PuTTY 0.61 released - <AUTHOR> http://lists.tartarus.org/pipermail/putty-announce/2011/000016.html

<comment><USER3> You know, PuTTY has always been one of those tools I never consciously considered as being "developed". In the same way as the "mv" command never was. Maybe I'm being naive. But PuTTY has always done exactly what I ask of it, without fail, and my complaints about it are few and trivial. So what if it has not been updated in four years? It's not like the SSH standard changes often. Personally, I am proud of the PuTTY folks for creating a product that did _not_ need a release for four years.

<comment><USER4> I always hated having to copy/paste URLs from PuTTY, so I started using PuTTY Tray (<http://haanstra.eu/putty/>) It highlights URLs, reconnects on failure, and does a few other nice things

<comment><USER5> What? How is copy/pasting hard in PuTTY?

Edit: After reviewing other comments, it appears people weren't aware that PuTTY has X11-style copy/pasting. It helps to read the docs, folks:

[http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/faq.html#f...](http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/faq.html#faq- cutpaste)

<comment><USER6> When it's the only thing on the OS that has X11 copy/pasting, that's the problem. It's like when people complain that a Linux program doesn't look like Linux, just like a bad Windows port.

<comment><USER7> Good luck Ctrl+C'ing in your terminal trying to copy that output.

<comment><USER6> Does putty support select, then right-click and click on Copy in the context menu? That is what I expect to work, and I've seen Unix ported apps that just ignore that, and have no Copy menu item either, so it's a complete mystery that selecting does anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Somehow I'm comforted that there's still room in the open source universe for a project that hasn't released an update in four years. It's oddly comforting, and serves as a nice change of tone from the common "release early, release often" mantra.

I'm all for releasing early, but for many open source developers (myself included) life has a tendency to get in the way sometimes, causing focus to move away from one's projects. Of course, I haven't looked up the details of the PuTTY folks now, but from the release notes it sounds as if they at least aren't getting paid do to PuTTY.

<comment><USER9> That's part of the reason for the KiTTY fork: <http://kitty.9bis.com/>

<comment><USER10> I've never heard about that before, but checking the site..

\- Windows only?

\- Features like 'Protection against unfortunate keyboard input', 'Transparency', 'Background image', 'Send to tray' sound like useless gimmicks to me. Not even mentioning the 'bonus features'.

Protection against unfortunate keyboard input is especially weird and seems to be targeted at root users that have cats and no clue about programs like vlock.

<comment><USER11> _Windows only?_

Sure. Putty is for Windows to allow a user to connect to a real computer, running a unix-y operating system.

Except you see a place for Putty in Linux (I guess) and by extension Solaris, HP-UX and etc.

I don't see the point - those already _have_ terminal emulation. It's baked in.

Can you educate me?

<comment><USER10> I'm not sure if there's a misunderstanding here. Let me approach both possible interpretations I can think of:

1) You're saying that PuTTY is Windows only, and then go on explaining what it is for and why that might be okay.

If that's what you think, that'd be wrong. PuTTY is available on a number of platforms, even on Linux. The port mentioned above though limits itself to Windows. I find that, plus the roadmap, weird & unfortunate to put it politely.

2) But that wasn't your point and you tried to make the point that PuTTY doesn't make _sense_ on platforms that already have a decent terminal emulator, ssh support etc.

In that case: Fair enough. I'd even agree. But I know a lot of happy PuTTY Linux users. It's the old discussion about using native but different clients on a number of platforms or going for a (decent) cross-platform solution. I think it's great to have the choice to use software on a multitude of systems - even if I'm not an active user/see no need for myself.

<comment><USER12>
      But I know a lot of happy PuTTY Linux users.

Really? Who? _Why?_ I cannot possibly think of any reason to use PuTTY in linux.

<comment><USER11> \- If a lab or school environment has multiple OSs, and a need to SSH (telnet/ftp) elsewhere - one would only have to write instructions once.

\- People who need ssh to a host, who are not comfortable with a command line, or are used to PuTTY.

These might be service desk staff who have instructions like 'ssh to host frumpty, type restart-app [enter]'

Our service desk has instructions like that, but they all use Windows. So, PuTTY. And if they use Linux .. PuTTY. It's easier.

In actuality, they call the 3rd level support and ask them to do that. And, really, we're pushing that stuff to the Enterprise scheduler so all they _really_ have to do is login to _that_ and request job task 'Restart_FOO_App' and it's done for them.

Which, in the long run, doesn't teach them how to do anything but push buttons. And is probably bad for their further development in IT. But I digress.

I don't get how one can be using a 'unix-y' computer and not be familiar with the command line. But I understand there are people out there like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From changelog:

      - On Windows: the Appearance panel now includes a checkbox to allow
       the selection of non-fixed-width fonts(...) Thanks
       to Randall Munroe for a serious suggestion that inspired this.

_This_ Randall Munroe? I guess the word "serious" is not by accident there :D.

<comment><USER14> <http://xkcd.com/840/> (title text of the image)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> My most favorite sysadmin tool on Windows is mRemoteNG (<http://www.mremoteng.org/>). It integrated Putty for SSH, but also gives you RDP, Citrix, FTP, HTTP, etc, all integrated with tabs and passwords automatically sent for login.

It's the one Windows-only tool that I wish worked cross-platform.

<comment><USER16> I just downloaded this tool and it is incredible. Thank you for the suggestion!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> PuTTY is so much better just at the UI level than Window's command prompt that I wish stuff like Cygwin and msysgit could use it instead. Unfortunately it doesn't seem the code is very modular.

<comment><USER18> Maybe it sounds like overkill, but I use SSH to localhost to access the cygwin, as I typically need functioning SSH anyway. Combined with Pageant, I don't have to type login and I type pageant password only once after the boot and it just works. It's all the stuff I need anyway so I don't have to use any patched version of something.

<comment><USER19> i've done this for years, and it isn't entirely ideal, but i really really like it

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Duke Nukem Forever has been released. PuTTY has been updated.

A memorable year!

</comment><comment><USER21> * Support for Windows 7's new user interface features. Working with jumplists

</comment><comment><USER22> Flashback! Is PuTTY still standard issue for folks on Windows?

<comment><USER23> PuTTY and Cygwin are still the most popular ways to get an SSH client on Windows, so far as I'm aware.

<comment><USER24> I prefer PuTTy a hell of a lot more for the wonderful copy+paste right-clicks.

Luckily there is puttycyg!!

<comment><USER25> Huh, I'd never heard of puttycyg. I always just ran a cygwin sshd on a local port and used putty to connect to that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I love you PuTTy. Even though I haven't used Windows in a few years I occasionally have to sit down at someone else's machine and .... there you are! :)

</comment><comment><USER10> Awww.. I was reading the list of new features and on ever 'Windows:' my heart stopped a beat. Unfortunately no cookie for me..

I was really hoping for a way to have a windows equivalent of ssh controlmaster.

On the bright side: PuTTY is part of my toolbelt for ages and I cannot live without it. I'm glad to read that it's still alive and being developed.

<comment><USER27> Its a bit lame, but you can use something like puttycyg to interface with cygwin, and then run openssh from there. It gives you the full feature set of openssh without having to use the god awful cmd.exe terminal.

<comment><USER28> Not the _full_ feature set, unfortunately. Cygwin can't support passing file descriptors via Unix sockets, and so sadly, ControlMaster doesn't work there.

<https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1278>

[http://marc.info/?l=openssh-unix- dev&m=108357562706575](http://marc.info/?l=openssh-unix-dev&m=108357562706575)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> _SSH-2 window management has also been revised to reduce round trip delays during any large-volume data transfer (including port forwardings as well as SFTP/SCP)_

Doing a quick test, I'm seeing that PuTTY 0.61 speeds up SFTP downloads of already compressed data by a factor of 4 compared to PuTTY 0.60. Fantastic!

</comment><comment><USER30> this is a huge deal for me. i've been waiting/hoping for these two changes:

"Windows 7 jump lists are now supported so you can launch saved sessions directly from the taskbar."

"Corruption of data transferred over port forwardings is _probably_ fixed "

</comment><comment><USER31> While PuTTY is a great lightweight application, I tend to use Penguinet for all my Windows based SSHing needs. Not free like PuTTY but well worth the ±$24 (GBP 15) - <http://www.siliconcircus.com/>

</comment><comment><USER32> Putty is far too simplistic on its own and the various mods and addons don't really work that well.

I switched to TeraTERM recently and it solves most of my problems - <USER2> sessions, passwords, has tabs and is stable enough.

</comment><comment><USER33> Direct link to download page - [http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/download.h...](http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/download.html)

</comment><comment><USER34> One of the first things I put on any new flash drive: <http://code.google.com/p/portaputty/> (Portable version of putty)

</comment><comment><USER35> Alternative download link here:

<http://www.filehippo.com/download_putty/>

</comment><comment><USER36> Where can I find a 64-bit installer?

<comment><USER37> What actual benefit will 64-bit get you here? If you are starting to hit the 32-bit memory limit with a terminal emulator, said terminal emulator is probably broken.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I have downloaded the latest version zip. When I am clicking on putty.exe icon, Putty screen doesn't come up. I can see the process running in taskbar, but no window is shown.

However, if I start putty.exe using command line with parameter <host_name> I can see the window.

I am using 32 bit Windows XP SP3 on Intel x86

Strange, because previous version was working perfectly fine! Anybody experiencing same?

<comment><USER38> I'm using the new version on the same (32-bit x86 XP SP3) and I don't see the issue. Everything works as expected.</comment></comment>


Capital-as-a-Service - <AUTHOR> http://www.socialcapital.com/caas/ <comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15551505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15551505) (except the ones that are about this specific page).

</comment><comment><USER3> A slightly more informative link, IMHO, is the article on medium.com[1], linked from this teaser/signup page.

TL;DR, I believe: They defined metrics[2], gather the relevant values from applicants and ask their algorithm: "How much?"

Buried in [1] is this gem:

 _In our pilot, we evaluated nearly 3,000 companies and committed to funding several dozen of those, across 12 countries and many sectors, without a single traditional venture pitch. In fact, in most cases the data-driven approach allowed us to reach conviction around an investment opportunity before we ever even spoke to the founders. Worth noting that when we recently looked at CEO demographics, we found that 42% were female and the majority nonwhite._

A purely data driven approach to VC investment could level the playing field a lot and I could imagine that adapting that concept to hiring is a) not too far off and b) a great way to reduce biases in the hiring process - if everything works as promised (or rather "as hinted at").

[1] [https://medium.com/social-capital/capital-as-a-service-a- new...](https://medium.com/social-capital/capital-as-a-service-a-new- operating-system-for-early-stage-investing-6d001416c0df)

[2] [https://medium.com/swlh/diligence-at-social-capital- part-1-a...](https://medium.com/swlh/diligence-at-social-capital- part-1-accounting-for-user-growth-4a8a449fddfc)

<comment><USER2> Since that other url was posted a few hours earlier ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15551505](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15551505)), I guess we'll merge this thread into that one and roll back the clock on it to give it a second shot. Seems fairer than the alternatives I can think of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't get what this does or how it does it. It sounds like they have some mumbojumbo machine that decides who to dole out cash to and how much, but that's unclear.

Capital As A Service is, by definition, what VC is. You give capital as a service to your startups.

I'm not sure (yet) what is novel about this approach, but if it's "shotgunning money into things based on a set of rules" they might as well just call themselves YC-lite.

<comment><USER5> If you click the two links, it explains in more detail the how. Essentially they have developed a set of GAAP-like metrics for early-stage companies, such as MRR, which they use for evaluation. It appears to be similar to investment firms using GAAP to evaluate public companies.

<comment><USER4> thanks, that definitely makes it easier to understand!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While I like the idea, I think the page should be more robust.

This feels as though it was hacked together in 2 hours as an experiment.

</comment><comment><USER7> Do they just keep posting the same link every 12 month?

<comment><USER8> Doesn't look like it's been posted before

<comment><USER9> [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=socialcapital.com&sort=byDate&...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=socialcapital.com&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0)

Either they "pivoted" or someone bought the domain name and rebranded it as CaaS.

<comment><USER10> Considering it looks like the old URLS work, if anything I suspect the former.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: When did you start feeling mature? - <AUTHOR> At what age? What sparked it? <comment><USER2> Around like 28-30 maybe. I had a sort of early-mid life crisis and dealt with really bad depression, ended up changing a lot in my life because of that as far as my attention to mental health. I changed jobs until I found one I felt was the best fit, started writing a bunch and self publishing books, lot's of introspection. It also took quitting drinking for the most part, as my wife and I were big partiers. I'd say I feel more mature every day now, but it's a slow process.

Most , I think if it's not forced on you at an earlier age, it's a decision, not something that passively happens to most folks. Until I deliberately decided to become and adult, it felt as though I always dreaded it. I'm privileged, though, and hadn't gone through any long term situation that required me to grow up before I was ready.

As a final note, I'd say a lot of it was working with older folks I looked up to and respected that were mature. Surrounding yourself with those who behave the way you want to is a good way to learn. Behavior is an interest, just like other hobbies.

</comment><comment><USER3> I defined maturity when I could see 5 minutes into the future. 38 for me.

Before that, I used to drive over 150 mph in my Porsche on a fairly regular basis. (Every week or two.) I'm male.

I got pulled over for speeding and got let go. Could of lost my license.</comment>


A quick way to browse GitHub issues and pull requests - <AUTHOR> https://git-issues.now.sh/ <comment><AUTHOR> It's hard being a maintainer/active contributor of an open source project . You have to keep an eye on all the bug reports and pull requests and provide your review on the same. I have realized that I have been wasting so much of my time browsing all the issues/PRs lately. The current flow involves going on an issue page and open all the issues in a new tab in order to see the issue details etc. To make this process a little bit easier, I have built this small tool. Here you don't need to open the issues in a new tab. In a single page, you can browse all the issues/PRs and comment on the same. This saves a lot of time + RAM also.

</comment><comment><USER2> Very cool!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :)</comment></comment>


Kleiner Perkins has raised two new funds totaling $1.4B - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/29/its-official-kleiner-just-pulled-off-a-1-4-billion-fundraise/amp/ <comment><USER2> This isn't as insane as people might believe. Let's look at the larger of the two funds: $1B. It's a digital growth fund. Raising that $1B doesn't mean that people wrote a total of $1B in cheques: that money is just "committed" to be called (ie: a capital call).

A simplified fund's capital call schedule might be something like 25%/25%/25%/25%. So each year, for the first four years, they "call" a quarter of the capital, or a total of $250M. Years 5-10 are for harvesting, though they might have one or two more extension years beyond that if the portfolio isn't ready to reap.

Since this is a growth fund, we can see them deploying it over something like 5-10 companies per year for the first two years, then following on in years two and three in later rounds pro-rata with some of the winners. That means that we're only looking at 5-10 companies, $25M-50M each in a series B or C in each of the first two years.

<comment><USER3> That seems at odds with what I assume is hundreds or thousands of companies in the digital space that could absorb a few million.

If you are limiting yourself to picking ten companies, it seems no one has learnt the lessons of YC - or is this something I would know if I was cleverer?

<comment><USER4> The other $400m is in an early stage fund that will presumably focus on making more smaller investments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Another big raise. It says to me that the VC's have a seller's market right now, in that a lot of limiteds are throwing money at the VC's expecting the Unicorn Ranch to keep producing. I'm not sure where $4B-$8B in recent raises is going to go. They are going to be hard pressed to find enough rat-holes to stuff that much money into. Of course, the Unicorn bubble could continue, but at some point I'm thinking valuations are going to reconnect with revenues, and then what?

<comment><USER6> They probably have 10 years to deploy the capital though with any fund they have to invest some each year to keep up with the IRR they aim to provide for their LP's.

<comment><USER7> > _They probably have 10 years to deploy the capital_

They probably have about that much time to _return_ the capital. 10-year fund doesn't mean you get to keep 10% of the capital in a box for a decade (apart from reserving for management fees).

<comment><USER8> They reserve a chunk for follow on rounds.

<comment><USER7> There's heterogeneity in the "they" we're referring to. As a rule, no, funds do not reserve capital for follow-on rounds. A venture fund's cost of capital ( _i.e._ expected return) is high, making the compounding cost of holding cash cumbersome.

Instead, a firm will generally raise one fund for early-stage ( _e.g._ seed) and another, either later or if they have a strong pipeline concurrently, for later investments ( _e.g._ A), where preference is given by the latter to companies invested in by the former.

<comment><USER9> Disagree strongly.

1\. The funds don't "hold cash" for follow ons. They "reserve capital" which is subsequently called. There's no dead weight uninvested cash drag on irr (or properly, very little of such).

2\. "Crossover" investments between funds are generally frowned upon, although the pendulum swings on that practice and more recently it seems they are in favor again. Still, it is the exception rather than the rule that the same manager (VC X) is allowed / supposed to put money from two different funds (X fund I and X fund II) into subsequent series of the same company's stock. If you think about it, that makes a ton of sense because in downside cases, VC X may then have to play King Solomon and split the baby between its Fund I and Fund II investors, both of whom it has a fiduciary duty to, hence a conflict it's best to avoid altogether. Now, that is a problem that comes up in downside cases and recent times have been good, so once again people are overlooking the conflicts in the name of keeping the punchbowl full and spiked.

3\. Funds do most definitely reserve for and participate in pro rata follow ons in subsequent rounds. 100% of market early stage A/B/C term sheets will ask for pro rata rights (for follow ons). If you don't have follow on reserves you risk facing a "pay to play" or other punitive term in a future round (again only in the downside cases which people start to neglect in the up cycle times like the last 2-3 yrs).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wouldn't be surprised if this results in more investments outside of Silicon Valley, in new rising American cities and countries in Asia mainly and some in South America, Europe, and Africa.

</comment><comment><USER11> What return has KP made on their most recent funds?

(Asked another way, why does anyone invest in these funds given the risk?)

<comment><USER12> These funds live for a decade. The most recent funds are almost a decade away from the moment of truth.

To the parenthetical question: You invest something in a few of these funds, and a decade or so later you learn whether you own 1% of Google, or whether all of your VC funds picked the likes of Excite. People invest because Google does exist.

Which reminds me of a classic ah-investment strategy. Say you have €1m of white money and €10m of black money. Invest in 11 high-risk ventures (coffee or tomato futures, say). Later (when the new harvest is in) when you see which one won, go back and fiddle your paperwork so the white money paid for the winner and the black money paid for all the losers. I've heard about this done with volatile foodstuffs, but never startups. Perhaps ten-year funds simply are too slow? Comments, anyone?

<comment><USER9> The white/black money thing is not in vc land but is super common in "strategy" focused hedge and even mutual funds. You "incubate" 10 funds with very small assets and then after a few years pick the best one and trot it out to the market and pitch it based on its true but misleading performance.

It's p-hacking for funds.

For various reasons this particular shenanigan doesn't happen in venture, though. (hint: it's super easy to scale down a public markets strategy to micro or pilot scale of say 1/10,000)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am always curious about who are the LPs are and the slide deck KP used to raise more money. What was the deciding factor in the LP committing more money. Is it because there are no other options for LPs to make a decent return (close to zero interest rates).

</comment><comment><USER14> Which of the big US VC Firms also Invest in Europe?

</comment><comment><USER15> KP doesn't have the same cachet anymore. It is one of the top 10 VC firms. That is all. Nothing special here. Move over.

<comment><USER16> My wild guess would be the top 3 are Benchmark, Andreessen and Sequoia, am I wrong?

<comment><USER15> Top 5 in Cachet in no particular are probably Benchmark, Andreessen, Sequoia, Greylock, Accel. KP comes after them. It used to be number one. Not anymore. There are so many angels, good old/new VCs (YC, LightSpeed, FirstRound, Union Square, SocialCapital etc) that calling out KP for prestige doesn't make sense anymore.

Getting funded by KP now means => You raised money from a good VC firm. Nothing more. Years ago, it was more like - "Wow, you guys raised money from KP? You must me special"

<comment><USER17> So what's the effective difference between raising money with KP and someone you have more respect for? Connections? Mentors?

<comment><USER18> Means that even if the company completely fails, preferred stock will be paid to some extent, eg. Meebo, Slide, Loopt, etc

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Pocket change

</comment><comment><USER20> Who's that</comment>


Ask HN: How do you get people to accept diversity? - <AUTHOR>

I've been seeing a trend of people wanting to work with people who are EXACTLY like them.  Same knowledge, same mindset, same thinking, etc.  That does kind of work until your "gold mine" runs out and you need to do something new.<p>It would be like having algorithm designers trying to create an entire social network. <comment><USER2> Well, what's your role in the team/organization? That's the first question. Are you the big chief, middle mgmt, person with seniority, person whom the others respect, or the new guy? That matters in this case, I think. It's easier to say, "You will adopt to this and you will work together" when you're the CEO. They'll have no choice. It's far harder to force that Team A's leader work with Team B's leader when you are on Team C, or are the new guy, or are someone the others do not know well, or...

In other words, your question is too general. Be more specific with it and you'll likely get more specific responses.</comment>


Amazon Shutting Down Storywriter and Storybuilder - <AUTHOR> https://studios.amazon.com/help/faq <comment><AUTHOR> Their FAQ is a little confusing because it implies the replacement is Amazon Prime Video.. but it makes sense if you know that the history of these products was a way to submit scripts to Amazon.

I tried both tools and the StoryBuilder seems like it could be done in Trello (or springboard).

The script writer looked kinda cool also but I guess you could just use Google Docs or Highland.

Overall doesn't seem to be a huge loss.</comment>


Show HN:Create Your Own Dictionary: SelfDiction.co - <AUTHOR>

Hello everybody,
I made a new side project: SelfDiction --> www.selfdiction.co
SelfDiction.co is build for make easy learning new word in foreign language especially in English.
For now, only you can create your own dictioanry, I work on new features to do remember word you add and make easy to learn it.
What do you think of my app? How you learn new word and what I should do for this app?
Thanks for all. <comment><USER2> Umm, "Sign Up With Facebook" \-- why??

<comment><AUTHOR> We don't post anything on your wall.

I'm new to programing and using Django's user auth system + Facebook login together seems to complex for me for now.

People generally don't like to enter new email, password.

I think using Facebook login is a good idea.

Do you don't like it?

<comment><USER2> A lot of people (myself included) either just don't like Facebook, or use it only very sporadically. It's not like you can count on people being logged in all the time -- and on top of this, be willing to share their FB identity with you, just to look at your app.

But the bigger question is: do you really need to have any kind of auth at all?

While you're still in the demo/outreach stage of your app, the important thing is for people to be able to _just see_ the darned thing. Anything like a login is just way too much overhead. It should suffice to create an anonymous session ID, and go from there. And if you find people starting to abuse the site or eat up your resources with their anonymous sessions, well, you can take that as a sign that you're already successful :)

But even if you feel you absolutely must require a login, at least you can have a static "take a tour" section with some canned images and slides. Again, what most people want is just to get an instant idea of what your app is about -- with as little time investment as possible.</comment></comment></comment>


Seven ways publishers have reacted to ad blockers - <AUTHOR> https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/03/15/seven-ways-publishers-have-reacted-to-ad-blockers/ <comment><USER2> I wish they would stop calling it ad blocking. It's a misnomer, or more accurately, a lie.

If they want to run a hard coded ad within their site with no trackers, beacons, and privacy violators, I totally fine with it. I am not blocking ads, I am blocking spyware.</comment>


Could spam email help me win big at the Casino? [2009] - twoism-dev http://24twoism.tumblr.com/post/164836782/could-spam-email-help-me-win-big-at-the-casino

<comment><AUTHOR> I actually tried this a bunch of times in vegas. The most I ever walked away with was $50. It's the green and runs on the losing color that kill you. Better off playing conservative in a game of craps with a big float. :)</comment>


Ask HN: What are some good, lightweight reads on computing? - <AUTHOR>

I know there's plenty of quality technical books, but I'm looking for the kind of book that I can read a few pages of on the morning bus ride. The first book that comes to mind is "The Universal History of Computing: From the Abacus to the Quantum Computer" by Georges Ifrah (although I haven't read it).  I feel that a combination of technical books and light reads would make me a more well-rounded programmer, and I feel like my knowledge of computing out of the context of the 21st century is pretty limited. If you have any entertaining and/or lightweight books on computing or branches of computing, I'd love to hear about them.  I'd also be interested in documentaries or movies too. <comment><USER2> The Soul of a New Machine by Tracy Kidder, the classic book following the development of a new minicomputer in the late 70s.

[http://www.amazon.com/Soul-New-Machine-Tracy- Kidder/dp/03164...](http://www.amazon.com/Soul-New-Machine-Tracy- Kidder/dp/0316491977/)

Stealing The Network: How to Own the Box. This is a collection of fictional accounts of "hacking" written by hackers. Real world techniques are described though its in lightweight detail, the aim of the book is more to give an insight into how an attacker thinks. It's quite an enjoyable read too.

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stealing-Network-How-Own-Cyber- Ficti...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stealing-Network-How-Own-Cyber- Fiction/dp/1931836876)

Kingpin: How One Hacker Took Over the Billion-Dollar Cybercrime Underground by Kevin Poulsen. This one's a true story.

[http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingpin-Hacker-Billion-Dollar- Cyberc...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kingpin-Hacker-Billion-Dollar-Cybercrime- Underground/dp/0307588696/)

Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software By Charles Petzold. I still have to read this one, but I expect it would fit in with what you're after quite well.

[http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer-Hardware- Softwa...](http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer-Hardware- Software/dp/0735611319/)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's increasingly outdated as an actually useful resource, but _The Hacker 's Dictionary_ has long been one of my favorites, and should still be fun and educational from a historical perspective:

[http://www.amazon.com/New-Hackers- Dictionary-3rd/dp/02626809...](http://www.amazon.com/New-Hackers- Dictionary-3rd/dp/0262680920/)

Available online also as The Jargon File:

[http://www.catb.org/jargon/](http://www.catb.org/jargon/)

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm sorry why would you want to do that? I mean what are you trying to learn specifically? If you're trying to learn coding then you should probably start with simpler easy stuff like HTML then Javascript then Java/C++...

Otherwise most books about "computing" in general are more outdated since this field evolves so fast.

-A software engineer with 5+ years experience

<comment><AUTHOR> I already know how to program, and thought it'd be interesting to explore other forms of media that are related to programming/computing in general that aren't necessarily technical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm going to get Think Complexity from Allen B. Downey.

[http://www.amazon.com/Think-Complexity-Science- Computational...](http://www.amazon.com/Think-Complexity-Science- Computational-Modeling/dp/1449314635)

Or:

[http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Algorithms-That-Changed-Future- eb...](http://www.amazon.com/Nine-Algorithms-That-Changed-Future- ebook/dp/B005Z67EI0)

</comment><comment><USER6> Code by Charles Petzold will feel a bit slow at the beginning but gets pretty fun once he gets to circuits and builds up a whole functioning computer.

Hackers by Steven Levy is a great history of the 50s to 80s. Very focused on the personalities of the non-establishment people who made things happen.

Go To by Steve Lohr is also a history and super boring. Give it a pass.

The Mythical Man-Month by Frederick Brooks--if you haven't read this yet, it's pretty light, and it's amazing how contemporary it feels.

Programmers at Work by Susan Lammers: interviews of lots of famous computer pioneers. Very interesting to think about the remarks that appear again and again.

Smart and Gets Things Done by Joel Spolsky will make you feel good about yourself. :-)

The Mac is Not a Typewriter by Robin Williams is a nice bite-sized lesson on type.

The original Human Interface Guidelines by Apple is a pretty interesting look back into what motivated them in those days, especially if you do any iOS development.

The Visual Display of Quantitative Information by Tufte is not something you can carry on a bus but a pretty fun read.

Ghost in the Wires by Kevin Mitnick is like a novel. I'm not sure I believe it all, but it's interesting.

The Elements of Style by Strunk & White is tiny and will improve your writing a lot.

Clear and Simple as the Truth by Thomas & Turner is good after you've digested Strunk & White a bit.

Time Management for System Administrators by Limoncelli might give you some things to think about.

Expert C Programming: Deep C Secrets by Peter van der Linden is technical but super amusing and helpful if you've done any C before.

Programming Collective Intelligence by Toby Segaran is a light overview of various machine learning techniques. Enough to make you sound like you know what you're talking about. :-)

Release It! by Michael Nygard and Scalable Internet Architectures by Theo Schlossnagle have good lessons on building reliable systems. The latter is more technical, even offering code for some things; the former, more high- level.

Effective Java by Bloch has good tips if you do any Java. After 10+ years I still remember his idea that inheritance is a "scarce resource" and should be used sparingly. The discussion of `equals()` might convince you to switch to Ruby. :-)

How about math? Get any collection of essays by Martin Gardner. The Colossal Book of Mathematics is more a bedside/restroom book than one for a bus, but they also publish many thin collections like Hexaflexagons, Probability Paradoxes, and the Tower of Hanoi.

Javascript: The Good Parts by Crockford is tiny and a classic.</comment>


Can the World Really Set Aside Half of the Planet for Wildlife? - <AUTHOR> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-world-really-set-aside-half-planet-wildlife-180952379/?all&no-ist <comment><USER2> > the sixth mass extinction event, the only one caused not by some cataclysm > but by a single species—us.

Not so sure. IIRC there are reasons to believe that the big one, the Permian- Triassic extinction, was due to _methanosarcina_ , an archaean genus. OK, that's not a species but a genus, but still.

It's a bit naive to think that all extinctions events happen because of some geologic or celestial event. Sometimes, evolution goes terribly wrong and sh.t hits the fan. Either it is by releasing nefarious gazes in the atmosphere, or creating a Primate intelligent enough to rule and consume most of biosphere.

<comment><USER3> The largest environmental impact the Earth has ever seen was caused by its original life form (probably some type of cyanobacteria.) They depleted most of the atmosphere's CO2 and replaced it with toxic gas. (O2) It caused the oceans to rust. It is hard to know the exact scope of the effects, but they were significant.

<comment><USER4> The earliest life forms where not photosynthetic. Further the change was slow enough to give life plenty of time to adapt.

[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_photosynthesis](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_photosynthesis)

<comment><USER5> We're watching a second family of mammals adapt and speciate a bunch of new winners in this domain of man, in in our own homes!

Even the human mass extinction has given life time to adapt, by way of crops, farm animals, pets, etc. We've even helped make sure that hundreds or thousands of species across many different kinds of life are 100% going to survive along with us if it's remotely in our power.

There are likely hundreds or thousands of other species like raccoons, pigeons, rats, jellyfish, various kinds of insects, etc that are going to thrive in our cities and continue to coevolve as parasites.

I'm not entirely convinced a human caused mass extinction is really all that much worse than other kinds, because we provide some guaranteed survival routes to animals that can coevolve with us, and be useful in some way.

<comment><USER6> I've never heard this apologetic argument for mass extinction, it's somewhat disheartening. Do you think domesticated animals and scavengers are going to make up for the lost in biodiversity and ecological damage? Basically whatever can survive in our concrete jungles and farms will be alright, screw the rest?

The other parts of this earth play an essential role in maintaining ecological balance on this planet, and a world with just farms and cities and the animals that can survive within is not going to bode well for us or any other species. Hopefully that's a good enough argument if you still don't think that mass extinction and habitat lose isn't a negative outcome in and of itself.

<comment><USER7> >The other parts of this earth play an essential role in maintaining ecological balance on this planet, and a world with just farms and cities and the animals that can survive within is not going to bode well for us or any other species. Hopefully that's a good enough argument if you still don't think that mass extinction and habitat lose isn't a negative outcome in and of itself.

Why?

Humans don't even need animals. It's brutally cruel to enslave, torture, kill and eat animals the way we do. Humanity can be fine on its own.

Regardless of whether or not you like things like, say, hippos, or mosquitoes, or prairie voles, _humanity does not need them._

Should we set half the earth aside for wildlife? I think it'd be better used by humans.

<comment><USER8> Let's be frank. I don't need you. So if I see you being mugged/raped/beaten, should I just go on my merry way or should I help you?

Saying "I don't need animals so _fuck_ them" is not a great attitude to have.

Not to mention that we _do_ need plants/trees, and we'd find it difficult to keep them going without the biospheres that they survive in.

<comment><USER7> I think you're misrepresenting my argument, which isn't "actively perpetuate harm on non-humans", but rather "let's build a world with mostly humans via the most humane way possible."

>if I see you being mugged/raped/beaten, should I just go on my merry way or should I help you?

Please avoid casually triggering rape survivors; 1/4 women has suffered sexual assault and using thought experiments that are triggering without any reason to (mugged/murdered would have sufficed) is a way to exclude women from spaces.

But as to your question, that depends. Do you think anything sentient has some sort of right not to suffer, or do you generally prefer a world without sentient suffering? If so, it'd be morally consistent to help me, and it'd also be morally _inconsistent_ to eat meat or consume animal products in general.

As a vegan myself, I'm generally opposed to actions that perpetuate the suffering of sentient life. However, this only applies, critically, to _life which exists_. I have no moral obligation to perpetuate a _species_ , because a species is a concept, not an actual thing, and it does not have the ability to suffer.

So, I'd be totally supportive of diffusing birth control for non-human species and just letting them go extinct. I'd honestly rather use that space and resources for humans than animals. I care about humans more and I generally think a world with more humans is more interesting and diverse (information- theoretically) than a world with more animals than humans.

We need oxygen, not trees. Algae makes most oxygen. As a matter of self- preservation I'm okay with algae; we can eat them anyway so it's a useful symbiosis.

<comment><USER8> > Please avoid casually triggering rape survivors; 1/4 women has suffered > sexual assault and using thought experiments that are triggering without any > reason to (mugged/murdered would have sufficed) is a way to exclude women > from spaces.

Many men (or gender-fluid people) are raped/molested too. Why is your focus so intensely on women when talking about something that should be common all rape-survivors?

Also, first you say:

> I have no moral obligation to perpetuate a species, because a species is a > concept, not an actual thing, and it does not have the ability to suffer.

Then you go on to say:

> So, I'd be totally supportive of diffusing birth control for non-human > species and just letting them go extinct.

Having no moral obligation towards action (actively supporting a species) doesn't imply the a moral obligation towards the opposite action (actively 'destroying' a species).

<comment><USER7> >Many men (or gender-fluid people) are raped/molested too. Why is your focus so intensely on women when talking about something that should be common all rape-survivors?

Because women are excluded from tech communities more than men.

Try not to make everything about yourself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The question is not can we.

The question is what standard of living do we want for species in the long term.

We can always live more comfortably today by consuming non-renewable resources that make our world sustainably enjoyable, but at the loss of the benefit that resource would later give. Slash-and-burn farming does this. As do putting up a mall over untouched land, burning fossil fuels, and overpopulation, for example, all of which do the opposite of setting aside part of the planet.

Business people know the concept better than anyone. They know a company is in trouble if it sells an asset whose operation produces profit to pay for current operations.

We can set off as much of the planet as we like and live in as much abundance per person as the planet can sustain indefinitely, though not as much abundance per person as we can today by consuming non-renewable resources. Using up those resources today only impoverishes future generations.

We can _do_ either. What do we choose?

<comment><USER10> I think the problem is that it's not possible (or rather, extremely difficult) to choose in any global sense, due to co-ordination problems. A very interesting (though long and occasionally whimsical) essay called "Meditations on Moloch" dwells on this problem:

 _" A basic principle unites all of the multipolar traps above. In some competition optimizing for X, the opportunity arises to throw some other value under the bus for improved X. Those who take it prosper. Those who don't take it die out. Eventually, everyone's relative status is about the same as before, but everyone's absolute status is worse than before. The process continues until all other values that can be traded off have been – in other words, until human ingenuity cannot possibly figure out a way to make things any worse."_

[http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on- moloch/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/)

So, basically we can't choose your former path above because we're stuck in one of these "multipolar traps." I recommend checking out the entire essay. It's long but rewarding.

<comment><USER11> One of the purposes international treaties and organizations attempt to solve is this very coordination problem. The fact that such organizations have had a certain level of success as far as deweaponization (as far as biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons), commerce treaties, and pollution control guidelines means that a global framework for reducing carbon emissions and increasing land conservation efforts is possible.

A minor example of this is the UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which have a certain protected legal standing, which has been fairly effective in its goal. Maritime laws and emissions control for large ships is another one where global legal frameworks have worked.

<comment><USER12> If you wanted coordinated global action on climate change, with teeth, you would make it a prerequisite of the trade treaties.

<comment><USER11> We might be getting there, since the Chinese have most of the parts in place for a carbon tax framework. The only question is whether it's too little, too late.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can't imagine us doing something like this for animals when we can't even do it for Ukrainians. From a political perspective, aggressive nations will always be seeking out annexations/territorial control and limiting the amount of land for human use would only encourage this. I mean, we're already discussing oil territorial disputes in multiple locales as well as upcoming "water wars" as unavoidable.

I don't think humanity is up to the task. This proposal sounds like something out of a sci-fi novel where everyone is a Marty or Mary Sue or some benevolant engineer dictator is running the show. In real life, guys like Putin don't give two shits about life and will march troops on a whim to obtain resources.

<comment><USER14> It's a far off goal to be sure. But they're already making progress. Changing it to "Half of North America" seems quite doable as more and more people are living in cities. We just need wealthy benefactors to continue buying up useless land and committing it to the cause.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The joker in me wants to say that they already have more the half, but most of them can't swim.

The serious me thinks that trying to prevent a mass extinction is noble, and should be widely supported.

<comment><USER16> Preventing a mass extinction is impossible; at this point we are in damage control.

To your first point, aren't most species ocean-dwelling?

<comment><USER15> > To your first point, aren't most species ocean-dwelling?

Indeed, it part if the joke that most people think of elephants and rhinos as animals under threat before they think about the abundance of life on our oceans.

I believe that the highest concentration if species is found in the rainforest though.

<comment><USER17> The rainforest is substantial, but it only produces about 20-30% of the oxygen that we breathe, the ocean and all of the life within it form a machine that processes most of our CO2 and CO into the O2 which we breathe.

A frightening amount of the ocean is completely dead, even before deepwater horizon the gulf of mexico was home to one of the largest dead zones in the world - entire collapsed ecosystems.

For ages we have treated the ocean as our geological /dev/null, tossing all manner of stuff into it that we didn't have a better idea for how to deal with, and that is coming home to roost.

It's pointless to protect the rest of the wildlife without protecting the oceans. Check out Sylvia Earle's Mission Blue:

      http://mission-blue.org/hope-spots-new/

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It needs to be a HARD set aside.. perhaps only trials and fire roads too.

NOT what the US does with "national forest"... IE it's pseudo wilderness. They let ranchers use it to raise their cattle and lets companies harvest trees and mine it.

<comment><USER19> I recently tried to go hiking in Colorado with my dad in an area that he remembered being a great hike ~20 years ago. Well, we get there, and we realize the majority of the area has become an RV camp littered with dirt bike trails, despite it being managed by the National Forest Service. We still had an okay time hiking once we got to the main trail, but the whole area around it was a dust bowl, certainly not helped by all of the erosion.

As we were leaving, he remarked that this is what happens when your country's forest service is part of the Department of Agriculture (tasked with policy on farming, agriculture, food, and using resources economically) instead of the Department of the Interior (housing the National Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service, among others, and tasked with conserving federal land and resources).

It's a real shame that the Forest Service, while doing an okay job maintaining much of the land, is part of a wider branch that is incentivized to promote economic growth and treat resources as things to be used instead of preserved. It just doesn't seem to fit in with that branch of the government.

<comment><USER20> That structure isn't a mistake. The USFS & the NPS have distinct goals.

Borrowing from Wiki:

 _Land management of (national forests) focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. Unlike national parks and other federal lands managed by the National Park Service, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted, and in many cases encouraged._

USFS does not exist for pristine preservation of deep wilderness. The goal of the NPS is preservation & low-impact recreation. The goal of the USFS is responsible resource exploitation.

Both goals have their place. We need both organizations. The key then is wise choices in designating the land.

<comment><USER21> The problem, then, is somehow getting rid of the four-wheeler and jeep drivers. (I actually haven't noticed dirt-bikers themselves causing many problems, but they're often accompanied by the others.) As long as they exist they'll be able to lobby the USFS for off-trail access rights to certain locations. In the vast majority of national forest acreage, they are restricted to roads and trails that can handle them just fine.

However, a part of me wants to keep the motor enthusiasts around. They obviously cause more damage than I do as a hunter, so while they are tolerated in places I expect I'll also be tolerated.

<comment><USER22> I think a less black and white approach needs to be taken with recreation in our parks. You alienate a whole group of people that could be some of your greatest supporters by not creating an environment of trust and mutual respect. Increasing programs to educate and incorporate people that want to explore recreation activities outside of traditional hiking will be a huge aid in getting people interested in conservation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> We should consider a single plastic toy, bought from Amazon, used for a few months and thrown away: The material and minerals are taken from the ground, factories to produce it, ship to the harbour, overseas, to stores, to the consumer, and then - disposal? For what? Animals are living creatures, that inspired (and still inspire - so many movies, stories, sport teams, logos, metaphors) humanity for ages. Many, many daily things we can really live without. Think shoedazzle. Do we really need new shoes monthly, or "get obsessed"[1] about shoes? Can we at least buy something with better quality that lasts for years? This shopping and comforts have a cruel irreversible price tag on animals and wildlife. Add to this wars and conflicts all around the world, and the results are devastating.

[1] Home page of [http://www.shoedazzle.com/](http://www.shoedazzle.com/)

<comment><USER24> Higher taxes on the wealthy will reduce wasteful spending.

<comment><USER25> Right or move to a sales tax that discourages consumption. Instead of an income tax that discourages working.

<comment><USER26> Taxes on income don't reduce working any more than the price of insulin affects how much a diabetic needs.

If your taxes go up 5% tomorrow, would you work 5% less?

<comment><USER27> This is just false.

Even Slate, which is hardly a right-wing bastion, concedes that there is an effect ([http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/02/if_they_tax_do_we_relax.html))

If we subjected you to a 99% tax rate tomorrow, would you work less than before? A yes answer is all that is needed to concede the point theoretically. Then, we're just arguing about magnitude. And I just don't believe you if you answer no: Who is going to work a full-time $50,000 a year job when they're only taking home $500/year?

For further reading, Paul Graham has argued that redistribution through higher tax rates leas to less entrepreneurship ([http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html))

<comment><USER28> This argument assumes that there is a monotonic effect of taxes on my desire to work. I'd argue that if taxes were raised a little, I would work a little more. I think therefore that it is more reasonable to assume that the taxes->work hour function is concave.

<comment><USER27> I'm willing to concede that the effect is uncertain at low and middle incomes, but I think it has been shown quite convincingly that when tax rates go up the rich work less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Humans only live on a small fraction of the planet even when you limit the area to dry land.

[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/earth-at- night.ht...](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NPP/news/earth-at- night.html#.VBxS2_ldXp4)

<comment><USER30> But it's not just those areas that are impacted by human activity. You also have to include fields that produce grows on, grazing grounds etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> It is strange that modern agriculture employs crop rotation in order to increase yields but we do not do the same thing for harvesting food from the ocean. CBC's The Nature of Things recently had a series about the state of the oceans. During one of the episodes they showed the success of marine reserves in New Zealand. I am having trouble finding a good link but the turn around was amazing.

Currently less than 1% of the ocean is protected. Greenpeace has been campaigning to set aside a large amount of the ocean as a "marine reserve." [http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/...](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/marine- reserves/pacific-tuna-need-marine-reserves/)

<comment><USER32> _It is strange that modern agriculture employs crop rotation in order to increase yields but we do not do the same thing for harvesting food from the ocean._

Crops are grown on private property and the ocean is a shared resource. See tragedy of the commons[1].

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)

<comment><USER31> There are two problems with your response. The first is that not all of the ocean is a shared resource. Within national boundaries the ocean is anything but a shared resource. See Fisheries Management[1] and for a specific example see Stellwagons Bank[2].

The other problem is that just because something is a shared resource does not mean that it is automatically a lost cause. See tragedy of the commons[3]:

       Elinor Ostrom found  the tragedy of the commons  not as prevalent
       or  as  difficult  to  solve. She and  her  coworkers  looked  at
       how  real-world communities  manage communal  resources, such  as
       fisheries ... and  they identified a number  of factors conducive
       to successful resource management.

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

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellwagen_Bank_National_Marin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellwagen_Bank_National_Marine_Sanctuary)

[3]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons)

<comment><USER32> There is one problem with your response ("The first is that not all of the ocean is a shared resource.), 99% of the ocean is a share resource and there are no fences between the shared and unshared portions, so fish and other wild life can cross the boundary (during migrations, etc).

If the shared portion of the ocean were to be destroyed (over-fished or polluted) then I dare say that the unshared portion would be, too.

<comment><USER31> You can dare to say whatever you like. The problem is that the experimental results dare to tell another story:

       Studies have  consistently shown that organisms  within marine
       reserves tend to grow larger  and live longer than individuals
       in  adjacent  unprotected  areas. Monitoring results  from  89
       no-take marine reserves  around the world have  shown that, on
       average,  fish  density,  biomass,  size,  and  diversity  all
       increased  within marine  reserves  (Halpern  2003, Lester  et
       al. 2009). This is very important because fish that are larger
       and older tend  to produce significantly more  eggs and larvae
       than smaller fish. Also, larvae  produced from older fish tend
       to have a higher survival rate (Francis et al. 2007) [^1]

The behavior of the commercial fisherman near the MPAs in New Zealand is extremely apropos:

       For  reasons  not  fully  understood, when  areas  are  closed
       to  fishing,  snapper  aggregate within  them,  forming  large
       resident  populations. Spiny rock  lobsters  (crayfish to  New
       Zealanders) do  the same. Their density inside  the reserve is
       about 15  times higher than  outside. Commercial crayfishermen
       have cashed  in on  the reserves  success because  the outward
       migration  of   crayfish—a  process  marine   biologists  call
       spillover—brings the crustaceans  to their pots, strategically
       placed just  outside the  boundary. These former  skeptics are
       now some  of the reserves staunchest  defenders. They refer to
       it  as our  reserve  and act  as  marine minutemen,  reporting
       poachers  and  boundary  cheats. ...  Reserves  where  fishing
       is  banned are  now  seen  as potential  stud  farms and  fish
       hatcheries, replenishing the surrounding seas. [^2]

[^1]: [http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful- resources/d...](http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/helpful- resources/do_no_take_reserves_benefit_adjacent_fisheries.pdf)

[^2]: [http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/04/new-zealand- coast/...](http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/04/new-zealand-coast/warne- text/2)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> In the future, yes I believe so.

Today I believe there is no way.

The world approaches population stabilization. Japan 's population is going to go down. So is China, Germany, Spain...

As we reduce illness in Africa and increase automation people need less children.

Population will get a peak and then not grow anymore.

If we solve fusion energy we will be able to plant vegetables or plankton underground, in floors, in a much more efficient way, as we will be able to have a stable temperature all day long, with pests controlled without using chemical products, just controlling physically the access, and very near the places they are consumed.

<comment><USER23> The effect is not only population, but resources dilution. The same population can consume different amounts of forests, nature areas, or elephants for their ivory [1]

[1] [http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/15/opinion-c...](http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/15/opinion- can-elephants-survive-a-continued-ivory-trade-ban/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think the only ultimately sustainable solution is not to "set aside" any percentage of the planet for wildlife, but to develop ways of living that are not based on a differentiation between spaces of civilization and spaces of wilderness. Our species is naturally a node in a complex set of ecological systems, and instead of trying to detach ourselves from that system we should find a way to achieve our goals while living within it.

<comment><USER35> I think developing a grid system where there can only be so much average population density in a given area would be the best way to handle it.

Setting aside half our land is kind of absurd in that it's inevitably going to be undesirable land - look at Canada. The population clings to the boarder, so we preserve the boreal forest, but not the more southern parts.

If we create a grid pattern we either end up with a low general density where wildlife is free to move though our popylation or we end up with isolated areas of ultra high density (eliminating the urban sprawl) surrounded by nature allowing wildlife to freely move around our population.

My example is here in southern Ontario we generally don't see things like bears or wolves. However we can go south into the states to find them or north.

Southern Ontario homes 95% of Ontario's population and 35% of Canada's. Being from England where overpopulation wiped out many of the native species, being in southern Ontario feels the same. We're one of the least populated countries on the planet, but the Greater Toronto Area has an extremely high population density for how large of an area it covers. There literally is no room for anything bigger than a raccoon.

If we started developing rapid transit systems it would reduce the impact of confining urbanization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Our society is very irresponsible. Every holiday is a nightmare for the planet. The tons of junk, wrapping, and throwaway stuff we consume will be ridiculed from future generations. Not to mention the time and energy (literary, too) wasted for shopping. I stopped buying birthday decorations and try to educate my kids to stop having these merchant-inspired "festivities". All junk from Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas, and the endless kids' birthdays piles up to a ton per year. Be responsible as we're leaving a huge liability to the future generations and our children and grandchildren, which we care the most about! I'm really disappointed at the Waste Management Recycling Centers who refuse to take anything, but CRV just recently. I invest time and pile up tons of non-CRV recyclables and they do not take it anymore.

</comment><comment><USER37> There are fundamental cultural issues that will need to be addressed for civilization to reach sustainable, large populations. Yet, even if we do undergo a mass extinction, it may be slow enough that we can actively intervene in the ecology to prevent the collapse of civilization. With the rise of synthetic biology, advanced genetic engineering, realistic ecological simulations, and perhaps AI-engineered organisms, it may be exiting. We could be on the cusp of an unprecedented explosion in new genes, phenotypes, biochemistry, and general biodiversity.

</comment><comment><USER38> "Without any human intervention, here is a forest with tall, straight trees that are rather widely spaced, plenty of sunlight and lots of open, grassy meadows. Longleaf branches out only after it's high overhead, where glistening needles up to two-and-a-half-feet long are arrayed in pomponlike sprays. Below the branches is empty space a hawk can glide through."

Sounds beautiful!

</comment><comment><USER39> He needs to talk with the Florida DOT about building wildlife bridges so the animals can safely cross roads and rail lines.

</comment><comment><USER40> See also: [http://www.americanprairie.org/](http://www.americanprairie.org/) \-- an effort to link public and private lands to create a 3 million acre preserve of the Great Plains ecosystem. That's pretty big, but not even close to the scale this article considers.

</comment><comment><USER41> We could set aside 90%, if we turned agriculture over to nuclear powered subterranean farms.

It isn't so much what can we do, as what can groups of people be bothered to do collectively and whether anyone else is going to complain.

</comment><comment><USER42> A good starting point would be scrapping agricultural subsidies. Since South Africa scrapped it, a lot of farm land was turned into wildlife farms.

</comment><comment><USER43> according to NOAA [http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html](http://www.noaa.gov/ocean.html) 71% of the earth is Ocean leaving only 29% land. So the goal is for 14.5% of the earth to be set aside for Wildlife? That is a terrible title for an article. 14.5% != 50%

<comment><USER44> No even close: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather- gang/pos...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather- gang/post/all-the-worlds-water-a-drop-in-earths- bucket/2012/05/14/gIQAtowVPU_blog.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I guess it depends upon how many humans one must move or exterminate.

<comment><USER46> ...which then becomes, "oh, I didn't mean _these_ particular humans, try those over _there_ ".

At some point, the NIMBY mindset comes into play.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> just nuke some land, worked great for wildlife in Cernobyl

</comment><comment><USER48> >Can the World Really Set Aside Half of the Planet for Wildlife?

no.

</comment><comment><USER49> Majority of the planet is ocean, so maybe they could.

</comment><comment><USER50> Not sure why I bother trying to talk to you people anymore, but I will go ahead and throw out an idea that I assume you will simply reject because it goes against your belief system.

We should not worship nature to such a high degree. Yes, we should try to conserve wild areas as a buffer against mistakes and for basic enjoyment. And we are not doing a good enough job of that.

But the assumption is that basically the wild areas have some sacred process or system going on that we cannot possibly ever aspire to understanding or surpassing.

First of all, there is absolutely no separation between the "wild" world and the "human" world. The idea of a natural world that is separate from a human world is an oversimplification that has become misleading.

Everything in the world, including people and the things that we make, from human feces, to plastic trash bags to rocket ships and computers, is the result of the same natural physical laws and processes involved in the universe.

The planet sees itself with billions of eyes. The planet thinks with billions of tiny minds.

The cities, roadways, and agricultural fields that cover increasingly large areas of earth are part of the natural evolution of the planet.

Its hard to really convey especially since we are so far down the line of nature worship, but part of what I am trying to get across is that humans have already surpassed nature in some ways, and if we haven't already done so then we can create environments that do.

I think it will be easier to appreciate this type of thing once we become a multi-planet species. Or at least get a colony on the moon or something.

Because part of the nature worship is the reality that we only have one biosphere to support us. We need to fix that.

But another thing -- this does tie into Malthusian population control, eugenics, classism, etc. There is an inherent disgust for the dirty masses that is hidden behind the earth worship. We have to remember the value of human life.

<comment><USER51> First you say that humans and artificial human works are products and part of Nature. Then you say that humans have surpassed Nature and can create environments outside of Nature, which is what you just spent the first half of your post arguing is impossible.

I think you need to figure out what you're trying to say.

<comment><USER50> Don't think I said that environments would be outside of nature. That's not what I meant.

I wouldn't capitalize "nature". We are part of it, we can consciously direct its evolution if we do it in a sophisticated enough way.

We are not separate from nature and we are not inferior to nature.

My point is that instead of sort of shutting down and reverting to feudalism in the face of environmental challenges, we can continue to create a more sophisticated technological system that integrates information about the biosphere and continues to evolve it in new ways. My point is that humanity should not worship untamed wilderness. Rather, we should continue to respect the fragility and complexity of the biosphere, but still recognize our own abilities and shape the universe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> It is possible.

One of the discussions that spurred here in my cubicle was: How? How can we set aside half of the planet for anything other than ourselves? It's impossible! With almost every nation, state or person out there worrying about their piece of land it surely must be impossible.

But not quite.

Use Nuclear Leakage & Irradiation. Like the one that led to the Red Forest in Chernobyl [1].

'Radiological Reserves' are probably the only way to set aside a large area for animals/plants with a _guarantee_ that humans will not come by. Not in the next 10,000 years!

Eat that! :)

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest)

<comment><USER53> One way or the other, the solution goes through nuclear energy :)

<comment><USER52> It actually does tie up all the parameters together: Evolution, Creation, Destruction, Energy, Disorderliness etc. etc. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> This will only become possible when a couple for important milestones are reached --and they a biggies. First we have to get rid of a lot of the roads. And that can't happen until personal flight becomes common place. Second human population has to stop growing, in fact it needs to shrink even now. We are already reaching upper limits on agricultural and water availability. Unfortunately, while the former is difficult enough, the later is near impossible due to the dominance of infantile religions.

<comment><USER55> Human population growth tapers off, even decreases, when a sufficiently advanced level of technology & luxury is reached.

We are hardly "reaching upper limits on agricultural and water availability". The problem with food is distribution, not production. Water is an issue, but desalination is very possible once the demand reaches sufficient levels.

And your "infantile religion" snipe is a non-sequitur.

<comment><USER54> The two most widely practiced religions in the world, Catholicism and Islam (~3 billion people) are both opposed to birth control. In most nations these institutions hold sway. So it is not a "swipe" nor a "non-sequitur".</comment></comment></comment>


Can I use Stack Overflow code in Apache licensed OpenSource projects? - <AUTHOR> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/q/170185 <comment><USER2> Hmmm, still to be discussed I am not sure if the accepted answer is the right one.</comment>


Controversy over who really invented AdSense - <AUTHOR> http://valleywag.com/tech/google/susan-wojcickis-big-lie-275287.php <comment><USER2> I heard a story that it was Paul Buchheit's idea but the bosses were not so keen on it. So he stayed up overnight, and implemented a prototype to convince them that it would work and they loved it.

<comment><USER3> See Figaro's comment on the valleywag article. He quotes _Founders at Work_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I heard a rumor that doubleclick came up with the idea.</comment>


Voyager 1 has been traveling for about a year through plasma between stars - <AUTHOR> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyager/voyager20130912.html <comment><USER2> From "The West Wing", around one of the last times Voyager left the solar system:

 _" Voyager, in case it's ever encountered by extra-terrestrials, is carrying photos of life on Earth, greetings in 55 languages and a collection of music from Gregorian chants to Chuck Berry. Including "Dark Was The Night, Cold Was The Ground" by '20s bluesman Blind Willie Johnson, whose stepmother blinded him when he was seven by throwing lye in is his eyes after his father had beat her for being with another man. He died, penniless, of pneumonia after sleeping bundled in wet newspapers in the ruins of his house that burned down. But his music just left the solar system."_

It's pretty amazing how far we've extended our reach, if not our grasp.

<comment><USER3> the song: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNj2BXW852g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNj2BXW852g)

<comment><USER4> The song might have left the solar system, but it's not arrived in the UK yet:

"This video contains content from PEDL, SME, PRS CS, AdShare MG for a Third Party and Warner Chappell, one or more of whom have blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

<comment><USER5> Sadly the Voyager doesn't run uTorrent...

<comment><USER6> But I'm pretty sure it runs some kind of transmission.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Several commenters are joking about how many times they've heard this before, but NASA goes into great detail about why it was so difficult to measure and what new information helped them decide for sure. Here's a small excerpt:

"The particular oscillations meant the spacecraft was bathed in plasma more than 40 times denser than what they had encountered in the outer layer of the heliosphere. Density of this sort is to be expected in interstellar space."

Read their account of how an "unexpected gift from the sun" helped them. It's not long and quite fascinating, and some little tidbits like this are pretty intriguing to me:

"By the time the signals get to Earth, they are a fraction of a billion- billionth of a watt."

<comment><USER8> > "By the time the signals get to Earth, they are a fraction of a billion- > billionth of a watt."

Check my math but one billionth of a Watt is 1 nW. So one billion-billionth of a Watt is 1 atto Watt?

<comment><USER9> It's a shame that Voyager doesn't carry some tiny nuke bombs to mark its positions. The SNR at a billion-billionth of a watt level is terrible.

<comment><USER10> An excerpt from a course I recently attended: [http://i.imgur.com/6VW4X3o.png](http://i.imgur.com/6VW4X3o.png)

The noise floor of the Goldstone Observatory is truly incredible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I agree with everyone who is tired of the "Voyager has left the solar system" PR game, but I'll point out that the latest announcement is data confirming last year's Aug. 25, 2012 exit date, not a new exit. That is, they have new data showing that the previous departure was "real".

</comment><comment><USER12> If the universe is continually expanding, does that mean we are trying to hit a moving target? Probably sounds like a stupid question, but I honestly want to know.

There was a xkcd comic about this @ [http://xkcd.com/1189/](http://xkcd.com/1189/)

<comment><USER13> The Hubble constant is 67.8 (km/s)/Mpc. That means that something one Mega- parsec (Mpc) away will appear to recede at about 70 km/s. Our galaxy is about 35 kpc across.

Voyager is currently 0.0006 parsecs from Earth, moving at 17 km/s.

Given this distance, we find that the cosmological effect alters the apparent velocity of Voyager by 4.2x10^-8 km/s. This is only 1 part in 4x10^8, which is probably too small to measure.

There may be general-relativistic corrections to the spacecraft clocks, however, and computation of its trajectory may involve general-relativistic dynamics. So some of the often-ignorable effects probably do add up.

Of course, the surrounding volume is also expanding with the same rate, so from that point of view, there is no effect.

<comment><USER14> The expansion of the Universe is irrelevant in this case. Our galaxy is gravitationally bound, so things (stars, planets, etc) within it do not follow Hubble's law. So there will be no modification to Voyager's distance from earth as a result of the Universe's expansion.

Even nearby galaxies don't obey Hubble's law. Andromeda, for example, is moving towards us, despite the overall expansion of the universe. In this case, it is due to the gravitational attraction between it and our galaxy.

<comment><USER13> You are offering a more sophisticated take on the matter. At non-cosmological scales, metric expansion (i.e., the Hubble law) is not occurring because of bulk gravitational attraction.

The arithmetic I did is a tool illustrating the scale that is needed to make metric expansion operative. The arithmetic has the advantage of giving a quantitative idea how far away Earth-Voyager is from the necessary scale.

<comment><USER14> > The arithmetic I did is a tool illustrating the scale that is needed to make > metric expansion operative.

You might revisit the wording then. As it's written it implies that with arbitrarily increased measurement precision, we could measure an effect of the Hubble Flow on Voyager's movement. But even with arbitrary precision we'd never measure an effect from the Hubble Flow on Voyager's motion because the expansion of the Universe isn't contributing to the relative motion between Earth and Voyager.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > _Stone discussed with the Voyager science group whether they thought Voyager > 1 had crossed the heliopause. What should they call the region were Voyager > 1 is?

> "In the end, there was general agreement that Voyager 1 was indeed outside > in interstellar space," Stone said. "But that location comes with some > disclaimers - we're in a mixed, transitional region of interstellar space. > We don't know when we'll reach interstellar space free from the influence of > our solar bubble."

> So, would the team say Voyager 1 has left the solar system? Not exactly - > and that's part of the confusion. Since the 1960s, most scientists have > defined our solar system as going out to the Oort Cloud, where the comets > that swing by our sun on long timescales originate. That area is where the > gravity of other stars begins to dominate that of the sun. It will take > about 300 years for Voyager 1 to reach the inner edge of the Oort Cloud and > possibly about 30,000 years to fly beyond it. Informally, of course, "solar > system" typically means the planetary neighborhood around our sun. Because > of this ambiguity, the Voyager team has lately favored talking about > interstellar space, which is specifically the space between each star's > realm of plasma influence._

[http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-278](http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-278)

I tend to agree with their rationale, but they may just be pressed with time (remaining power on Voyager 1) and want conclusion. They can't wait 300 - 30,000 years.

</comment><comment><USER16> For the series _something went wrong_ : The CPUs inside this spacecraft run at just 0.25Mhz.

"The Voyager spacecraft computers are interrupt driven computer, similar to processors used in general purpose computers with a few special instructions for increased efficiency. The programming is a form of assembly language."

"The master clock runs at 4 MHz but the CPU's clock runs at only 250 KHz. A typical instruction takes 80 microseconds, that is about 8,000 instructions per second. To put this in perspective, a 2013 top-of-the-line smartphone runs at 1.5 GHz with four or more processors yielding over 14 billion instructions per second."

Source: [http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html](http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> Is it just me, or is anyone else fascinated by the idea that we receive data from a device that is 12 billion miles away at a rate of 20 bytes a second? How do they deal with the problem that there is most likely to be a lot of interference in the form of other planets, magnetic waves, solar flares, random gamma rays, etc?

<comment><USER18> It's not just you ... it is fascinating. I would love to have a good chat over some beers or coffee with some of the engineers and scientists that built this :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> A more interesting event will be when crewed spacecraft "pass" the Voyagers. Betting this won't happen is basically betting that humanity will destroy itself.

<comment><USER20> I read a great book a long time ago.. wish I could remember the name.

Basically, sometime in the future, Earth is dying, so everyone has to leave to some faraway planet within 100 years.

The first intrepid explorers leave at T-100 years, expecting to be the first to arrive. A few years later a new craft leaves that can travel faster and will get there sooner. This goes on and on until it comes down to a betting game of how late can you wait until leaving, while still being the first to arrive (and thus claim ownership/leadership, etc.), with people coming up with all kinds of hair-brained schemes on the best time to actual leave.

IIRC, it kind of turned a little into Hitchhikers Guide kind of ridiculous near the end.

<comment><USER19> IIRC there was something in _Hyperion_ about this, but it wasn't a focus, just some back-story on why Martin Silenus was brain-damaged for some time after his emigration from Old Earth. (Bad cryo on a slow-ass spaceship.)

Probably not what you're thinking of... It sounds like something Asimov would have written but nothing comes to mind.

<comment><USER21> This is the one I was thinking of. I completely forgot about that book, thanks for the reminder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _" After the data are transmitted to JPL and processed by the science teams, Voyager data are made publicly available."_

Where can I find Voyager data?

<comment><USER23> [http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/science/Voyager_Science_Data.htm...](http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/science/Voyager_Science_Data.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> A question for the physicists or people that know about the subject: does plasma affect circuits? I read somewhere that alpha particles do affect them. I'm just curious. It might well be a stupid question. Pardon for my ignorance.

<comment><USER25> There are two things to keep in mind:

1) The electronics on board Voyager (and all spacecraft we've launched) are pretty well shielded.

2) The density of the plasma in interplanetary (now interstellar) space is very, very low. What Voyager is measuring is not the direct particles, but the oscillations of them. (Radio waves)

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

Don Gurnett @ the U. of Iowa has been a part of many of these missions - plasma receivers have been on nearly every major mission since Voyager. (Esp. Galileo to Jupiter and Cassini to Saturn.)

Here's a link to the research group at the U. of Iowa (the same group that published today's paper in Science) - there are some good introductory articles on the instruments and the physics behind them:

[http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu](http://www-pw.physics.uiowa.edu)

<comment><USER26> To expand on #2, the environment around Voyager 1 is significantly lower pressure and density than the most extreme ultra-high-vacuum conditions humans have ever managed to create on Earth.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Ahem... [http://xkcd.com/1189/](http://xkcd.com/1189/)

<comment><USER28> I think Voyager may be approaching the Phantom Zone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "These younger engineers can write a lot of sloppy code, and it doesn't matter, but here, with very limited capacity, you have to be extremely precise and have a real strategy," she said.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/science/in-a- breathtaking-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/science/in-a-breathtaking- first-nasa-craft-exits-the-solar-system.html)

</comment><comment><USER30> Be sure to check out the Reddit AMA yesterday; [http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1m9wke/were_scientists...](http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1m9wke/were_scientists_and_engineers_on_nasas_voyager/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Must read piece on the matter: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science- environment-24072587](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24072587)

</comment><comment><USER32> Nice! This time it's real because we have an artist's depiction of voyager going from non-ionized almost void to ionized almost void.

</comment><comment><USER33> Third time's a charm

</comment><comment><USER34> What kind of software has Voyager inside? I am amazed it has been running for 36 years. Updates at 20 byte a second must be fun:-)

</comment><comment><USER35> And the techie who lost his car-keys 36 years ago is still really kicking himself.

<comment><USER36> Huh ? context please.

<comment><USER37> I think the implication is that he left them in the voyager.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Again?

<comment><USER39> In general you're right to mistrust the oft-repeated headline. But this is actually a big deal. Voyager I really is exploring a new part of space for the first time.

It's also worth noting that Voyager I entered interstellar space well over a year ago, but that only now have we been able to confirm that fact. So if it seems like this has been repeated a lot lately, it's because the scientists have been sifting this data for a long time before they could be sure. (Again, this is uncharted territory for the human race.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Pics or it didn't happen.

</comment><comment><USER41> They say that so much, that I will consider news when they say Voyager 1 is in another star (or in another... whatever it finds along the way!)

THEN I will consider it news...

Even because some scientists consider even the oort cloud (that is hell far) still part of solar system anyway.

<comment><USER42> It's likely you would be dead before then. Voyager 1 after 36 years is about 127 AU away. The oort cloud is believed to be at least 50,000 AU away [0]. So you'll have to wait about another 14,000 years.

[0] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud)

<comment><USER43> And Voyager 1 isn't expected to pass the star AC+79 3888 (in the 'Little Dipper') until 40,272 AD.

[http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html](http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html)

<comment> T-hawk "Pass" being a pretty generous term, coming within 1.7 light-years, or over 500 times farther than its lifetime distance from Earth/Sol to today. It's like driving from New York to San Francisco and calling some spot in Kansas "passing the moon".

All of the Solar System outbound spacecraft aren't expected to pass within, say, the planetary disc range of any known stars at any calculable future time. Space is really freakin empty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> No kidding, That's about the 6th time I've read about it these last two years. WHY doesn't NASA begin by establishing WHAT is it exactly that makes a solar system official "boundary" before producing press releases every time they find something interesting in the readings sent to them by Voyager.

ADDENDUM : Ahem, Thanks for the downvotes, but the inner workings of space discovery are not the subject of my comment. As an engineer, I'm more than mindful of the back & forth & general messiness of discovery, peer-reviews, control groups, & the like. I'm talking about press releases & headlines targeted towards the GENERAL PUBLIC. A public that has a lot less of an appetite, patience or time to follow NASA's inner deliberations or the intricacies of the scientific method. The fact that this is the 5th or sixth time that they've heard that "Voyager has left the solar system" might leave them a little bit confused.

<comment><USER45> > WHY doesn't NASA begin by establishing WHAT is it exactly that makes a solar > system official "boundary" before producing press releases every time they > find something interesting in the readings sent to them by Voyager.

Because _discovering new things_ is actually more important than drawing arbitrary lines.

<comment><USER44> the inner workings of space discovery are not the subject being discussed here. As an engineer, I'm more than mindful of the back & forth & general messiness of discovery, peer-reviews, control groups, & the like. I'm talking about press releases & headlines targeted towards the GENERAL PUBLIC. A public that has a lot less of an appetite, patience or time to follow NASA's inner deliberations. The fact that this is the 5th or sixth time that they've heard that "Voyager has left the solar system" might leave them a little bit confused.

<comment><USER43> The general public is footing the bill, there is nothing wrong with giving the general public some periodic status updates. This could really only get confusing if you read no further than the headlines.

<comment><USER44> "...if you read no further than the headlines."

That's the definition of how the general public interacts with a piece of news.

<comment><USER43> People who read no further than headlines will have trouble regardless. The solution to that is not _" release fewer press releases so that people have fewer opportunities to be confused"_.

<comment><USER44> Now, you're just being argumentative for argumentation sake. I'm done

<comment><USER46> Gen pop don't get smarter if you don't make them think. Confusion can be useful and in this case likely a good bit of medicine. Grade school education level of understanding on anything is pretty useless and implying that they cant do better insults pretty much everyone. Hence the d/v's.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are your favorite MOOC/Video courses? - <AUTHOR> Platforms like Udacity, Udemy, Coursera and Youtube based "channels" provide you opportunity to learn something new even out of your domain. These days I am attending "Model Thinking"(https://www.coursera.org/learn/model-thinking/l) and Psychology Intro on Coursera.<p>What are your favorites? <comment><USER2> Andrew Ng's deeplearning.ai, simple but a very solid foundation.</comment>


iOS 9 Content Blockers: Impact  Analysis and Mitigating Strategies - <AUTHOR> http://10up.com/blog/2015/ios-9-content-blockers-analysis-whitepaper/ <comment><USER2> The point about content blockers working in apps like Chrome and ESPN is wrong. Only Safari and the new SafariWebBiewController.

</comment><comment><USER3> We changed the url from [http://10up.com/blog/2015/ios-9-content-blockers- analysis-wh...](http://10up.com/blog/2015/ios-9-content-blockers-analysis- whitepaper/), which points to this.

Edit: changed back to [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_VOAxZAcvemVDM1bTFpUnItM00...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_VOAxZAcvemVDM1bTFpUnItM00/view?pli=1) since people seemed to prefer that.

<comment><USER4> Can I ask why? The original site has a good discussion, explanation and summary of the pdf. It's not like the site is clickbait with a "here's the pdf" line and nothing else.

<comment><USER3> It seemed less substantive, and we often switch to original sources in cases like this (as the guidelines mention, they're preferred).

Not a strong opinion in this case, though; happy to change it back.

<comment><USER4> Thanks :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Automatically inferring file syntax with afl-analyze - <AUTHOR> https://lcamtuf.blogspot.com/2016/02/say-hello-to-afl-analyze.html <comment><AUTHOR> Comparing cut's GNU version (left) with FreeBSD's version (right) with afl- analyze: [https://imgur.com/unah6NM](https://imgur.com/unah6NM)

It's interesting that the results look very different. Maybe highlighting the different approaches they take?</comment>


Ted Nelson argues the importance of personal computing (1979) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVU62CQTXFI <comment><USER2> It's been a little while since I've heard this one, but if there's one thing that I remember hitting me is that the same language used by the interviewer is used today about privacy, end user programming and any other more powerful technology, programming language or paradigm. It seems that as an culture we're always able to go so far, but not all the way. We see the path between start and end, there's no genius needed for the last push, but after so much progress we reduce ambition towards the end goal and instead develop arguments against continuing.

At some point we just don't think people need help with paper based tasks, "look around you, it's how everything is done" yet here we are with the PC 40 years later. And people look around and think that there is no chance everyone could be a programmer "look around you, they're all consumers, they couldn't understand how to make the computer do what they like". In 40 years there's no doubt this viewpoint will be wrong, but the popular opinion on the matter can't see that future.

See Bret Victors history of computing. The biggest adversary we have to overcome towards progress is the mainstream experts of our own field.

We have apps which seem to be like starting from scratch every time, which can't have abilities known by all because they aren't prepackaged by the devs ahead of time. Every app reinvents a minimal subset of sorting and search. If you have a better idea or a different connection you want to make its just not possible in the app.

Stop pretending that debilitating users is actually good for them in the silly word games we play. Give users power.

<comment><USER3> > there is no chance everyone could be a programmer

There is no chance, even if by "everyone" you just meant "a majority". It's intellectually challenging, just for one.

<comment><USER4> Reading and writing is intellectually challenging. Everyone can do it now, because we make sure to teach them to do it, and because it's necessary to live in modern society.

<comment><USER3> Almost anyone can walk, not everyone can climb mount Everest, or even a much smaller mountain face. Bad analogies are bad.

<comment><USER5> Are you seriously trying to claim that programming, of any useful sort, is so hard that only really smart people, presumably like yourself, can do it? Christ. I really hope the software development industry gets its ego kicked in really hard in the near future so everything can stop sucking because of elitist asshats.

<comment><USER3> Well on one hand, it could be my massive ego, and on the other it could be the truth.

You're the one arguing on the basis of value. I don't. Let me just ask you this; do you think that being a good enough finance trader requires a high IQ? I'm pretty sure of it, and I'm also of the opinion that what they're applying their smarts to is a net negative for society as a whole.

Another question, have you read Steven Pinker's _The Blank Slate_?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Such an immensely articulate person... His "Computers for Cynics" series is also very recommendable, the blockchain/bitcoin one particularly so for outsiders that want to know or need to communicate on related matters (e.g. journalists). Happy to have been able to hear him in youtube, he feels so close one feels one knows him personally.

<comment><USER7> I worked with Ted a few years from 2001 and though we kind of stopped working together, I knew him! So I do know him personally. He's a great guy though intolerant of nonsense.

<comment><USER6> He gives that impression from his videos. He seems to speak his mind honestly and rightfully demands reciprocity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I discovered that Ted Nelson has a Patreon: [http://www.Patreon.com/thetednelson](http://www.Patreon.com/thetednelson) . I decided to sign up and perhaps you would like to help out with a few bucks too.

I've seen talks by him a few times and I think he is worth listening to. He has interesting ideas well worth understanding.

</comment><comment><USER9> 13:40 "The two commonest digital notation languages in the world are musical notation, and knitting."

Knitting is the perfect analogy for describing how DNA works to your grandmother.

"Knit 1 purl 2 often enough and you end up with a sweater."

</comment><comment><USER10> If curious see also

a thread from 2018: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17376753](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17376753)

</comment><comment><USER11> LMAO 8:10 Interviewer: This seems to me first and foremost to be a technology looking for a problem to solve

<comment><USER12> He's right. The same way that writing was. We had perfectly good oral traditions before writing and they were good enough to get us to the bronze age.

I'm a bit annoyed at Ted Nelson for not making that comparison.

</comment></comment><comment> the-dude An [audio] tag would be more appropiate.</comment>


Uber COO and CMO to Step Down - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/uber-chief-operating-officer-chief-marketing-officer-stepping-down.html <comment><USER2> This is really weird to me. It seems strange for a CEO to effectively fire the COO and CMO because they want Operations and Marketing to report directly to the CEO unless the company is in serious trouble and needs a single authoritarian leader to set direction across very different departments. Does anyone else have more info on this?

<comment><USER3> I don't get from the article that marketing will report directly to the CEO.

It says "Jill" will take on all the marketing and will have 2 others under her to divy up some of her other responsibilities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the top of the article:

>Now that the company is public, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi says he has more time to be involved in the day-to-day operations of Uber's core businesses.

Ummmm what? Isn't it normally the opposite?

<comment><USER5> pre ipo CEOs have to fund raise</comment></comment>