Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90530672/with-downtowns-staying-abandoned-put-tiny-businesses-back-into-residential-neighborhoods <comment><USER2> Mixed use zoning is just about the best case situation for everyone.

\- Less reliance on cars, which results in less parking, which results in less traffic... it becomes self-perpetuating.

\- Better walkability

\- Knowing your corner store clerk or at least having a rapport with them

\- Healthier citizens, due to them walking everywhere (Go to NYC and see how few overweight people you see... not many unless they're tourists. I gained like 10lbs after I moved out of NYC, you get exercise constantly in that city)

\- Happier citizens, due to them walking everywhere, things are nearby, their life is more integrated...

etc etc.

I think basically all spaces should be residential / light business mixed. This idea of sprawling suburbs with light business being 10 - 30 minutes away is horrifying and bad for everyone health-wise, time-wise and economically.

\---

Where I live, the city doesn't really hesitate to shut down sections of roads for festivals, farmer's markets, whatever.

Currently we have a bunch of one ways because all of the restaurants took over half the road for outdoor dining... and honestly, it's pretty nice. The traffic is slightly more congested, but meh... don't drive through the center of the city as a transit option, go around.

<comment><USER3> In theory sure.

In reality, the financial system is oriented towards big capital. My aunt ran a coffee shop that was established by grandparents in 1939. It was in the lobby of a office building in he central business district of our little city. The building was bought by a Chinese investor. Like other similar stores, her rent went up 5x and she shuttered.

I live in a mixed use urban neighborhood. 50% of he storefronts are vacant or populated by death businesses like karate dojo's.

<comment><USER4> The problem is people want to call it "mixed zoning" but still have Karens on the central planning committee making stupid rules, e.g. they'll have "businesses" next to "residences" but a given plot will be explicitly designated as one or the other.

What you really want is the small businesses which start off being operated out of the proprietor's residence. A hair salon in a converted living room, a restaurant serving food from the owner's home kitchen. Something that can start off as a side business yet can advertise without getting into legal trouble and grow into more if it's successful.

You get a few of those in an area and someone decides it's a good place to knock down a house and put up a five story building with condos on top and a coffee shop and a bakery on the ground floor.

You have to let it grow organically like that or you just end up with abandoned "commercial" buildings because businesses fear moving in when they know their success would lead to increased rents as a result of the limited amount of designated-commercial real estate in the area.

<comment><USER5> Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? I hadn't heard of it until a few months ago, and now it seems everyone is using it to refer to a certain kind of "middle class white woman". A term like that to describe a certain kind of middle class asian or black man would be very offensive. Are the days where we try to exercise civility and empathy gone? It feels like society has gone from "let's tolerate people" to "let's ridicule people we don't like, without logical argument".

Blaming the disappearance of tiny businesses in residential neighborhoods by saying "It's all those middle class white women" seems both very shallow and specious.

<comment><USER6> I don't disagree that this hazard is real, but I also see the term used in non-racist, non-sexist ways too, sometimes with disclaimers that "obviously this isn't just white women and not all white women are like this". I realize I am likely in the minority thinking that context matters, but I want to provide my sincere stance that I think it's sometimes reasonable to call someone a Karen, assuming proper care is taken not to imply anything sexist or racist. I understand the term as meaning "busybody" more than anything else; in fact, you can use it to describe a person of any race or sex but you cannot use it for a non-busybody.

<comment><USER7> The problem is, people used to have non-gender, non-racial terms for people. For example, a person might be called an 'asshole' or 'bonehead', and this could be a person of any colour, any sex, age, etc.

Yet now, it seems all sorts are labeling people based upon sex, colour, ethnic background, etc. It is, quite literally, the definition of sexual, racial, age discrimination. It is linking "external characteristic" with "way a person acts".

I don't care what anyone's political stance is, but if you are using terms like 'Karen', you are 100% contributing to sexism, racism, etc.

Just call someone what they are. "Asshole" has worked fine for millennia.

<comment><USER8> From what I understand the specific behavior is actually and intrinsically linked to the idea of a white woman in America and has historically existed for quite a while among black circles (from the 1800s at least). Discussing Karen as if it's new belies the actual history of it. [0]

0\. [https://www.npr.org/2020/07/14/891177904/whats-in-a- karen](https://www.npr.org/2020/07/14/891177904/whats-in-a-karen)

<comment><USER7> What a weird assertion, when you link to an article that asserts something entirely different.

The above NPR, states that a Karen is a _new_ label, started in the 2010s (which is just last year, even). It also shows how the Karen label is different from other, prior labels.

It delineates how a Becky is different, a "Miss Ann" is different.

We've historically had labels like this for people, which are racially linked. But this is 2020, this is a NEW label, and other NEW labels keep popping up.

We need to collectively STOP this. No more racist, sexist, ageist, anything- ist labels. It's all wrong.

(Not saying you were defending label use... just clarifying my position)

<comment><USER8> I'm arguing that the idea of a karen is not new, sorry to be unclear.

<comment><USER7> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs)

Slurs are not new. And as I mentioned, what you showed were not Karens, but 'white women who act poorly in certain ways'.

"Kaben" has unique connotations, a specific meaning. While I agree that "white women have had slurs" before 'Karen', I'm going to have to disagree that it's germane here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When I visited Japan, I went to an izakaya with room for maybe 9 people in it, it was smaller than my living room at home. I was hungry and I saw the sign lighting the alley about 40 yards off the main road. I was thinking at the time, if I lived in that area, you bet I'd be there a couple times a week to talk to my neighbors. I wanted to ask those inside if they were all neighbors, because they seemed to know each other and the barman well. It felt almost intimidating, since I don't know any Japanese, but of course Japanese hospitality is top-notch.

<comment><USER10> The cities in Japan are, of course, walkable in the extreme, but what really impressed me there was the suburbs and rural villages. Even deep in the countryside many people still can visit local businesses without a car. I think it is not a coincidence that it is so common there to see children walking or biking on their own to school.

<comment><USER11> Btw. the US is probably more of an exception when it comes to children being driven to school. Swiss kids tend to walk themselves from age 5 to 6 upward, schools are usually within 30min of a child's walk. But Japan is certainly special thanks to very liberal zoning laws. Even in rural areas it's common to find warehouses and small shops right next to or beneath homes. Europe's laws are somewhere between Japan and the US, and so is the walkability. Turns out, just allowing humans to try things will make markets solve this issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This ends up being one of the biggest reasons I enjoy living in Thailand. The unplanned layouts of cities makes for a colorful and convenient experience everywhere you go. Most every building in towns is at least two stories with shops under the tenant's quarters. You also can't forget about the prevalence of street carts for food and other small things. It's usually worth exploring alleys as there will be some curious little shop or restaurant. It doesn't match my you-must-have-a-car, strip-mall experience in the US.

You can contrast this to Laos where the LPDR has focused on zoning on new development. One example was ປາກເຊ, Pakse, where multilane roads were built whigh probably not be fully utilized for another 50 years. When you go to a residential area, there's much less businesses. From what I gathered, the government there was looking across the Mekong at it's developing sister country and is trying to 'correct' her mistakes when trying to emulate growth. However, there's much more beauty in allowing the natural chaos.

<comment><USER13> > Most every building in towns is at least two stories with shops under the > tenant's quarters.

Compare this with modern (past five/ten years) architecture in Sweden: concrete, "modern" flats with zero expression that mostly are composed _entirely_ of residential units. You might literally see a block of 8-10 buildings, maybe five stories high, that has _one_ commercial unit at the very end of one of the buildings. It's ridiculous.

This type of architecture is killing newly produced areas completely unnecessarily, and I suspect it's because the one time income of selling a flat is preferred over the monthly income of renting to a business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> How did we slip away so far from this being fairly obvious? Cities have worked well this way for hundreds of years.

Maybe the industrial revolution made cities too unpleasant? Were we too spoiled by the automobile industry and government roads? White flight from cities into the suburbs?

<comment><USER15> Never been to an US residential area and only "know" them from tv shows. Are they really pretty much completely devoid of businesses as this article indicates? No grocery / mom and pop stores, bars, restaurants, hair dressers etc.? That sounds very inconvenient. I always assumed you'd get some basic commercial everywhere.

<comment><USER16> I grew up in a wealthy American suburb, the nearest grocery store was a 40 minute walk from my home, and I would have looked like a madman for simply walking on any street in the entire city because literally only beggars don't ride cars. I'm glad to be living in Tokyo now!

<comment><USER17> Do people not even walk for leisure/exercise?

Just reading this makes me feel kind of claustrophobic.

<comment><USER18> Yes for sure Americans walk for leisure and casual exercise.

It's popular to imply Americans don't walk. It's true the culture is more pragmatic (why walk when I could drive and get more done), but it's not true that it's unusual to see people out walking on sidewalks, parks, and lakes.

My neighborhood has a walking trail around a small lake (takes 45 minutes to do a lap). There are 20-50 people walking it at almost anytime of day.

<comment><USER19> Maybe in your region but in suburban Cleveland it certainly is freakish to see anybody on their legs outside of a shopping mall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've found that it is typical for people who run these small types of businesses also live in the neighborhood, or close by.

Another improvement is that people who both live and work in the community have time for more community engagement, but it their children's schools, local government, or local volunteer efforts.

Local businesses improve the community.

<comment><USER21> The first chapter of The Death and Life of Great American Cities touches on this topic a lot. Community safety is enhanced by mixed use, because there are reasons for people to naturally be there at all hours of the day/night. This contrasts with single use areas, which are essentially ghost towns in their off-hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The more people within "walking distance" the less need for a parking lot. There are a number of successful businesses in my neighbourhood with zero parking or minimal parking. Many customers can arrive by foot (or bike or bus). Even a small scrap of land can be a prime location.

If you visit the outskirts of the city, there is a large difference. The parking lot is like an ocean. After all, every customer must arrive by car. You need a massive tract of land to have a successful business in such an environment.

Next time you visit a business, pop open your maps app on your phone and look at the satellite view. Note the size of the building in relation to its parking lot. It is not unusual for the parking lot to occupy more land than the actual store, even in urban areas.

</comment><comment><USER22> I currently live in New Orleans, which is _very_ mixed-use if you're in the city proper. It's really, really nice. I bike everywhere. Groceries, bookstores, head shops, cafes, bars, hardware store (with a super nice housewares department on the second floor), plumbers, auto shops, restaurants, snoball stands, parks, schools[1], dentists, optometrists, lawyers, there's pretty much everything I need in a 20min cycling radius. A lot of these businesses are in buildings that are pretty much indistinguishable from the houses next to them; there's signs and various adaptations for whatever they're selling but so many of them started out as a house rather than something built from the ground up to be A Store.

Leave the actual city and it starts turning into suburbs, where every distance is designed for a car and all business is concentrated on one big road that's got giant parking lots and big boxy buildings all along it. I go out there when I absolutely must. There really aren't many reasons to do that.

1: sadly the city's schools have gone to hell in many ways since I was a kid, but hey, I ain't got kids so I only get to worry about that in the abstract...

<comment><USER23> If you bike everywhere why are you going to the auto shop?

<comment><USER22> I don't, it's just one of the many businesses lurking in my neighborhood. I pass it regularly on my way elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I hate North America's zoning laws with a passion. They just create dead zones and forces everyone to travel distances.

I love Europe and Southeast Asia so much for this very reason. You step out of your house and everything is nearby.

I'm sure there are parts of both Europe and SEA that have the same problems, but majority is mixed zoning.

</comment><comment><USER25> I have liquer store under my windows, it is open 24 hours and has outside benches. Basically loud nonstop pub with many junkies. I am going to move soon to get better sleep

<comment><USER26> Is this in the US or some other country?

<comment><USER27> Alcoholics hanging around liquor stores is a universal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Imagine how much better your life would be if one house on your suburban cul- de-sac was a sleepy pub.

I can't tell you any of my neighbor's names. I've been here ten years.

But if I could walk for 6 minutes and get a beer, we'd all know each other's names. We'd all have babysitter coverage, neighborhood watch, a reason to keep the car in the garage, and slightly bigger bellies, overnight.

<comment><USER29> Having lived in a dense suburb outside of Providence RI with a local pub just one large parking lot away, I can tell you: it sucks. Noise at all hours, drunks everywhere, broken glass, constant smell of cigarette smoke. Replace pub with "well maintained park with children's play area" and you might be on to something.

<comment><USER30> It might be a cultural thing but my home country Australia and the in the UK the local pub in smaller towns is often a much more family oriented place. Often there is outdoor seating and families go for dinner together, often there is live local music. People also go just to drink but it's all mixed together, of course this varies depending on what part of a town or city you're in, some are more family oriented than others. I think that kind of pub would fit well with OP's description more than yours.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This was once common in the inner ring suburbs of Chicago. There used to be a small grocery store in the middle of a residential block near where I lived and a bar in the middle of another residential block close to my elementary school. There are houses whose former mixed use (shop in the front, house in the back) are still obvious.

Here's one surviving neighborhood grocery in Berwyn, IL:

[https://goo.gl/maps/NCd45ghd6ajfPvLB6](https://goo.gl/maps/NCd45ghd6ajfPvLB6)

Unfortunately, I'm drawing a blank on the locations of some of the surviving retail-to-residential conversions that I've spotted.

These are all largely a relic of an era in which housewives often didn't drive, or if they did, didn't have access to a car while their husband was at work so grocery shopping needed to be within easy walking distance of home. Many of the minor commercial streets in the inner ring suburbs have vanished as well, their customers having been consumed by larger supermarkets. It's somewhat miraculous, really, that there are still a handful of these neighborhood markets still in business.

<comment><USER32> The housewives aspect of it is a strange thing to focus on - this is a relic of a time when _most people did not drive,_ i.e. this style of living was natural to everyone, housewife or no, prior to Eisenhower-era financial incentives to build highways everywhere[1], and _especially_ in areas of "urban blight," which, of course, were also usually the densest parts of neighborhoods/cities since the poor did not have cars. Some cities, e.g. New York, succeeded in preventing the demolishing of some of their most historic places in the name of "cleaning up." Most other places were not as successful, though many tried[2]. Chicago's aptly named Eisenhower Expressway is a great example of activist efforts often not being enough[3].

1 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs#Struggle_for_Green...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Jacobs#Struggle_for_Greenwich_Village) 2 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Urba...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Urban_Interstates_abandoned_because_of_local_opposition)

3 - [https://interactive.wbez.org/curiouscity/eisenhower/](https://interactive.wbez.org/curiouscity/eisenhower/)

<comment><USER31> Berwyn and Cicero weren't directly impacted by the Eisenhower (although Oak Park was—something that the local populace still resents which is evidenced by the fact that the exits for the Ike (much to my wife's confusion, I-290 goes by multiple names) exist only on the borders of the village and are the only left-side exits for the entirety of the Congress Expressway's (like I said...) run). More impactful was perhaps the replacement of streetcar lines with buses and the shortening of the Douglas Park "L" to end at 54th instead of its former terminus at Oak Park Avenue. Stickney, just south of Berwyn and Cicero, was still semi-rural into the 50s when my parents' house was built and, although it has had bus service from West Towns Bus Company (now Pace), it was never not a place where cars were essential (I suppose in its pre- incorporation days and first decade, one could have gotten by with a horse and wagon). This is not a Greenwich Village situation.

I mentioned housewives walking to the neighborhood store to do shopping because this was an aspect of the local culture that persisted into the 70s and early 80s. Most had their own little carts for hauling home their groceries (similar to these [https://www.amazon.com/customerpicks/Explore- grocery-carts-f...](https://www.amazon.com/customerpicks/Explore-grocery- carts-for-seniors/1c98c46e4ee1a151031c) it's interesting to see that these are still sold, although I've not seen one in use for 30 years or so).

<comment><USER32> I see these little carts around San Francisco all the time! Especially used by a lot of people in Chinatown, and also by a lot of older people, but today I even saw a young lady using one!

Thank you for your input about the streetcars, Berwyn and Cicero, and Oak Park. I fell in love with Chicago during my time there and always enjoy getting to know more of its history. It is a powerful city (and I hope to maybe move back to it in a few years, pending my career alignment).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> When Americans talk about how great European cities are, they are often talking about exactly this. Mixed-use neighborhoods full of charming small businesses and dense housing within walking distance to daily needs.

</comment><comment><USER34> So I've lived in a number of cities and seen many variations on this.

In Perth, Western Australia, there are pockets of this but the extraordinarily high cost of real estate (true across all of Australia since the early 2000s), which existing property owners are keen to protect, slowly kills local businesses. Particularly in popular cafe strips where all the businesses that made the area popular get priced out and commercial property owners would rather sit on empty property for years than notionally devalue that property by taking less rent.

Anecdotally I've heard all the WFH with Covid-19 has been a boon to local businesses.

London as a general rule was (it's been 10+ years since I've lived in London at this point) good for this. It never seemed like no matter where I was (within Zones 1-5 anyway), I was ever that far away from a Tesco and a high street.

NYC is of course excellent for this, at least the more central areas. The more outlying areas tend to resemble more typical Northeast suburbia with 2 car households and the like.

Northeast commuter towns tends to be good for this around the actual train stations although some stations weirdly have nothing around them at all (eg Manhasset).

Most US cities tend to be terrible for this to the point of not even having sidewalks and you might be 10 miles from the nearest shop, even in a large city (eg Las Vegas seems to be like this).

It does seem like public transportation really helps here because it seems like the northern suburbs of Dallas, for example (at least those on DART), have recognizable downtowns such that they more closely resemble tri-state commuter towns.

Large lots really seem to kill any of this. Like there are parts of the Greater Atlanta area where a "normal" lot is 1 or even 2 acres. This is an amount of space that is simply incomprehensible to any European. Even an Australian.

And of course the US has Walmart, which has been a pretty effective way of killing all the small businesses in local neighbourhoods.

</comment><comment><USER35> In the Boston area many of the nearby towns are what I call "urban suburbs". Very family friendly, many single- or two-family homes, but also very walkable and many shops throughout the town. I'm talking about towns such as Brookline, Cambridge and Arlington. They are really nice towns to live in and in very high demand.

<comment><USER36> > Cambridge

"Our fair city!" -Tom Magliozzi

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This kind of city planning design was popular in Sweden in the 1950/60s with close community mini centras torg, happy that its re surging. There would usually for example be a grocery store, a hair dresser and a flower shop, usually also a local restaurant.

With a good local community one does not need to use a car very often. There is also spontaneous social interactions with locals, this is something we do not get when buying online. We may also build repair centre for our things. This would be like a bike shop but for devices.

<comment><USER13> I'm Swedish and while I'd love to take credit for this type of structure, surely this is _much_ older and more widespread? If you travel to France you notice immediately that there's a bakery, a butcher etc. in every town, so some part of it is down to culture and political decisions (like Sweden in the 50's), but if we move back in time this was the absolute default for a very simple reason: any other setup than the "close community shops" was untenable until the introduction of the automobile.

So this model that we now consider exotic has actually been the standard for 99% of human history, but since the early 1900s we have been caught in a feedback loop of increased mobility -> lower real estate prices outside of the city -> cheaper goods which to this day is killing city centers commercially all across Sweden.

I absolutely welcome this change, but I think it's important to point out that the reason it now seems so attractive is because this mobility that fueled the entire change has now essentially disappeared. I can only hope that with increased environmental consciousness, it becomes even more outdated, because I really dislike it.

Here's to hoping we get a future composed of small local stores, and "big-box" corporations with excellent shipping options instead of expecting you to come to them. It can't happen soon enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I liked whistler village when I visited. All the cars are parked on the outside. Inside there is only walking, restaurants and shopping. Creates a really nice atmosphere.

Outdoor malls seem to be the closet thing to that. And are pretty great spaces to be in. Maybe will be more prevalent because of covid now. But they even work in cold places, there is one in Michigan that I know off.

I used to live across from a 3 story apartment building, maybe 20 apartments. Pretty run down place, with drug dealers, and just low income people.

Then the apartment building owner decided to do some landscaping. Planted a few trees, and put out some adirondack chairs on the front lawn. Which attracted a guy wanting to play his guitar outside. Which then attracted an audience. Which then turned into a nightly gathering of people on the front lawn playing music from the apartment building. People with drug and alcohol abuse problems still live in that building. But now that place has real sense of community. And actual happy moments are shared outside nightly. Where as before everyone would rush through the front door to their apartment, now they stop and say hi to each other.

<comment><USER39> Japan has "shopping arcades" which I really like. It is like a wide pedestrian-only alley with the retail density of a mall, but outdoors and the path is covered. Then side streets are local access only and often have small restaurants or izakayas

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Of course the daunting obstacle is changing the mindset of suburban planners and nimbys. The zoning ordinances that have dominated planning in the USA since the 50's ban this in large swaths of America..

New Urbanism made progress creating denser planning in the last 30 years, but focused too much on high density mixed use. Adding small shops to residential streets is definitely the one area that they've really failed on in my opinion. It's the reason older towns and cities still trounce the 'burbs on walkability and will for a long time.

But while we're at it we should also think about other human-scale improvements, like narrow streets. Worth a read for anyone interested in retrofitting the suburbs: [https://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog20130131.php#.Xxptm...](https://www.andrewalexanderprice.com/blog20130131.php#.XxptmPipGL4)

</comment><comment><USER41> I live in Tokyo, and pretty much every neighborhood has some cafe/izakaya being run from the back of a home by a grandpa or grandma. Usually these places are extremely tiny and can seat max 4 people. I've seen some of them open all night. Not sure if they have to deal with some sort of licensing especially for liquor.

</comment><comment><USER42> Vibrant downtowns of many American cities were built before the zoning laws. Their desirability is the most obvious proof that mixed zoning has benefits.

</comment><comment><USER43> For a few years I've wondered how possible it would be for large neighborhood associations to own a neighborhood grocery store.

I haven't bothered yet to run the numbers, but I would expect if the association was large enough it wouldn't add much cost.

Residents could get a substantial discount while non-residents could pay normal prices. Residents could put in subscription style orders for things they would always regularly need. It would make it easier to order specialty things that normal groceries stores wouldn't carry, etc...

<comment><USER44> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_cooperative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_cooperative) ?

The problem here is that eventually rent-seeking becomes appealing, someone realizes there's skim/margin/"arbitrage" to be made, and so the capitalism progresses.

<comment><USER43> Yeah, food coops but strictly limited to a residents of neighborhood would be close to what I had in mind.

I wonder if you could put in the association bylaws that it must remain free of profits/margins/"arbitrage" to mitigate against something like this.

I haven't looked into it closely though since I ultimately have a strong distaste for home owners associations anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Tiny businesses aren't disappearing because of zoning, it's the economy of scale and heavy taxation/regulation that made them (or the lower-margin ones) unviable in places where they used to be common (like big European cities).

One of the more memorable stories about a tiny waxing studio giving up here in Vienna was them being required to have employees working in rooms with windows only and the only big enough window was the storefront one.

</comment><comment><USER46> I would love to own a true neighborhood pub. A literal "public house". Nothing fancy but a nice watering hole for the locals.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's not viable unless they get an x amount of foot traffic, which is why these shops tend to be in city / commercial centers instead.

That said, back in my hometown we used to have multiple businesses on wheels visiting once a week; ice cream truck, fish, a grocery shop, a mail-order frozen-products guy, etc.

I've seen the same happen in a commercial district, mostly big office buildings with underground parking, but there was an ice cream and a coffee trike doing the rounds. The coffee one would set up shop at the local train station in the morning, then move to an urban park thing later in the day. The ice cream truck would move around, stand in front of the building and ring the bell.

</comment><comment><USER48> Yes! When I lived in an old house in the outskirts of Chico, there was a random little coffee shop right down the street. Seemed totally out of place but I loved it. I would really like small cafes and shops inside the Suberbs!

</comment><comment><USER49> I like this idea mostly, except maybe the restaurant with outdoor seating.

Not sure I would want that to pop up next door / be loud late into the evening....

At least I wouldn't expect it to just pop up.

<comment><USER50> In my experience, the licensing laws typically deal with this. If a restaurant or bar, they can't serve alcohol or have live music after 9pm, or similar rules.

Works pretty well, and I'd much rather have the small restaurant or bar next door than not!

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> The USA is the only place I know that doesn't have businesses in residential neighborhoods. I really don't understand why it is that way. We have mini- markets with a small stock of most commonly bought items, fridges with water iced tea etc, cigarettes newspapers on almost every corner. And it doesn't need to stop there. Why not laundry shops? Small cafes, etc.

99.99% of any potential issues can be taken care of with simple laws such as noise limits etc.

</comment><comment><USER52> This sounds great in a utopia where everybody is quiet and considerate, delivery drivers don't throw boxes and crates around, people don't get drunk and smash bottles in the street or have arguments.

Having lived next to and above commercial properties I can say it doesn't improve quality of life, it drastically impacts mental health, stress, and sleep. There's a reason that we have commercial districts and residential districts.

</comment><comment><USER53> I live somewhere that has tiny businesses like this. I still end up driving to my local discount grocery store because, despite having a very well paying for the area, I just can't bring myself to spend anywhere form 30% more to even double for 'the good stuff' when I can get generics for so much less.

So sorry, guess I'm part of the problem, but I'd rather spend money on stuff I actually want.

</comment><comment><USER54> When I lived in Chile, I really enjoyed the little tiendas everywhere, particularly the ones that were bakeries. I have a hard time imagining how well something similar would work in my suburban neighborhood where everyone has cars. Maybe a destination like a cafe, but it just makes more sense for people around here to get a bunch of shopping done at the grocery store 5 minutes away in their car.

</comment><comment><USER55> Here in Zurich this is really well done - I just wished we did it more back home in the UK too.

Small businesses, e.g. coffee shops, hairdressers and florists occupy the bottom floors, and accountants and dentists the upper floors.

It keeps a nice mix of building use and means some services are nicely scattered throughout the city.

</comment><comment><USER56> I spent about 6 years in Poland when I was a kid. They had little kiosks (15'x15' ish?) all over, it's where you bought your daily stuff you didn't want to buy in bulk: bus tickets, gum, newspapers, bread, vegetables. This feels like a no brainer to me.

</comment><comment><USER57> I suppose this would work very well for people with a particular outlook. I'm not one of them. My neighborhood is a refuge from commerce; I don't want stores within earshot of my front door. I don't want people I don't know walking past my yard at night.

</comment><comment><USER58> Coming from Latin America,this was the best way for someone to get their business started and get some extra cash. From selling candies, to food and groceries. All that came to an end when Walmart and other chain companies such as 711 or Oxxo appeared..

</comment><comment><USER59> Not totally on topic...

I have to admit the one thing I miss about moving out to the burbs from the relatively upscale apartments we lived in for awhile was that we had restaurant and major grocery stores within walking distance

</comment><comment><USER60> For whoever cares about this topic:

Strong Towns may be of interest. They address this topic, and put everything in a bigger picture.

[https://www.strongtowns.org](https://www.strongtowns.org)

</comment><comment><USER61> The fundamental problem is that we (in the US) live in a permission-based system, not a freedom-based one. In this example, you have to ask for permissions related to running a business and using land.

The system that you have to ask permission from has a particular vision about how things ought to be done, and does not handle change or non-conformity well - even seeing them as a threat.

One hallmark for identifying such a system is that when there is not a law about something, it is referred to in terms like "legal grey area" or "outside the law."

We need to change the system to allow for freedom and individual decision making, without asking permission from the system. Freedom is what is left outside the boundaries of the law.

</comment><comment><USER62> My parents ran a small business out of their home and the UPS truck came by for pick-ups every day.

They had a yes/no sign in the window to signal if he had to stop or not.

This was before the internet and easy scheduling.

</comment><comment><USER63> This would be great to see, even if they were pop up spaces that could cycle through providing what a neighbourhood might need at any given time.

</comment><comment><USER64> [http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/](http://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/)

</comment><comment><USER65> I live in the suburbs. In a radius of _200m_ from where I live, 2 minutes on foot, here are some of the businesses there are:

\- Car accessory workshop for aftermarket accessories

\- Car mechanic

\- Car tire shop (they check, patch, and change your tires)

\- Bycicle and bike repair shop

\- Car electricians (3)

\- Car wash (3)

\- Carpenter

\- House appliance shop

\- Travel agencies

\- Accountant

\- RV home maker

\- Shop to print motifs on shirts/clothes

\- Opticians

\- Sauna (3) one with a gym, a swimming pool, etc.

\- Showers

\- Bathroom

\- Kitchenware shop

\- Barbers (2)

\- Bakeries (4)

\- Pharmacists (2)

\- Dentist (2)

\- Pediatrician

\- Generalist MD

\- Gynaecologist

\- Endocrinologist

\- Medical analyses lab

\- Insurance company

\- Printing shop

\- Children's clothes shops

\- Adults' clothes shops

\- Internet café

\- Coffee shops

\- Grocery shops

\- Tailor

\- Pastery shop

\- Kiosques

\- Jeweler

\- Electronics shop

\- A blacksmith

\- A small theme park for kids

\- Food joints (pizzerias, burgers, grills, others)

\- Protective equipment shop

\- Office supplies/Stationery/Chairs/Tables, etc.

\- Electric motors repair shop

\- Minimarkets (3)

\- Gyms

Others:

\- Primary school

\- Middle school

\- Police station

\- A football stadium converted to a gymnasium

Bigger:

\- Cheese factory

\- Yogurt factory

\- Other industrial stuff

\- Car dealerships

Farther (300m): fresh produce market, pharmacy, and a bunch of other shops.

Farther (10 minutes):

\- A green space of about 350 acres

The catch: a lot of them live there. By there I mean they own the house. The shops are on the street level, and they live in the upper levels. Some others live nearby, as in are either the owner's neighbor from a few houses away or 5 minutes down the road. But you can pretty much do a lot without moving.

<comment><USER66> Where do you live?

<comment><USER65> In Algiers, Algeria.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Downtowns may be abandoned, but the shopping malls aren't (where I live).

Local businesses still can't compete with big box stores.

</comment><comment><USER68> It's like having a convenience store in the lobby of an apartment building. Seems like a great idea, but it takes a huge apartment building, or a city block of modest ones, to support a convenience store. Vending machines, maybe.

We see this with all those "mixed use" buildings going up in Silicon Valley, with retail spaces on the ground floor. It's really hard to fill those retail spaces.

<comment><USER69> The problem is that all of those places are planned. I get major 'Soviet Central Planning' vibes from the USA when it comes to zoning and planning out cities. Of course the people making the decisions on planning have no idea what will work. They only know what will work in the most rudimentary, scaled up, sense. Small shops need to be allowed everywhere, rules about minimum parking, lot sizes, use, etc need to be relaxed to allow those things to even be possible.

<comment><USER2> Suburbs are literally rooted in racism.

That sounds hyperbolic, but the first suburb in post-war US was a planned whites-only community to escape the city. (Levittown)

\---

With that said, yes, the US purposefully planned blocks of cities to be dedicated to one purpose. This promotes car culture which, surprise surprise, car and oil companies were big into lobbying to shut down mixed use and public transit, and continue to be.

Mixed use areas are typically either big cities, have pre-war origins where it has basically always been mixed use or typically both.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Good idea, I like mixed zoning and supporting small local businesses rather than behemoths like Walmart.

</comment><comment><USER71> good idea but we can do ever better than that by build co-ops in residential neighborhoods

what we need are goods and services where people are, but that doesn't necessarily mean provided by businesses when they could be provided to and by the people who are already there

</comment><comment><USER72> Isn't work from home basically putting business back into neighborhoods?

</comment><comment><USER73> :: insert ancient aliens meme with 'americans' overlay ::

</comment><comment><USER74> In Seattle this is prevalent, part of the charm.

<comment><USER75> Only in parts of it. There's a lot of the city that is just not suited to a walking lifestyle.

<comment><USER76> My wife and I got electric bikes about 8 weeks ago and they have been great for running errands in lieu of single-occupancy car trips. We live near the Interurban Trail/Aurora and the e-bikes enable much easier access to a variety of stores, restaurants, and parks, which are not easily walkable. We now appreciate the nearby bike lanes and quiet streets for making longer trips to bigger parks or neighboring downtowns like Edmonds. We recently had wanted to return to Capitol Hill to enjoy a more walkable neighborhood, but so far bikeabilty has been an excellent substitute. Plus, in four years there will be a light rail station near us to offer yet another alternative to car trips. We feel lucky to have these options in our "suburban" location.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> love it. economic localization.

</comment><comment><USER78> This would be an amazing solution to implement and would benefit so many who were hurt during this over reach over government into business and private lives.

</comment><comment><USER79> Better yet, outlaw a business like amazon and create an instant market for tens of thousands of small local businesses.

</comment><comment><USER80> Seems like an invitation for loitering among other nuisances. A great idea for some places, but I feel there are many who prefer their neighborhoods truly remain residential.</comment>


You cannot have a digital copy of the DC Code - <AUTHOR> http://macwright.org/2013/02/20/you-cannot-have-the-code.html <comment><USER2> This is certainly a problem, but I see a larger, more troubling problem here associated with access to the legal code.

Yes, what laws exist should be made available in as many formats as possible, including some easily accessible electronic format. I doubt that anybody here would disagree with that.

But the real issue here is that there are so many laws and regulations that it becomes impossible for any one human being to know all of them. Any person who goes about their day in a normal fashion breaks multiple laws every day.

When the state starts policing moral and ethical behavior rather than merely defending people against aggression, you come up with page after page of laws and it becomes impossible to know what is correct. This culture of "every problem needs a law to solve it" is in my opinion the priority here, not merely making thousands of pages of useless laws somehow more accessible. You're never going to read them anyway.

<comment><USER3> There has never been a successful society of an serious complexity that had law that could be codified in a form where one person could understand them all. In feudal England prior to the ascension of the common law courts, instead of law you had power: the King (acting through representatives) or lower lords would adjudicate disputes and regulate society.

Saying "we have too many laws--nobody can know them all at once" is like saying "Linux has too many lines of code--nobody can understand it all at once." The complexity is unavoidable. You can shift it around, but you can't get rid of it.

<comment><USER4> That's not true, the Code of Hammurabi had 282 laws which really was it. Now most people could not read but the average person had a much better understanding of what to avoid doing. The issue is the separation between well understood laws with fuzzy edge cases and laws that people simply don't know about.

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't call ancient Babylon a "seriously complex" society. Pre-industrial societies have limited complexity. When everyone is mostly a self-sufficient farmer on his own land minding his own business, the need for law is dramatically lessened than industrial societies where all the necessities of sustaining one life may be the product of the labor of thousands of different people all interacting with each other.

Also: Babylon was essentially a dictatorship. You don't need law when one person is empowered to call all the shots.

<comment><USER4> Babylon had large city's and a range of industry's. We are not talking about self sufficient farmers but weavers, blacksmiths, potters, architects, construction workers, priests, teachers, warriors, etc. They dealt with complex issues like what happens when you build someone a house and it falls down killing the son of the person that bought the house.

<comment><USER5> Our society is also, easily, 100x more complex than ancient Babylon. Not least of which because it also has, what, 1000x times more people?

<comment><USER3> I think social complexity scales non-linearly with size and population density (like code complexity), and also scales with things like the number of people possibly affected by one person's activity. Our society is easily millions of times more complex than ancient Babylon.

<comment><USER4> That's more or less irrelevant to to the legal code. Consider what laws could we remove with 150 million people or how dealing with 600 million people force a lot of new legal complexity.

What really leads to complexity in the legal code is the level of institutionalized corruption. AKA only companies owned by someone living within 50 miles of X and 30 miles of Y may do XYZ. Coupled with the age of the legal system which adds cruft over time.

<comment><USER3> > That's more or less irrelevant to to the legal code.

Complexity in the society the legal code is designed to govern is irrelevant to the complexity of that legal code?

> What really leads to complexity in the legal code is the level of > institutionalized corruption. AKA only companies owned by someone living > within 50 miles of X and 30 miles of Y may do XYZ.

Do you think that's what laws actually look like?

<comment><USER4> Facebooks social graph is incredibly complex, the code that maintains it is slightly more complex than what you would need for 1/10 the users and 1/100th the social graph.

Yes, that law was an exaggeration but there are plenty of examples that include specifics on where the headquarters is which is effectively the same thing.

As to pork, the 50 billion sandy bill 17 billion relating to sand and then a bunch of random junk such as 33 million for Amtrack which is a for profit company. Now in this case nobody felt the need to hide it, but there are plenty of past spending bills aka law that have really specific contract requirements. EX: 693,000$ (~1/20,000th the budget) for beef improvement research in Missouri and Texas went to the Beef Improvement Federation as the only group meeting the requirements despite not being directly named in law. Granted by it's self not a big deal but plenty of things such as vary narrow import tarrifs stick around ex: refined vs raw sugar. <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/sc019>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Working with the local Code for America group, we've been trying to put a basic budget app online and it's an amazing clusterfuck. The city published incredibly incomplete budget docs in a Google Fusion table, and more detailed documents in images-embedded-in-PDFs.

Trying to get access to the underlying information and talking with the city's "chief information officer", turns out the actual budget numbers don't really quite add up due to department moves and program changes and such, so they literally have "a guy" who is entering numbers manually into a Word document based on black magic, to make it all add up.

This is the sort of thing where if the tech crowd pushes to get the output data open and accessible, it will be a strong incentive to stop the black magic happening earlier in the process.

</comment><comment><USER7> "...this is not a failure of the Council itself..."

I'm calling bullshit. The council should make a law that says all legal code stays in the public domain no matter what. Then a legal case would set up, and then _all_ cities would have resolution on this.

There's nobody else but the council. We don't elect lexis-nexis, and council members are the only guys there that represent our interests.

Yes, it's certainly fair to say it's a complex issue, and there are good reasons why it's not available, but make no mistake: the council here is the _only_ party responsible.

<comment><USER8> I agree to some extent, the Council did hire West to publish their code, rather than self-publishing. Here in Arizona, the state self-published and as a result, the laws are available online (<http://www.azleg.state.az.us/arizonarevisedstatutes.asp>). I'm not sure I know enough to understand why the Council chose West over self-publication.

<comment><USER9> I bet you can guess. Hint: $

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You could make your own. Take the bills (which are free) and compile them yourself. Boom, your own copy of the DC Code. You can then release it under a permissive license or whatever.

The hard part is compiling the bills. From the blog,

      Each bill is then downloaded by an employee of the
      company that wins the contract for maintaining the bill.
      This person must hold a law degree from an ABA accredited
      law school, and they cannot be a subcontractor.

(<http://macwright.org/2013/02/13/the-code-compiled.html>)

This is why the code can be copyrighted. Like a cookbook which extends a recipe with "substantial literary expression", the code extends the bills with creative expression.

<comment><USER11> The action/creativity editing of bills into the law is not a justification for copyright, and it has not been used by West (or any other entity) to claim copyright. West claims copyright on design, annotations, citation, and database structure.

<comment><USER10> So if they don't claim copyright on the law text itself, why not copy it? I'm confused now.

Who cares if they copyright the design, annotations, citations (dubious!), or database structures?

<comment><USER12> You can copy the _text_ itself, but much of the other stuff, i.e, the formatting, is copyrighted.

Also, I'm going to point out that non-lawyers like MacWright usually misunderstand the law (and he has in this instance), so his blog is generally not useful guidance.

<comment><USER11> You're right that I'm not a lawyer, but wrong about the rest. Beyond formatting, inclusions of copyrighted text have allowed West to claim copyright over the work - see adjacent comments ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5252150> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5252118> ) as well as this great article by a real-life lawyer: [http://blog.law.cornell.edu/voxpop/2011/07/15/tear- down-this...](http://blog.law.cornell.edu/voxpop/2011/07/15/tear-down-this- paywall/)

<comment><USER12> The relevant conclusion from the legal blog: " _private publishers can't claim much copyright protection in state codes:_ "

The article and the HN comments linked are about _attempts_ by private publishers to lay claim to state codes, not about their _success_ in doing so. The blog article concluded that they would be completely unsuccessful as to copyrighting the text itself and generally cites case law supporting this proposition. (See the blog for the cites.)

As I stated before, the _text_ of the state codes cannot be copyrighted as a basic rule of American law.

Other aspects can be copyrighted, and this is where copyright gets tricky. The formatting (i.e., presentation) of a state code can be copyrighted, as can analysis of the code (b/c that is a distinct work), and the particular database selection can also be copyrighted within reason (meaning the particular choice of items stored and the relationships between them, so long as such choice and relationships are not purely functional).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Just scan the books, OCR the scans, and remove the copyrighted information that the publisher added to the codes. You then have a perfectly legal, digital copy. Nobody does this because the codes change over time and there's no way to protect your work. It would be freely available to everyone as soon as the first copy hits an open server. It would also be nearly worthless as soon as the new version comes out (do you want to be the attorney that shows up to court without knowing the new changes?).

<comment><USER14> Since passed laws are basically changesets of the existing code, it should be a simple matter of applying patches based on the new laws.

In other words, once you digitize the code the first time, any git could update it.

<http://macwright.org/2013/02/13/the-code-compiled.html>

<comment><USER15> No pun intended, right?

That might actually be a great idea--store all state and federal laws in public Git repos. Each bill introduced to the legislature is a pull request and if they pass it, it gets merged.

<comment><USER14> It would be amazing to read the entire history of the bill, from initial drafting through the congressional conference committee and see who was responsible for every change.

<comment><USER15> Exactly. You could 'git blame' the law.

Tech is so far ahead of government and industry it's mind-blowing. What is the D.C. Council paying Westlaw for, again? Having version control and a database?

<comment><USER14> Don't forget burning a CD and printing off hard copies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why is something as basic as the description and distribution of public law not treated the same across all US states? Surely, this is one area where Federal statute must apply...

I mean I've heard of "jurisdictional arbitrage" but even for the US, this is starting to be insane when it applies to the actual letters of the law!

<comment><USER17> Because technically[1] the US comprises 50 independent states[2]. Each is free to conduct its affairs freely except for specific powers reserved for the federal government[1].

Today people think of "the United States" as both a singular noun and a singular government, but that's not the formal legal structure.

Your point is well taken, though: _All_ laws ought to be open and freely available to the public. Anything else would be Orwellian.[3]

[1] If you hold the 10th amendment and its juridical descendants to have meaning.

[2] In the 18th-century sense of the word, i.e. a sovereign jurisdiction.

[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22> [4]

[4] Yes, I know Orwell didn't write Catch-22.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Bullshit. There is no way the law is subject to copyright. The contractor may claim copyright but I doubt it would standup in court at all.

<comment><USER19> Although it's absurd, it's been claimed many times before. For example, municipalities incorporate model building codes as law, which publishers objected to being placed online. In 2002 this issue bubbled up to the 5th circuit which held that the laws were not subject to copyright protection. The case is _Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress_ , 293 F.3d 791:

[https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99...](https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/293/293.F3d.791.99-40632.html)

This is compelling precedent if the copyright dispute ever reaches the federal district court in DC.

<comment><USER20> I was thinking of _Veek_ as I was reading the article. <IANAL> But my understanding is that model codes can by protected by copyright, but that once they are adopted as law, they cannot be. On the other hand, lack of public access is due to the particular option DC chose - Municode.com has been around for at least twelve years. We used it as the reference for city employees when I worked in city government.

<http://www.municode.com/Library>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Crowdsource a complete transcription and make it public. That should be legal, but I'm not totally sure, since I don't have a copy of the law.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've long felt that novel legal arguments should be considered intellectual property. Once lawyers are forced to pay to cite precedent, the whole landscape will change....

<comment><USER23> I'm confused by this comment. What change would you expect? What would the benefit be? (Just interested.)

<comment><USER24> I believe he's hoping the whole legal system would be forced to become less ponderous - sad and not terribly admirable hope. Those people who supported absurdity on the principle that "no one would let such absurdity stand" are a sad footnote in the advance of bureaucratic complexity. The best you can say is they probably haven't done as much damage as the simply greedy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> You can look at the DC Code from links here [http://dc.gov/DC/Government/DC+Courts+&+Laws/DC+Laws](http://dc.gov/DC/Government/DC+Courts+&+Laws/DC+Laws), but you cannot have it to re-use or republish. The guy posting does a lot with open maps, so he probably wants to reuse the data in more interesting way.

</comment><comment><USER26> This article almost makes me want to create my own automated scanner/ocr just to distribute it in torrent.

<comment><USER27> That didn't end up well for the last guy who tried it ...

<comment><USER28> Actually, assuming you're referring to Aaron Swartz, he came out reasonably well from his efforts with PACER, which is a lot more analogous to the situation in TFA than JSTOR.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I cannot understand how its in public domain and you are not allowed to make a digital copy. Obviously if someone has gone through the process of digitizing, even if its in public domain, they can have a copyright over the specific digital copy. However that doesn't stop you from creating a copy yourself, right ? For sure that's not easily done but still that doesn't mean you are not allowed to do so. Am i missing something ?

</comment><comment><USER30> disclaimer: my understanding of the legislative process is based entirely on Schoolhouse Rock's "I'm Just a Bill" (<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0>).

so a citizen's access to a particular DC statute is impossible without that citizen infringing a copyright? I wonder if circumstances such as these would constitute "fair use" (which as i understand it is a valid defense to copyright infringement).

also, i'm aware that doing things that would otherwise constitute intellectual property infringement, can be justified by the "Essential Facilities" doctrine --originally an Anti-Trust safe harbor, though it's also been applied to IP. This seems to apply here.

</comment><comment><USER31> How about an "altruist black-hat" in China scrape the site then post a torrent? This sort of thing has as much a potential for good as it has for mischief. Someone could organize this.

</comment><comment><USER32> Federal laws are not copyrightable per 17 U.S.C. § 105:

<http://www.plainsite.org/laws/index.html?id=13347>

I'm not sure if D.C. is considered part of the federal government, but if it is, then there's nothing to worry about in terms of copyright violations.

<comment><USER33> I assume that it is not the laws that are copyrighted but this concrete representation of them - the same way, say, Beethoven's 5th symphony is not copyrighted but recordings of its performances are - to the performers, not the composer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Serious question...

If you had direct access to people (DC, not Westlaw) with the power to change this. How would you phrase the argument against the current situation and what would you suggest as an alternative?

<comment><USER11> DC is interested in changing this and will have the opportunity to do so in a year, when the Lexis contract expires and they can write a new one - or try to bring it in-house.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> as someone who works for TR, this makes me sad.

<comment><USER10> TR?

<comment><USER36> Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Westlaw (the contractor who presently has the contract in DC)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The individual governments that are in this bind should just TAKE their copyright back by eminent domain.

Done.

<comment><USER8> Then they have to pay fair market value for this. Consider how much money that is. West Law's pricing model is a "secret", but it's estimated at $70 per search or $27 per minute. For one person.

To buy DC's case law for one attorney, it's a little under $2,000. [http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law- products/Westla...](http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.com/law- products/WestlawNext/Essentials-Library--District-of-Columbia-WestlawNext- PRO/p/100013946)

I'm guessing the "fair market value" would be INSANE.

<comment><USER38> Westlaw's T&C contains this wonderful gem....

Subscriber Agreement and this Order Form will automatically renew for consecutive 12-month periods ("Renewal Term"), and the Monthly WestlawPRO Charges for the Renewal Term _will increase 7% per year_ unless either party gives written notice of cancellation to the other party at least 30 days in advance of any Renewal Term

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> AFAIK all code books are like this. I've never seen one that is free but I might be wrong.

<comment><USER11> You are indeed wrong. Most states maintain the code internally and release it in a complete, copyright-free form. Here are a few with nice mirrors: <http://www.statedecoded.com/states/>

<comment><USER39> Cool thanks for the info! I always thought it was some racket like textbooks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Aren't statutes and laws merely facts? I thought facts aren't protected by copyright.

<comment><USER23> Not sure they can be considered _fait accompli_ necessarily because they are "works". The rule [1] they can't be copyright by virtue of what they are seems more compelling.

[1] [http://macwright.org/2013/02/14/the-law-is-public- domain.htm...](http://macwright.org/2013/02/14/the-law-is-public-domain.html)</comment></comment>


FCC finally orders ISPs to say where they offer broadband - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/the-fccs-horrible-broadband-mapping-system-is-finally-getting-an-upgrade/ <comment><USER2> > The FCC pretty much takes ISPs at their word, and Pai took credit for > broadband-deployment gains without realizing that his data was inflated by > this gigantic error. The FCC only corrected the mistake after advocacy group > Free Press discovered it.

The way this is written makes it seem like this was only ordered because Pai got called out on some BS and embarrassed was embarrassed.

Meanwhile... [https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/pais-fcc- orders-...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/pais-fcc-orders- cities-and-towns-to-stop-regulating-cable-broadband/)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's about damn time.</comment>


Expensify and the surprisingly difficult challenge of finding the right people - <AUTHOR> http://blog.expensify.com/2011/03/18/the-hunt-for-engineers-expensify-and-the-surprisingly-difficult-challenge-of-finding-the-right-people/

<comment><USER2> It probably doesn't help when you insult the entire .Net community and imply that anyone unwilling to work ridiculous hours is lazy.

<comment><USER3> I think they were actually trying to say that they are looking for people who will continue working past 5pm if they're hot on something, instead of -always- checking out at 5pm no matter what. Some companies will actually let you flex your time a bit and work late 1 night and come in late or go home early another to make up for it. It ends up better for the worker and the company both.

However, it definitely wasn't clear and if I were looking at that as a potential job, I'd have to assume they work massive overtime and don't get appreciated for it, since they don't bother to explain.

But as to hiring the right person, it really can be incredibly hard. In my previous job, we spent a lot of time interviewing to try to find people who had a good attitude (most important) and can actually do the work. We usually got the first correct, but the second was 50/50... If that.

And when looking for a job, I've found it's also incredibly hard to get a good sense of the work environment. Try as I might this last time, I didn't really have a clear view of how things would be. I assumed to much, and didn't ask enough questions. I'm not displeased, just surprised. Again, attitudes were good, oddly enough.</comment></comment>


State of MongoDB March, 2010 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mongodb.org/post/434865639/state-of-mongodb-march-2010

<comment><USER2> Thanks for this. We use MongoDB to solve quite a few problems here at work. It's refreshing to hear that better replication and sharding are on the way.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just echoing the praise here. I've been using it on my current project (which is my first serious foray into the NoSQL landscape) and I am quite happy with the results.

</comment><comment><USER4> MongoDB is quite amazing, give it a spin if you haven't already.</comment>


Great JavaScript Frameworks for 2020 - <AUTHOR> https://insights.dice.com/2020/07/14/5-great-javascript-frameworks-2020/ <comment><USER2> If you didn't know much about these frameworks I don't think this article tells you anything useful.

If you did, I don't think this article tells you anything...</comment>


Show HN: Signature – signatures for Medium, simplified - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/signature/hgabbjfneihcmbbcnbnfdnfdcbpodnhp <comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone, maker of Signature here!

For those who use Firefox, there is also a Firefox WebExtension available here: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/medium- signat...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/medium-signature/)

Please try it out and let me know what you think, I'm looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and suggestions :)</comment>


Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 Ti Shoot-Out: ASUS Strix and Zotac AMP Extreme - <AUTHOR> https://hothardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-ti-comparison <comment><USER2> "Pricing $599 MSRP -- Currently $969 On Amazon"

When will our suffering end?</comment>


Show HN: Kickass scrum diagram - <AUTHOR> http://www.axosoft.com/Downloads/Scrum_Diagram.pdf

<comment><USER2> Are you the author?

Awesome diagram and I'd love to use that for our projects at work, but would probably get some pushback when management saw the "would make a good dictator", "kicks ass", etc.

If you are, any chance you could make a version with more "professional" descriptions?

<comment><USER3> Hi Matt. I'm the author. Thanks for the compliments on the scrum diagram. I felt that a little humor would lighten up an otherwise dull subject.

But if the humor causes your management team to have an aneurysm, there are 2 things that you should do immediately:

1) Try printing out the diagram and hand it to the managers that would give you pushback. I take a $20 bet that they will never read the questionable comments to ever object about it. If I'm wrong, email me your address and I'll send you a crisp $20 bill. :-)

2) After waiting a day to confirm my suspicions, bring the questionable comments to their attention. If they do give you push back, it's time you find another employer. This company is focused on the wrong things. My company is always hiring: <http://www.axosoft.com/company/jobs>

<comment><USER4> Nice. Like your marketing. Going to blog about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for posting this, saved. The video it points to is also looking quite kickass too.

<http://www.axosoft.com/ontime/videos/scrum>

<comment><USER4> It's all good advertising for www.axosoft.com, a scrum project management tool.</comment></comment>


Stickiness is bad for business - <AUTHOR> http://cdixon.org/2010/03/25/stickiness-is-bad-for-business/ <comment><AUTHOR> The title is a little misleading but the articles makes some good points about the distribution of advertising dollars now and in the future.</comment>


Ultra-rich actually are more mean-spirited than the rest of us - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-06/finance-s-mega-rich-are-meaner-than-rest-of-us-commentary-by-matthew-lynn.html

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure the ultra-rich have changed at all. There will be mean and nice rich people, money doesn't give the mean folks any more right to be mean but it might justify it in their eyes I guess. There are plenty of demanding and mean folks in the world. They come in all the shapes, sizes, backgrounds, colors and financial means that you can imagine

For instance, I demand the service I pay for and sometimes that makes me feel like I'm being mean but I'm actually just being put in a position where I have to be more forceful to get the service I've paid for. Think apartment services, warranties and stuff like that. Some companies don't like to give the services they promise without a fight when they lose money.

Besides, you don't get to stay rich by handing out all your money. No one wants to pull an MC Hammer.

<comment><USER3> Money, like military services, just brings out what is already there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We are all miserable, as we tend to focus on what's wrong in our lives. The rich simply have a less desperate set issues to deal with. This has a desensitizing effect on how they relate to the reality of peoples real pain. The less you relate, and empathize with others, the more of a prick you seem.

So yeah, they would naturally give less to charity, and treat others more rudely to get what they want. There whole world is focused on experience and consumption, and not getting those concert tickets is as much of a psychological blow to them as me not being able to pay my rent.</comment>


Ask HN: What is your favorite YouTube channel or video? - <AUTHOR> Any video or channel <comment><USER2> It's gotta be Screen Junkies / Honest Trailers

Pacific Rim is a particularly entertaining one.

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

</comment><comment><USER3> Not at all geek-related, but constantly hilarious for gym goers: Bro Science Life.</comment>


Show HN: Glorious Demo – Create animations for your code samples - <AUTHOR> https://glorious.codes/demo? <comment><USER2> Or you can just _literally_ record it with [https://asciinema.org/](https://asciinema.org/) and embed like a video. The text will be selectable even!

<comment><USER3> And for added hotness around asciinema, try svg-term-cli. [https://github.com/marionebl/svg-term-cli](https://github.com/marionebl/svg- term-cli)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Maybe I'm missing something here, but it doesn't seem like it actually runs anything, it just has you provide "commands" and "responses", so you have to fake out your entire interaction. Which means that when you change something in your program's input or output, you'll need to manually edit the script, instead of being able to regenerate it.

<comment><USER5> This was my thought exactly. Also thought seeing 6 lines being typed was too much, got the feeling I wanted to close the page. Animation went too slow and didnt really add anything anymore at that point. The power of gif-based samples is for the range 1-3 sec gifs I'd say.

<comment><USER6> What this can provide over gifs, is accessibility, although I haven't checked it with a screen reader.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> BTW, I didn't make this - I thought it was a really cool tool and wanted to share it.

Credit for this tool goes to Rafael Camargo:

[https://glorious.codes/author](https://glorious.codes/author)

[https://rafaelcamargo.com/?utm_source=glorious- codes&utm_med...](https://rafaelcamargo.com/?utm_source=glorious- codes&utm_medium=author)

</comment><comment><USER7> Looks smooth!

Similar tool would be [https://asciinema.org/](https://asciinema.org/)

</comment><comment><USER8> This is super nice to look at. I think it's acceptable for 1 line of code but watching 5 lines being typed out felt a bit extreme.

</comment><comment><USER9> This will be perfect for an SDK developer onboarding electron app I'm building

</comment><comment><USER10> What is the license? You should add it to the project.

<comment><USER11> Well noticed TekMol. Just added MIT license to the project. Thanks for your feedback!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Very good job!</comment>


Lululemon's Cult of Selling  - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/134/om-my.html <comment><USER2> I was invited to a Landmark Forum introduction once. It sounded very cult-ish to me. I ended up not going. Anyone tried it?

<comment><USER3> It's a cult. A co-worker at an old startup has spent upwards of $50,000 with them. It's a more benign cult than the Manson Family but it seems to be as bad as Scientology.

<comment><USER4> Scientology isolates its victims from their (non-Sci.) family, makes ridiculous claims about the nature of the universe, and sets itself dangerously above evidence-based medicine.

Does Landmark do any of that? A smart guy I know seems happy spending time and money on their product (I don't know about $50k, but is that really evidence of culthood?)

<comment><USER2> There do seem to be some parallels. I was told I could lose weight, better my relationships and make more money. It reminded me of the self-help aspect of Scientology (if that makes sense).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Collapsible comments? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I think it has been a year or so since I saw that Collapsible where coming.<p>Any news about that? <comment><USER2> There's a Chrome extension for it (and probably a Firefox one).</comment>


Galaxy S4: This Really Says It All - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/04/24/stern-s4

<comment><USER2> Having a mother, who recently got an iPad, I really doubt the claim, that the apple-product has an easy-mode.

Sorry, but she is not very computer-literate, but i have never, ever been that much of a help-center-agent via phone (we live some distance apart), then after she got her iPad.

No, for a normal person, there is no such thing as an iDevice-easy mode. After she got the hang of it, after she understood the logic behind doing things the apple-iDevice way, she did not need my support that often. But till then, it was very eye-opening to see a normal person use a device like this.

<comment><USER3> Anecdotal response - my mother-in-law could use her gifted iPad more fluidly than I could after just a few hours with the device (and me to assist). She's a seamstress, and could never quite grok her PC (or her Mac), but she flows between apps using gestures, and cut/pastes and uses Facetime, iMessage and Photostream quite frequently (mostly to check in on her grand-daughters).

Perhaps iOS is easiest for those who never really cared about or understood desktop/WiMP paradigm in the first place?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Seriously? The article look very much like a little kiddie troll post.

I recently considered "upgrading" to an iPhone and it's inability to be customized really confused me. I was so used to having shortcuts on my "desktop" screens, a separate apps list, a task manager, back button/home button, power buttons in the pull down menu that I found the iPhone incredibly difficult to use.

But each to their own, people who want the "simplicity" of an iPhone should not buy the S4. Simple right.

</comment><comment><USER5> I remember my first mac having an easy mode, back in the pre-OS X days. And didn't they add one to Mac OS X too?

I guess that "really says it all" if you've got some pre-concieved notions about something that you desperately need re-inforced.

edit: Googled it. Both were called "Simple Finder".

<comment><USER6> iOS also has a "lock down for child" mode.

There is however a difference between a simple mode designed for children and a simple mode added simply because the original UI design is poor.

I'd point out that this is a lesson for anyone creating a new idea, but that lesson is taken for granted in our industry. Not really sure why anyone is bothering to defend Samsung's poor UI.

<comment><USER5> In Mac OS 8, the simple finder was not a kids mode. It was, as I recall, and Wikipedia confirms:

"Simple Finder, an option which reduces Finder menus to basic operations, in order to avoid overwhelming new users."

I don't know about Mac OS X, a Mac OS X Tiger guide suggests that "The Simple Finder would be fine for most kindergartners, if it allowed them to delete the files they created. In its current state, it is almost worthless. It should not be confused with the far more valuable Simple Finder UI that was introduced in Mac OS 8."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've not used the Galaxy S4, but I've found android's learning curve to be really gentle. It is easy to use the phone out of the box, and pretty easy to discover the more advanced features (or google them if necessary).

</comment><comment><USER8> Having owned an iPhone 4 and an iPad:

1\. No easy way I could open a document in iCloud on my main computer, in an application not made by Apple. iCloud is completely opaque, which I think makes it harder to use. 2\. No way to attach a file to an email you're already begun composing on iOS (which is not a picture or video). Do I need to do 3 emails to send 3 documents? 3\. No easy way to share from one app to another without having to use the unofficial iOS filesystem (Dropbox). 4\. No way to change the default email or web app to something else. 5\. No way to find out what is using up all my iCloud storage in the 'other' category, so I don't need to purchase expensive iCloud storage. 6\. No way to allow an app to run in background, for example so it can periodically sync and doesn't have to waste my time doing that when I launch it (Pocket is much better on Android for this very reason).

There was more but these were the things which stuck out in my mind. Also, my family who pretty much all use iPhones and iPads would disagree that it is easy. My mum doesn't use the notifications pane, she hates the email because of the attachment issue, she hates the text selection and copying. I can't find any fault with her issues.

</comment><comment><USER9> Article: For real smartphone beginners, Samsung has added an Easy Mode

Gruber: ..The iPhone has an easy mode too. It's called "Using the iPhone"

Gruber admits the iPhone is for beginners. Nuff said.

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's a tool. I really don't want my phone to be some customization/hacking project - I do enough of that on my desktop and servers.

Perhaps this is a philosophy issue. Do you want a project you can sink lots of time and effort into, or a tool that gets out of your way for the most part?

<comment><USER8> Black and white argument, the fact is Android has the option to hack/customise, it is not a requirement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you've used an Android smartphone, you will find the iPhone very dumb.

</comment><comment><USER11> I mean theoretically the old candy bar phones are much simpler than the iPhone. 10 numbers, #, *, call, hangup.

There is simple and then there is too simple.

</comment><comment><USER12> Yes, and that's why people don't like iPhones.

</comment><comment><USER13> In other words, the Samsung phone has both an easy mode _and_ an advanced mode, while the iPhone has _only_ an easy mode that you're stuck with, no matter what you want to do or how much complexity you're willing to handle (or even prefer to putative 'simplicity').

</comment><comment><USER14> the problem is the iphone has ONLY a easy mode...

</comment><comment><USER15> Anyone who says everything about an iPhone is easy or obvious hasn't ever tried to do sophisticated things on an iPhone without prior knowledge. I remember when I got my first-gen iPhone there were multiple things that were unclear to me, whether it was 'swipe to reveal the delete button' or 'long- press this random thing to reveal more options'.

Apple fans can ramble all they want about how everything is simple and easy in Apple products, but eventually products get complicated. That's why Macs grew those awful hidden bits of complexity called Context Menus and you find them all over in OS X apps now, and that's why features like multitasking on iOS are hidden behind increasingly arcane and obscure actions. Double-tap the home button? Shake to undo? Yeah, defend that stuff all you want: Sometimes good UX design still involves compromises.

<comment><USER6> You assert "Apple fans can ramble all they want about how everything is simple and easy" without evidence.

This is incorrect. For example, many pro-Apple commenters have discussed how the "home" button on iOS devices is a horror show of modality which performs about at least five different actions.

You also dismiss arcane and obscure actions too easily. There is nothing wrong with providing an obscure action as a "keyboard accelerator" so long as there is also an obvious way to perform the same action too. You're examples of "double-tap the home button" and "shake to undo" are good examples where this principle is not obeyed: there is no simple alternative and is, as you say, a UI compromise.

<comment><USER15> I'm responding to the original article. This should have been clear to you by the fact that my comment was at the root?

I don't disagree with your thoughts on the difference between scenarios where a bad verb is chosen as a shortcut and scenarios where a bad verb is the only way to do something. However, that still isn't relevant to my core point, which is that the iPhone has been and continues to be a place where important actions can only be performed with poorly chosen, confusing, undiscoverable verbs.

This is hardly unique to Apple, to be sure, but again, I was responding to the original article's smug assertion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I like to call the iPhone's "Easy Mode" - "You can't do that".

</comment><comment><USER17> This could be taken as both criticism and praise.

</comment><comment><USER18> > The iPhone has an easy mode too. It's called "Using the iPhone".

My iPhone also has a "sitting in the drawer while the Geniuses work on IMAP IDLE" mode.

<comment><USER19> My iPhone just has "testing games" mode... i use my android for Unity development, then only when I need to do i find some ios thing to check it's doing what it's supposed to. sigh...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> iTroll</comment>


A House of Mathematical Beauty - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/01/yours-for-23m-a-house-of-outstanding-mathematical-beauty.html

<comment><USER2> Well, now at least I know the money for my Calculus textbook went to a good cause, because I could totally afford that textbook without any problems at all when I was a student.</comment>


Kinect is fastest-selling consumer electronics device in history - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/01/27/microsofts-kinectified-game-business-grows-55-percent/ <comment><AUTHOR> I saw a demonstration of the Kinect at CES and I was impressed with the technology. The Kinect is a big win for Microsoft. Not only is it a commercial success, but it's also the first Microsoft product in quite some time that has captured the imagination of consumers.

Now Microsoft needs to leverage the success of the Kinect to further expand beyond the PC. An obvious direction is to use the Kinect to gain additional market share with the Xbox, since the Kinect is currently designed as a UI for this device. But I think focusing exclusively on the Xbox is a mistake. The Xbox (and other consoles and set-top boxes) may soon get enveloped and displaced by other technologies, particularly connected TVs.

I suggest that Microsoft leverage the Kinect as an element in a coherent connected TV strategy. Connected TVs are just emerging, and there is still time to match the developments of Google, Apple, and others in this space. To enter the connected TV market, Microsoft needs to quickly develop a connected TV OS, forge relationships with app developers, and acquire or partner with content providers (e.g., Netflix, OnLive.com). This is all feasible given Microsoft's significant software expertise and its existing relationships (e.g., with Netflix, game developers, etc).

Microsoft has been struggling to gain leadership in markets outside the PC. For instance, it's behind in smartphones, tablets, and portable media players. The Kinect could give Microsoft the edge to dominate the emerging connected TV market. The technology strikes me as an excellent UI for the 10-foot viewing experience, especially for interactive media. It can then leverage success in this market to gain further ground in related connected device markets. I think there is a significant opportunity here. Thoughts?

<comment><USER3> They won't be able to do any of this, or exploit _any_ of the frankly enormous potential of the device, unless they can pry the Kinect out of the clutches of the Entertainment division. They only care about selling Xboxes.

<comment><USER4> The entertainment division operates WP7 and consumer software (as stated in the article), so what makes you think this division only cares about selling XBox?

Microsoft (from my understanding) doesn't have exclusive rights to the Kinect tech, just for it's use in certain applications, but with the relationship that Microsoft has PrimeSense (the company which created much of the kinect technology), I'm sure groups outside of just the Entertainment division are looking at ways to leverage the tech and relationship.

The brilliant hacking that is going on with kinect show just how valuable this tech can be in different uses. I'm sure microsoft will be leveraging much of this for ideas. Hopefully they'll be getting into the acquisition game and picking up some of these hackers to continue to create great experiences with kinect on platforms other than xbox.

<comment><USER3> > The entertainment division operates WP7 and consumer software (as stated in > the article), so what makes you think this division only cares about selling > XBox?

Chatting to a 'Softie who was complaining about this specific problem. Specifically that they're only interested in Kinect applications which will sell Xboxes, because that's how the ownership is organised. I didn't query too much further, it all sounded too painful...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I just bought one a couple of weeks ago, and I think it's a revolution in computer human interaction.

After the first few times you play with the Kinect, you stop thinking "Holy crap, I'm waving my hands, and the computer responds", and you simply start playing the games. On Dance Central, the interface is quite seamless. I'm eagerly looking forward to thinks like fightings games, although I'm going to have to get in much better shape. That is, in fact, my only hesitation that I have with the device: I get tired a lot faster playing games on the device.

I've heard rumors that they are going to be releasing an SDK for Win7, and the Win8 is going to have drivers built in. I'll be first in line to buy an extra Kinect per PC if that happens.

There's still a ton of room for refinement, and the UI/UX designers are going to have a lot of room to learn, grow and play with a new interface, but as version 1.0 of a new way to interact with a computer, I think it kicks ass.

<comment><USER6> As a Kinect owner, the one thing that bugs me about it at the moment is the inconsistency of the menu UX between games. Kinect Adventures has the best menu interactions (you hold your hand out, palm towards the TV, to select menu items and hold to confirm, a.k.a. using the force). Kinect Sports's menu UX is not quite as good and Dance Central is so-so. Sonic Freeriders, however, has one of the most appalling menu systems ever to be invented by mankind, to the extent that it takes minutes to navigate the menu. This, coupled with its poor body tracking, makes the game frustrating and unplayable.

Obviously, this is a completely new era of menu design, and it will probably settle down soon to a standard-ish menu design, but I wish the game publishers would resist the temptation to come up with whacky UI metaphors just because they can.

<comment><USER7> > palm towards the TV

This sort of wording was what lead me to believe the Kinect could actually track hands. I tried three games, and none of them tracked my fingers or the rotation of my hands at all.

<comment><USER6> Kinect loves hands. It seeks out hands in everything it sees. If you look at the greyscale video box, the moment a hand is in view it will glow white.

It might not be down to the finger level yet (I don't know) but it can certainly recognise hands to a great level of precision. The Kinect Sports bowling game, for example, is very accurate at tracking the path of your hand.

<comment><USER7> Are you talking about the orientation of the hand relative to your lower arm, or the position of your hand in space? An easy test is to twist your hand while moving no other part of your body. If the Kinect game tracks your hand, this should be reflected in your avatar.

I suspect many games fake it in this fashion: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWbLOFGSEDo>

edited to add: quote from someone on the Kinect Sports team:

 _And while designers admit that, unlike Wii MotionPlus bowling, the game can't track spin based upon a twist of my wrist—instead you exaggerate the motion within the entire scope of your swing—the flexibility keeps me immersed._

[http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-xbox-360-kinetic- is...](http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-xbox-360-kinetic-is- wonderful-2010-6)

<comment><USER8> This was a _huge_ disappointment to me when trying out Kinect Sports bowling. Wii bowling's ability to accurately track wrist twists made if _feel_ a lot like real bowling. Kinect bowling doesn't feel like bowling at all. :-(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _"Microsoft sold 6.3 million XBox 360 consoles during the holiday season"_

That's within about 10% of the number of iPads Apple moved during the same period. That seems pretty extraordinary for a consumer electronics product that's over five years old. Considering the additional sale of 8 million Kinects during the same period, the combined revenue number would appear to be in the same ballpark as those of the iPad (~$400-$600 per unit times 7 million units).

<comment><USER10> If only the 64DD had been so lucky!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Jaron Lanier recently gave a talk at UCSB, and he mentioned that Microsoft is be funding a lab he's setting up in SF to explore new avenues of perception opened up by Kinnect. He mentioned using it to see the world as a lobster, or understand say perhaps a mathematical function by translating body movements to avatar changes.

</comment><comment><USER12> 8 million in 60 days isn't bad. That's 48 million a year. Well over half the estimated yearly sales of the iPhone (70 million).

This might be the fastest selling first 60 days for a new product, but it's an upgrade to an already popular platform.

<comment><USER13> That's not a good comparison. iPhones don't belong to the consumer electronics category. Also, the majority iPhone sales are on an upgrade of a previous version as well.

<comment><USER14> Kinect _upgrades_ the Xbox 360, while iPhone _replaces_ the previous model.

<comment><USER6> I bought an xbox for the Kinect (not the other way round). I'm sure I'm not alone.

<comment><USER15> I'm considering it too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I bought a Kinect release week and to me - its a <Steve Jobs>magical device</Steve Jobs> that's just not quite ready yet - but it has absolutely enormous potential.

When I first hooked it up and put in the sports game there's a definite "holy shit" moment when you realize that moving to your left and right and aiming your kicks in the soccer game actually works. You can take two or three steps to the left, around a defender and then kick the ball with the appropriate foot, in the air or on the ground, etc and it works, well. As someone who writes software for a living it was a feeling I haven't had with a hardware/software combo in a long time.

On the other hand there are parts of the experience that just aren't there yet. One of parts that seemed to have the most potential was the 10 foot interface - controlling ESPN and your dashboard without ever touching a controller. Unfortunately this just isn't very good. Its finicky and much less efficient than just using a controller. I tried it for a few days before going back to a normal controller or the occasional voice command. To me - this is the part of the experience that needs the most work.

I can easily see the Kinect being a revolutionary technology as it evolves and improves - it already is one for games, but its not quite there yet in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER17> by what metric?

I assume it's average sales over a period of time, but who decides on the period? 1 week, 1 month, 2 months or 1 year?

assuming all these 8 million were sold to consumers (and not just 'in the channel'), then that's a bit over 133k/day which, while still a massive amount, is still less than what the iPhone 4 is selling

I'm not trying to downplay these figures, just saying if you're going to award yourself an accolade like that, you need to be able to specify how you measured it

<comment><USER18> I agree, the claim sounds like PR hype. It's a great device but the initial market is primarily XBox owners which is by definition a limited pool. The article suggests XBox sales last year were largely driven by the cheaper XBox slim, not by the $150 Kinect. It'll be interesting to see how it drives 360 sales this year, particularly after the inevitable price drop to $99.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Is it a possibility that Peter Klein is pulling this out of his ass? I've yet to see a Kinect at a house / dorm, but when Furbys (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furby>) came out, boy were they everywhere.

<comment><USER20> I've got one - my first console purchase since a Sega Dreamcast in the 90s. I think the more people that experience playing them, the _more_ they're going to sell.

<comment><USER21> So... you have a Kinect with no Xbox?

<comment><USER20> [http://www.xbox.com/en- US/Xbox360/Consoles/Bundles/Xbox36025...](http://www.xbox.com/en- US/Xbox360/Consoles/Bundles/Xbox360250GBwKinect)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder how many of these were sold to anxious hackers :)

<comment><USER23> If you are subscribed to the kinect-hacks mailing list you would estimate a large number.

<comment><USER24> But not in the millions. I'd be surprised if more than 10,000 sales were to people doing "hacking" of the device.

[Not that there's much to "hack" -- all you have to do is open up streams on the thing. It just took someone to replay the initialization and grok the stream format.]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> While the Kinect is very cool technology indeed, it seems a bit deceiving to me when they trumpet a peripheral as the fastest selling electronics device. Were it not for the install base of Xbox 360s, it would not likely have such an rapid adoption rate.

Again, it is phenomenal technology, I do not mean to demean it on a technical level, and it is still a great achievement, but it seems a bit sensationalist to me when they laud a peripheral like it is a standalone device when in this case, the high sales volume can be largely attributed to the existing consumer device on which it piggybacks to inflate sales. Just my thoughts though.

</comment><comment><USER26> My roommate has it at home, for fitness related games I think it's a godsend, but then again the Wii has already taken that with games like Wii Fit. Being a video game aficionado I'm scared that this is going to replace controller- based games with the advent of Move and the WiiMote as well. I might have to go to the handheld market for less gimmicky gaming depending on what the next gen holds.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think it is also fair to say the kinect is revolutionizing computer vision.

And as someone addicted to Minecraft I have to think that kinect controls forcing you to make swinging full body motions to dig would provide _quite_ a workout.

</comment><comment><USER28> And yet, anecdotally, I know several people who have Xboxes, but none who have the Kinect (including myself).

<comment><USER29> In fairness, I know _scads_ of people with fingers, but only one with an iPad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I am waiting for the Kinect to be helmet-mounted and become night-vision goggles. It can craw a 3d representation of what you see in the night - <USER2> can identify human forms, which can be tied to a targeting system.

(think robocop, where he enters the warehouse and targets all the thugs really quickly)

Given the Israeli company that created the kinnect - and all the autonomous robots it has already been mounted to, this is not far off.</comment>