? Why was it cut down to 85% from 180%? Also historically the taxes weren't always this high and the welfare system did just fine.

None of the Danes here have given any convincing answer on why they support the higher taxation on car registrations.

<comment><USER8> I'm not saying it is critical, I'm just asking how we best cost the external impact of people owning and running cars. But as I've said in previous posts on other threads, I'm a boring lefty in favour of high taxation, and I don't expect others to share my bug government viewpoint ;)

<comment><USER7> > I'm just asking how we best cost the external impact of people owning and > running cars.

I am not sure what you mean by "external impact" here. You should clarify that first before I can answer your question. Also I hope you will forgive me for not reading your previous posts on other threads!

I get that you are in favour of high taxation. I am not against taxation either. But the question is how much higher is acceptable? 200% is acceptable for you? 300%? where do you put the upper limit? How do you measure the cost of driving cars on the society and environment? was 180% by the Danish government justified in this regard? What was the rationale behind that? I haven't gotten answer to this question from any Danes here or in Danish news papers or in person after talking to many Danes while working in Denmark for 8 months.

May be it is the whole Scandinavian model to blame. Therefore, I am giving you the example of Germany where taxes on cars are significantly low but at the same time salaries (at least in the tech sector) are comparable to Scandinavia, education is free, healthcare is affordable and cost of living is one of the best in the western world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is an article from this summer. The negotiations ended at a tax rate of 85% for cars priced up to 185.000 DKK about 30.000USD. And 150% tax for the rest.

There are som deductions for safety ratings, mileage etc. but these are now the current taxrates for cars. Beware before the car tax, the cars are subject to 25% sales tax. So expensive cars are +25% + 150%. (it used to be even worse)

<comment><USER5> Once you pay that tax at purchase, is there also annual registration fees?

A few of the American states I've lived in have charged annual taxes based on a car's worth (decreasing over time). I hope you don't get nailed every year!

<comment><USER10> Yeah, there are an annual registration fee as well. Spread over to payments a year. It isn't much though, and it depends on how environmentally friendly your car is. I think the lowest rate is approx 200 USD pr. year.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Isn't much... $200/yr.

For comparison: California $83/yr. Nevada $33/yr.

<comment><USER5> Nevada isn't exactly $33/year.

When I lived there, even a small economy car, it was well over $400.

It's how many counties pay for schools instead of property tax. It's also why so many Nevadans get mad at the thousands of people from California who move to Nevada and don't register their vehicles, then complain about the schools that they send their kids to but don't pay for.

This web site shows that a two-year-old $25,000 car will cost $406: [https://dmvapp.nv.gov/dmv/vr/vr_estimate/vrestimationinput.a...](https://dmvapp.nv.gov/dmv/vr/vr_estimate/vrestimationinput.aspx)

<comment><USER11> Dealing with people who don't register their cars seems like a problem that should be reasonably solvable, if enough people are pissed off by it.

Authorize police to issue tickets to cars with expired out of state registration. Make the tickets dismissible if you have lived in Nevada less than whatever the grace period is they give for new residents to register and you get the car registered in time. Make it so the dismissal happens automatically upon registration. Provide a way for officers to quickly check to see if a car already has a pending ticket for this so that a given car only gets ticketed once.

There should not be many people who are living in Nevada and driving around Nevada with expired out of state registration and are not trying to cheat. About the only such people that come to mind are people who moved to Nevada near when their registration was going to expire in their old state, so did not renew it, and are still in the grace period for registration in Nevada.

Some of those people will have the slight hassle of receiving one ticket, but since they are not trying to cheat, and therefore are going to register by the deadline anyway they don't have to do anything about it. It will automatically go away when they register.

The above should catch a lot of the cases, especially if police are authorized to pull over people to issue these tickets, as opposed to just allowing them to issue these tickets to parked cars they come across or issue them incidentally during pull overs for other issues.

Of course there might be people who decide to fake it. In many states the indication of current registration is just a sticker with year of expiration on it stuck onto the license plate. It would not take a master forger to make a fake sticker. (Heck, if someone's home state is sufficiently cheaper for registration, they might even not let their home state they have left, and keep registering their car there!).

It would be going too far to try to crack down on non-expired out of state plates directly, because a large number of those are going to be visitors, not residents (especially for a state like Nevada that has a large number of automobile tourists visiting).

To deal with the people who fake it (or keep registering in their old state), they would probably have to limit it to checking only when they pull someone over for some other violation like speeding or drunk driving where they can check ID. Unless the driver has kept a current (or fake current) out of state driver's license matching their out of state plates with them, the jig will be up. Make it so that these people get hit with a very large fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I understand the viewpoint that _less_ cars = better cities. But _worse_ cars? Because this heavily penalizes buying better cars. I understand the need to segment the tax burden by income level, but it seems reasonable to make the maximum tax level so that, e.g. you pay flat €50k in taxes if your car costs more than €50k. You can play even the safety card here: more expensive cars have more advanced automation and safety features, so their use should be encouraged.

<comment><USER13> > you pay flat €50k in taxes if your car costs more than €50k.

That would be the same as capping income tax: you pay a 20% rate up to $100k of taxes, after that, no incremental taxes.

It's the opposite of progressive, actually taxing rich people less than poor people.

I'd even go and propose that cars over €50k should be taxed at a higher marginal tax rate than lower-priced cars.

<comment><USER14> There's a difference between taxing income and taxing spending.

They are opposites, so the tax rate should also be opposite - the higher the spending the lower the tax.

After all, you want to encourage wealthy people to spend and spread the wealth, not encourage them to hoard it.

<comment><USER13> > you want to encourage wealthy people to spend

Not on cars.

<comment><USER14> Why not? In what way is a cheaper car socially better than an expensive car?

<comment><USER13> You don't want cars overall to start with.

And as wealth increases, the negative utility of a 1% increase in price of a certain good decreases for that buyer, requiring higher taxes to have the same disincentive than for lower income buyers.

Also, cars (especially luxury ones) are highly unproductive assets.

<comment><USER14> > You don't want cars overall to start with.

So you punish those who have/want one? Ouch, I wouldn't want to live in your world.

Work the other side, make people want to not have one. Making people's life miserable is not a good way to manage your citizens.

> And as wealth increases ... lower income buyers.

Except that the wealthy person just buys a cheaper car. They still have a car, and you have not accomplished your goal.

Your mistake is you taxed spending, without even checking income.

Your scheme does not make people not get a car, it causes people to get a cheaper car, that's all.

<comment><USER13> > So you punish those who have/want one? Ouch, I wouldn't want to live in your > world.

No. Cars have negative externalities to society, so you tax them to account for those externalities.

This is the same reason why governments subsidize infrastructure and education, as those generate positive externalities to society, and most of the value generated is in those externalities, you need a negative tax on those items to incentivize them.

Or the same reason why governments subsidize electric cars.

> Except that the wealthy person just buys a cheaper car. They still have a > car, and you have not accomplished your goal.

Sure, but you're providing the same economic disincentive as you are for a poor person (in relative utility), which is a fairer way to do it.

> Your mistake is you taxed spending, without even checking income.

You don't seem to understand the concept of positive and negative externalities.

I'm not proposing to tax spending, I'm proposing to tax a good so that its price accurately reflects the negative impact on society it causes.

<comment><USER15> > I'd even go and propose that cars over €50k should be taxed at a higher > marginal tax rate than lower-priced cars.

> I'm not proposing to tax spending, I'm proposing to tax a good so that its > price accurately reflects the negative impact on society it causes.

It seems like you're proposing taxing based on the price of the good, not the cost of the negative externalities. It would make more sense to tax based on some combination of the car's weight, footprint, engine size, fuel efficiency, and emissions metrics, based on use of the vehicle, as well as at purchase time.

A vehicle that's a luxury item, but otherwise comparable in relevant statistics, doesn't necessarily need to be taxed more heavily than a basic version of the same thing.

<comment><USER13> > It seems like you're proposing taxing based on the price of the good, not > the cost of the negative externalities.

Wrong. I'm proposing that to have the same economic incentive on a luxury version of a certain good you need a higher proportional tax to account for the flattening of personal utility curves.

And that's before we get into the fact that luxury vehicles have even higher negative externalities due to increased engine size, lower fuel efficiency, larger size, etc.

<comment><USER15> > Wrong

Then I think you're being very unclear in what you're saying. The externalities aren't necessarily related to the price of the vehicle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was quite surprised to click through and read that this is a _decrease_ and not an increase in the tax rate on cars. Which makes me wonder: What about the Danish political climate enabled the original 180% rate to make it into law?

<comment><USER17> Had to check up on Wikipedia. It was set to 180% in 1977, with no real reason. I'm pretty sure it was meant as temporary.

But yeah the fact that we have no real lobby apart from dealers and the car owners association. That and the fact that quite a lot of people hate cars. Being from the rural parts of Denmark where cars are a nessesity and moving to the second biggest city in the contry was quite a shock to me.

The 180% tax is not that big a mystery to me any more. I don't talk taxes with many of my old dorm friends as they simply can't see the need to lower it. But that is easy to say when they live within biking distance of everything they need.

I still see them. At least when they need a car for moving.

<comment><USER2> Should charge them a moving fee, with a 180% tax on top. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I moved to Denmark in 2017.l from south east USA. Writing this message from my hour and half long train+bus commute to work(72 km away from the city of Aarhus,DK). To me. It sucks big time! I can't afford a decent car here. True, I can get a shitty old used car that can breakdown wherever for the cost of a decent car elsewhere in the world. I'd rather save my money and take this long commute. This is one thing I absolutely hate about Denmark from the bottom of my heart. I might consider moving out of Denmark just because of this as soon as my girlfriend finds a good job opportunity elsewhere.

There are so many good things I see about Denmark. But this one shitty thing trumps all the good for me!

Edit: NO. Used cars are not that much cheap unless you get to the shitty category with a ton of mileage in them.

<comment><USER19> As someone from a neighboring country to Denmark, this to me is a sign that their system is working.

<comment><USER18> Eager to hear why you think so?

I'm a young person taking a 1.5 hour train+bus commute because I cannot afford a 45 minute car ride. Why do you think the system is working right?

Or, in your view, what am I doing wrong?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> TLDR Registration duties of up to 180 percent mean Denmark is one of the most expensive countries in which to buy a new car.

Proposal to lower tax rate to just 100 percent. Currently a Porsche 911 Carrera sports car is $306,600 versus $117,900 in Germany.

"We will still have some of the highest car prices," Economy Minister Simon Emil Ammitzboll told a press conference in Copenhagen on Tuesday. At the same time, it's "not fair that we, living in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, are driving worse cars than our neighbors in Sweden and Germany."

</comment><comment><USER21> Private vehicular taxation is really unjust when done in this way. Not everyone has the same usage patterns.

For example, I commute by bicycle. I would love to have a street legal van, in the eventuality that I want to move something bulky. I would use it once a month at most. Probably less. But I would have to pay thousands of Euros of road taxes just to own a street legal vehicle that is parked in my own garage. Why? Fuel is already taxed a lot to limit usage. Parking permits in cities are expensive to prohibit ownership and congestion. Why am I being taxed, exactly?

BTW, I know this is not a road tax in the article but same nonsense of assuming that ownership is the same as usage.

<comment><USER22> If you are using a car once a month, shouldn't it be far cheaper, even without taxes, to just rent one?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Some additional information: The yearly tax on cars are heavily affected by the milage of the car and ranges from $40/y for cars above 75mpg to $5260/y for cars below 12mpg (diesel figures)

</comment><comment><USER23> As an urban dweller (nyc) who would love to see fewer autos on the road, I view this as a positive development.

But I can't help but wonder if there is an automakers lobby in Denmark. If so, why wouldn't they oppose/ shutdown such a measure?

I can only imagine the insane backlash a similar ruling would have in the US, in spite of the long term benefits to society from having fewer cars.

[edit: should have read the article in full before commenting-- I see now it is about _lowering_ the tax rate]

<comment><USER24> This is the other way around, they are lowering the tax from 180% to 100%.

So I'm sure if there is an automakers lobby, they approve of this.

<comment><USER25> There are no auto makers in denmark, so likely not much of a lobby (this is Northern Europe, so "lobby" is more likely to mean unions of the manufacturers than lobbyists paid by multinational corporations).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> In Israel they do this without any good reason.

<comment><USER27> make cars cheaper without any good reason? after all they are decreasing the taxes

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I just derive some perverted pleasure from seeing Scandinavians hitting themselves in the name of their self-righteousness.

<comment><USER29> Nationalistic swipes will get you banned here. Please read [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and post civilly and substantively, or not at all.</comment></comment>


Battle Brews Over FBI's Warrantless GPS Tracking - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/gps/

<comment><USER2> Step 1: Place GPS tracking device on every car (alternatives include demand GPS tracking devices be built into cars by manufacturers or build them into license plates as part of a move to save money on toll collections).

Step 2: Analyze data algorithmically, looking for suspicious correlations.

Step 3: 1984.

Another thought: If you don't need a warrant to place GPS tracking device on a car, you ought to be able to obtain location tracking data from a telephone company without a warrant. Wherever your phone goes, the FBI is simply following you with a virtual agent.

<comment><USER3> I frequently encounter people who insist that the US style government, while not perfect, is the greatest form of government, and they question how much room for improvement there really is. And yet, when issues such as increased surveillance arise, everyone is (mostly rightly) alarmed at the increase in power this could provide to the government. Cries of "1984" are an internet staple. But rather than only insisting that this new capability be denied to our government, I wish people would also question whether it is really a fundamental truth that government cannot be trusted with such capabilities or whether it's possibly just our current forms of government that cannot.

Just in case it's not obvious why we'd want a government spying on us, I'll briefly make the case. There might be some side benefit, such as automatically identifying emergency situations, but realistically the main benefit comes from increased effectiveness of law enforcement. Yes, that ought to be a benefit. If it isn't, that points to a problem with the laws or the way they're enforced. Increasing the effectiveness with which we can identify violations will not only lead to a reduction in violations, but will also let us lower punishments (speeding tickets would work fine at $10 each if every speeder were cited, etc).

Some people will argue that such a government could never exist. "Who watches the watchers?", the cliche goes. Well, why couldn't the answer be "other watchers"? Isn't that the idea of checks and balances? I don't think that there's much chance of a sufficiently better form of government emerging from our current political machine anytime soon, but if it were to happen it wouldn't be accomplished by getting everyone to agree on the details, many of which I probably imagine wrong myself. Rather, I think it would be accomplished by making the very idea of a better system of government popular, and getting people to agree on a transparent process and criteria for working out the details. (Well, there might be other ways. If someone posted instructions for a relatively easy to make, low cost nuclear bomb to the internet I think that, after a few detonations, we'd have mass internment that would give everyone ample free time to discuss whether a surveillance state is really necessarily bad.)

<comment><USER2> In software development, I am cynical of any tool, language, or process that promises to somehow make a team of ineffective programmers produce software of value. However, given a team of developers with some sort of baseline competence, I strongly believe that some tools increase their effectiveness while others hold them back.

Translating this to forms of government, I conjecture that if we elect ineffective and/or untrustworthy officials, and if enough untrustworthy persons obtain power in unelected positions, I doubt there is any system that can somehow prevent them from doing bad things. But given a certain critical mass of honesty and effectiveness in the people placed in charge, some forms of government provide superior results to others.

I am not going to say that America has the greatest form of government here, but is it possible that what we have here is a people problem, not a government problem?

<comment><USER4> This is very well said. I'm reminded of the cliche that the people get the government they deserve. And boy, have we got ours in the United States. As long as the majority remains lazy and ignorant, the successful politicians will be mostly power-seekers, narcissists or agents of industry.

<comment><USER2> I can't speak to American politics, but it is with shame that I report that here in Canada, ourMinister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, refuses to confirm that he believes in evolution:

        I'm not going to answer that question. I am a
        Christian, and I don't think anybody asking
        a question about my religion is appropriate.

Well, gosh, asking the Minister of State for Science and Technology to discuss his belief in Science is asking him about his religion. And here's the rub: This was widely reported and we Canadians sent this team back into office for another four years with a majority.

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article320476.e...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article320476.ece)

Can I really blame Mr. Goodyear? Or our system? Or should Canadians have a good, hard look at themselves in the mirror?

<comment><USER3> That position could be dominant because of a relatively small minority of Canadians who feel strongly about creationism who will actually vote on that issue.

<comment><USER2> Agreed. Or to put it another way, that party could have been elected because the majority of people who bothered to vote were apathetic about the qualifications and bias of the Minister of State for Science and Technology and what implications that might have for funding science and industry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To me, the interesting question would be, were a private citizen to build a tracking device and attach it to an FBI vehicle, would they have a problem with that? My guess is they would arrest you and figure out something to charge you with -- even though, by their own logic, since you could follow an FBI vehicle around to see where it goes, attaching a GPS is equivalent.

A logical standard would be "that which isn't legal for a private citizen to do, the police need a warrant for" -- but hey, I'm an engineer, not a lawyer...

</comment><comment><USER6> The FBI, as an institution, can't feel shame or embarassment. But individuals employed by the FBI can feel shame. Don't they? Are all FBI agents who do this kind of un-american activity sociopaths, or do some of them feel ashamed at underminging a free society?

But the upper levels of authority at the FBI, they must all be pervets who like to snoop on people. Shame on them for doing this un-american, unnatural voyeurism.

<comment><USER7> I suspect many law enforcement people take the attitude that if someone hasn't done anything wrong, they have nothing to hide, and if they have done something wrong, they should be brought to justice. Also, the use of electronic surveillance doesn't normally inconvenience a law-abiding person, but it can help catch dangerous criminals.

<comment><USER6> I think that warrantless electronic surveillance very clearly violates USA Citizen's presumption of innocence and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. It's fishing, plain and simple. The FBI knows what a warrant is, they should go get one. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, that's what they'd tell a non-FBI person.

I think they are fishing for wrongdoing, and it's a waste of taxpayer money, and a shameful act.Shame on you, FBI. You're acting like perverts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If it goes before the current supreme court, the country is screwed, they will rule it legal and then it will be "settled law" for decades to come.

Few warrants are ever turned down at every level of law enforcement (feds have 100% approval apparently) why do they endanger any case they may have by skipping a warrant? Is it ego? Is it laziness?

<comment><USER9> data mining. it's hard to justify 300 million warrants.

<comment><USER10> Too late... Carnivore, Echelon, etc...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Electronic tracking is a very cheap way to gain a lot of possibly useful information about potential suspects. It thus allows government to keep us safe without spending a lot of money. There are only two downsides.

First, innocent people may be singled out to be tracked without having done anything wrong. However, tracking, by itself, does not negatively impact the life of the person being tracked. Most are completely unaware of it, and those that are aware that they are being tracked have nothing to complain about: there is no expectation of privacy while traveling on public roads. And, as the technology gets cheaper, more people will get tracked, making the "singling out" less significant. When everyone is tracked, no one will be singled out.

The second downside to electronic tracking is that it vastly increases the power of government. But most people view this as a good thing. A more powerful government can keep us safer. If it can do it cheaply, so much the better.

<comment><USER2> _The second downside to electronic tracking is that it vastly increases the power of government. But most people view this as a good thing. A more powerful government can keep us safer. If it can do it cheaply, so much the better._

First, "most people view this as a good thing" is clearly an appeal to popularity, which is a fallacious reasoning. At one time, most people believed slavery was a good thing. Discuss.

"A more powerful government can keep us safer." The word "can" is a weasel- word. We are not debating whether the government "can" do something, we are debating whether they actually do something. I challenge you to strengthen your statement by claiming that the increase in power given to the government is _actually_ keeping us safer.

"if it can do it cheaply, so much the better." Hanging around startups, I have become enamoured of the idea that when certain things become extremely cheap, the entire dynamic changes. Radio car phones existed when I was a teen-ager. Then analog cell-phones, then digital cell-phones. Each new wave of technology was cheaper than the previous one. At some point, untethered phones became so cheap that the entire dynamic around telephony changed, and it changed very quickly.

Getting back to cheap spying on people, if you like what they are doing, then doing it cheaper seems to be a good thing. But at some point, it becomes so cheap that the entire dynamic changes. For example, if these devices were so cheap that they could be disposable, why not spy on everyone, all of the time?

This completely changes the dynamic of law enforcement. You don't start with a person suspected of breaking the law and spy on them, you simply spy on everyone and save everything. When and if you become interested in someone, you open up their file and voila! All of their movements since they bought their first car, all of their rental car movements, all of the movements of everyone who knew them and might have given them a ride, going back decades.

I need a bit more meat to the assertion that this scenario is "so much the better" before I will accept it.

<comment><USER11> _At one time, most people believed slavery was a good thing. Discuss._

This may be true for some places and times, but societies that practiced slavery commonly suffered from the demographic problem that the slaves outnumbered their masters (and other freemen). That is to say, most people _were_ slaves.

 _When and if you become interested in someone, you open up their file and voila!_

The file is just data. That data can be used to establish the guilt of the guilty or the innocence of the innocent. It can also be used to make cool looking graphs and heatmaps to post on your blog, improve the flow of traffic, better design cars and cities, tax emissions, target advertisements, set insurance rates, get you laid, etc.

It's not that I disagree with you, but I think with time we need more specificity as to what the onerous scenarios are. Is the collection of that data the problem, or is it the collection of that data directly by law enforcement that bothers us? Is it the collection or is it the ease with which they do it? Is it the access to that data by law enforcement or the potential for abuse, misuse, and falsely convicting the innocent? And so on.

To take it in the more general direction: When exactly does more and better data become a bad thing? When exactly is the ambiguity in our lives sacred enough to shield against the tide of data and the changing dynamics that enable it?

<comment><USER2> America in 1860 may have been one of those places and times where most people believed slavery was a good thing:

<http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm>

Total Free Population 27,489,561 Total Slave Population 3,953,760 Grand Total 31,443,321

The freemen outnumbered the slaves in all but two states. And in any event, nobody asked the slaves.

As for the file being "just" data, so is a picture of a man with his mistress, or an email conversation, or a list of the books you purchased online, or a list of URLs you visited this year. You tell me: Is this all just "data?"

Are you good with the FBI/CSIS having all this stuff about you or any other citizen who is not being investigated with cause? I'm not, and furthermore I won't be tricked into some kind of reverse onus where I have to explain why it's a bad thing for the government to have this data just for the sake of having all this data. It's the other way around: The government should have to tell us, the people, why it needs this data. If it can't justify the collection of this data, it shouldn't collect it.

The reason why the onus is upon the government to prove why it needs the data and not on us to prove why we're entitled to some privacy is because humans have an unbroken track record for abusing information about each other, and governments even more so. To argue that somehow 2011 it is all going to be different is to argue that this month will be full of Sundays or that pigs have finally taken flight with their new wings.</comment></comment></comment></comment>