Programming the Atari ST 20 Years Later - <AUTHOR> http://www.voidbred.com/blog/2014/09/programming-the-atari-st-20-years-later/ <comment><USER2> _" A dark shadow falls over me when I think about all the hours of work spent by Atari ST engineers to build something almost lost to oblivion."_

Sigh. There are sooooooooo many things people have built which are sitting there in "oblivion" now. One of the most awesome things of playing with turn of the century computers (like PDP 11's or VAXen) is that you can see the stuff they did, in the contraints they had, and really understand how amazingly inefficient/overpowered OSes are today. When you have only one font, its fixed width and size, and it comes out of a ROM you don't worry about typography for example.

<comment><USER3> Great point. One that pains me terribly.

Whilst not quite PDP11/VAX territory (I do love VAXstations though!), the killer for me was I bought a low end Sun Ultra 30 in 1999 just before they EOL'ed them and spent 3 years slowly upgrading it. Spent about 4000 GBP on it in total.

Still felt faster then than the i5 X201 ThinkPad on my lap today. Everything was smooth as butter, even though it was Solaris 2.6.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wrote an Atari ST emulator out of nostalgia called STonX myself when I started to use a Unix box (Sun IPC), I believe it was the first open source ST emulator ('94 or '95, also the first for Unix with big/little endian support, ran on Linux, DECstations with Ultrix, Sun/Solaris etc.). It was somewhat special in that it supported "native" graphics capabilities, i.e. bigger resolutions than 640x400 using VDI if the host hardware supported them. Had a bunch of bugs though that I never got round to fixing...

My memories of the ST were fond: it was quite powerful yet still a system that you could look into every aspect of, you could single-step through the OS in ROM if you wanted and there weren't dozens of strange tasks running all the time like today. When MiNT (Unix-like OS layer) was released, we could even play in the Unix league using gcc, bash, tcsh, emacs.

</comment><comment><USER5> I learned basic on a atari 800 i got for christmas because our bundle included the cartridge. After about 6 months i managed to get my parents to buy me a tape drive so i wouldn't have to retype programs completely out each time.

I think my biggest day of my programming life was when i got an advanced book that showed me what gosub was for.

</comment><comment><USER6> Sorry, but the Amiga was wayyyy better.

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe it. I surprised myself playing with the Atari ST instead of the Amiga. The emulator for Atari ST seemed nice. Also while computers have surpassed the Atari ST and the Amiga in almost every front, the Atari ST is supposedly hard to beat even by today's standards when it comes to its MIDI latency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> An Atari ST was the first computer I ever owned.

I sent my father to the shops to buy a C64 and he was convinced by a salesman that what I really wanted was an ST.

Atari shortly after pulled out of Australia and I found myself paying $15 a month for copies of ST Format from England.

Seeing screenshots of the OS bring up some serious childhood flashbacks.

</comment><comment><USER8> In 15 seconds you'll be using an Atari ST emulator -- [http://estyjs.azurewebsites.net/](http://estyjs.azurewebsites.net/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't remember the ST, but man, I wanted an Atari 800 with an Assembler Editor cartridge so bad back in the day!

</comment><comment><USER10> Anybody interested in running their business off of a model undercutting competitors prices should study Jack Tramiel.

I don't know why his name doesn't come up more but he was a remarkable businessman.

</comment><comment><USER11> Amiga rulez !</comment>


Ask HN: Where do you get your design ideas for apps? - <AUTHOR>

Are there any books, websites, blogs, or anything that you guys recommend to get ideas/inspirations for building well designed software? <comment><USER2> My process starts with blank paper, I draw the flow then I do a quick mockups and test. If you can do something with Xcode no design fancy so you can test the thing, better than anything else.

It must feel comfortably and, sometimes other designs aren't the best example, they may stop you to find a better way, if you inspire always in the rest.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm no designer, but I like [http://land-book.com](http://land-book.com) for screenshots of well-designed pages. [http://pttrns.com/](http://pttrns.com/) does something similar for mobile apps.

<comment><USER4> pttrns looked awesome until I noticed that its only iOS designs

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> i always use dribbble as design inspiration, also behance

<comment><USER6> Wow - great resources!</comment></comment>


Casper, Mattress Maker, Raises $170M and Plans I.P.O - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/18/business/dealbook/casper-mattress-target-investment-initial-public-offering.html <comment><USER3> I got a sour taste in my mouth for Casper when I learned of their Federal lawsuits against affiliate bloggers who reviewed their product. I personally felt like Sleepopolis's review of Casper was as fair and observational as one could get with such a thing.

Lawsuit Details: [https://sleepopolis.com/blog/casper-sues-sleepopolis-with- fe...](https://sleepopolis.com/blog/casper-sues-sleepopolis-with-federal- lawsuit/)

Casper Mattress Review: [https://sleepopolis.com/mattress-reviews/casper- mattress-rev...](https://sleepopolis.com/mattress-reviews/casper-mattress- review/)

<comment><USER4> That is absolutely insane, this "unlawful" review is as informative and objective as it gets:

[https://sleepopolis.com/mattress-reviews/tuft-and-needle- vs-...](https://sleepopolis.com/mattress-reviews/tuft-and-needle-vs-casper- mattress-reviews/)

You shouldn't be able to sue someone for writing a review, this reeks of violating one's First Amendment rights.

<comment><USER5> Reading the complaint ([https://sleepopolis.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/caspers-a...](https://sleepopolis.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/09/caspers-amended-complaint.pdf)) it looks like Casper is suing them for not disclosing their referral links are referral links whilst alleging that they steer people away from products they don't get good referrals on.

I have no idea about the basis or any of the details but it's not just "wrote review, got sued".

<comment><USER6> Here's a review from just before the first complaint. It doesn't seem to mention any affiliate money.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20160427113129/http://sleepopoli...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160427113129/http://sleepopolis.com:80/mattress- reviews/leesa-mattress-review/)

So, that might be a relevant complaint.

I'm not sure why, now the site has the needed disclosures, it's okay for Casper to keep up the lawsuit.

<comment><USER7> Damages don't need to be ongoing to have standing, and damages in the past are still damages. The case isn't mooted by rectifying the situation that was causing harm unless it ameliorates the financial harms caused.

<comment><USER4> How can you possibly assess damages for this without knowing how many customers were lost because they were swayed into buying other mattresses because of the review?

The linked review in question even strongly favors the Casper over the competing Tuft & Needle mattress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I did a ton of research on mattresses when getting a new bed two years ago. Casper was my first choice since I heard so much about it from my startup friends. I wanted one that was biodegradable with no off-gassing. I took a deep dive into Casper's safety claims and it opened up a whole can of worms.

I've never seen an industry with so much greenwashing. The organizations that certify the mattresses as being safe are comprised of the suppliers themselves. They are basically chemical companies pushing cheap non- biodegradable foam with crazy markups under exotic brand names. Casper just sells this cheap foam with questionable safety standards like everyone else. The only standard I found not to be shady was GOTS [1].

I ended up making my own mattress from slabs of organic latex. It was cheaper and more comfortable than the Casper anyway. Now when I have guests over I can easily remove a layer and have another temporary mattress. They ship compressed and rolled up in boxes which were way smaller than the Casper one. (Btw, the box advertised in Casper ads and in their showroom is nowhere near the size of the actual delivered box. It's massive). If you don't want to make your own, here's a good one: [https://sleeponlatex.com/products/natural-latex- mattress](https://sleeponlatex.com/products/natural-latex-mattress).

[1] [http://www.global-standard.org](http://www.global-standard.org)

<comment><USER9> For anyone else who has never heard of greenwashing like me two minutes ago:

> Greenwashing is like whitewashing with a green (environmental) brush: > companies and organizations making themselves and their products sound or > look like they're really helping the environment. And they lure you in — > creating the perception that you can help, too. In some cases you are > helping. In some cases, it's greenwashing.

Source: [http://greenwashingindex.com/about- greenwashing/](http://greenwashingindex.com/about-greenwashing/)

<comment><USER10> Now I need to go look up whitewashing

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For those looking for a new mattress, I'd highly recommend Thr Mattress Underground[0]. It's an unbelievably comprehensive resource for mattress reviews and discussion, and goes into great detail about the mattress industry in general (and the "disruptors" including Casper, among others).

[0] [https://www.themattressunderground.com](https://www.themattressunderground.com)

<comment><USER12> i am on my fourth mattress, i took advantage of the 3 - 6 month trial periods with these new online delivery mattress companies. :) if any more of these keeps popping up, i could probably have a free mattress for whole 2 years! i'm sorry but i'm just very picky i guess. :/

i've tried so far: casper, leesa, lull, and ghostbed.

honestly, lull is the best one so far for me. it has the most tempurpedic style cushy feeling where your body seem to melt. i was most disappointed with ghostbed with casper not too behind. leesa was also good too imo. next i want to try is purple. gotta love this new trend, hope there are more of these in other categories.

<comment><USER13> This, IMO, is extreme. I know it's nothing illegal and the cost of doing business, but you've tried four mattresses already. You're costing all of these companies real money with seemingly no real motivation to purchase the mattress as you already have yet another mattress on your list.

You might benefit from reading up on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem) and I hope these mattresses stores create some sort of a shared blacklist of customers to prevent freeloaders like you. This is how the average consumer loses generous return policies from places like REI and Costco.

<comment><USER14> There's nothing wrong with giving products a free trial and returning those you're unsatisfied with during the normal trial period. That's why it exists.

Unlike the secretary problem, the parent can re-buy any mattress at anytime, and one person buying a mattress doesn't impact another's ability to buy the same model. Additionally the decision can be deferred until after trying many / every model to make a better / optimal purchase.

REI taking its unlimited return policy down to one year was not from normal trial usage but from a select few returning gear after years of usage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In the UK, Eve, a rival maker also just (around a month ago) IPO'd here in the UK. Their figures are scary at the moment, with a CPA hovering around £250-£300 and returns of 15% on the mattresses with the 100-night trial. All that with an average order value was only £450, on a product people buy every 10 years! They lost £11.3m last year on earnings of £12m, so no wonder their shares have been on the decline since IPO.

The mattress market may be big, but there are so many clones - surely only one or two can win out.

<comment><USER16> That is a staggering CPA vis a vis product cost. Is that just based on the congestion of keyword bidding? Or does CPA actually mean conversion/sale and the path to close is very difficult?

I feel like Amazon could swoop in with a competitive offering and obliterate the competition, if marketing and acquisition were the only barriers to success. They've also got a lot of distribution infrastructure they can leverage, which seems like another large hurdle.

What competitive barriers can companies like Casper or Eve put up? Can they put up any? And how should that affect inclinations toward IPOs and valuations?

Anecdotally, I've only ever seen Casper marketing on the NYC subway. Never anywhere else. I enjoy the creative, but have no inclination to buy the product, neither now nor the time that I will need to buy a new mattress.

<comment><USER17> Part of the success of Casper is the lack of choices - this is briefly touched on in the article. They seem to want to take the Apple approach - offer few choices and do them right, charging a healthy premium along the way.

I don't see any competitive advantage that Casper offers beyond that - <USER2> and WalMart have similarly lax return policies as Casper without the premium. I can likely get the same quality mattress at one of the two above retailers for slightly above half-price of the equivalent Casper offering.

I do see Casper billboards in Austin in the Domain, which is a mid-to-high tier shopping center where the demographic skews younger. I've also heard ads on podcasts. So they are advertising, though it doesn't seem like they are targeting the typical channels for a mass audience, but rather are marketing to the younger demographic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Worth listening to this story from Marketplace: Why are there so many mattress stores?

[https://www.marketplace.org/2016/05/02/world/why-are- there-s...](https://www.marketplace.org/2016/05/02/world/why-are-there-so- many-mattress-stores)

Basically, mattresses in the US are sold at a very high markup (couple hundred times the cost) so it's an easy way to make money.

<comment><USER19> > Basically, mattresses in the US are sold at a very high markup (couple > hundred times the cost) so it's an easy way to make money.

then, is there any reason why no-one disrupts the market with cheaper mattresses?

<comment><USER20> That's what's happening

<comment><USER21> Where? I want a cheap good mattress and Casper just seems to be expensive.

<comment><USER22> Casper is 20% of the price of the mattress store.

Is your price target like $50 for a queen?

<comment><USER23> They're also twice the price of an IKEA mattress, so it's not exactly like they're a massive bargain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Is it me or does anyone else fine $550 twin size mattress insanely expensive ? On amazon[0] you can find so many options under $100. I had one of these and used it for two years - it was still good in the end.

[0] [https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search- alias%3...](https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search- alias%3Daps&field-keywords=twin+mattress&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Atwin+mattress)

<comment><USER25> I moved into a new apartment not too long ago, and I was initially thinking of getting a Casper for my new bed, but ended up going with one of the higher-end foam mattresses on Amazon instead for ~$200: [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0125QZQNW](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0125QZQNW)

I've never tried a Casper, but this $200 mattress is by far the most comfortable mattress I've ever slept on. It's honestly very difficult for me to imagine how a Casper could justify its $400+ premium for someone who's even slightly price conscious.

Maybe someone who has tried both a Casper and a $200~ foam mattress on Amazon can shed some light on the differences.

<comment><USER26> If the $200 foam mattress you bought is anything like the $100-odd foam "mattress topper" I bought a few years ago, after about two years you'll find it start to develop some dead spots where the foam doesn't spring back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I shared a cowork space with some of the founders when they were struggling with a previous soon-to-fail startup. It's inspiring to see how things worked out the second time around.

<comment><USER28> What were they working on?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> So we can say in retrospect that the biggest bubble in Silicon Valley started in the foam industry.

</comment><comment><USER30> How much R&D does Casper do in developing their mattresses? Seems like they're more of a marketing experiment than a "bedtime is back" sleep revolution.

</comment><comment><USER31> I tried a bed in a box from another well rated brand and didn't like it. Felt fine for a few days but gave me back problems after a week. I think there's a reason hotels aren't using these foam mattresses--most people don't like them. I see this as a fad to be honest, but I could also be wrong.

<comment><USER22> I have had my foam mattress for going on 10 years. Its great.

Very important not to go too soft. You need more dense foam after the top few softer inches. Im not sure bed in a box can ever fit this dense of foam. My foam mattress is 300 pounds and would take a really big box.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> A company that sells expensive mattresses over the internet raises that much money ? And is doing an IPO ? This is literally internet gone mad. Mattresses are commodity products trying very hard to differentiate themselves.

</comment><comment><USER33> The only way to buy a bed that makes sense to me is to go to the store and lay on them all, then buy the one that feels best. I don't understand apps and websites for this. You will sleep on it every night, for years!

<comment><USER23> I did that as well when buying my last bed, but I do genuinely wonder how rational it is. Is there really any correlation between how comfortable a bed is to lie on for 30 seconds and how comfortable a bed is to sleep on after a couple of month.

<comment><USER33> Certainly more correlation than whatever you can gather from casper.com.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I wonder how their 100 nights warranty works. Do they just come and pick the mattress back from your house if you don't like it and do you get a full refund? Anyone who bought it can explain? Are there hidden fees?

<comment><USER35> We tried em in Los Angeles. Called on day 89, said we didn't like it -- they asked us if we had a preferred charity to donate the used mattress to, we said nope. They sent it to some homeless shelter apparently.

Refund came right back to the CC as promised. No hassles at all. Not even much of a retention script, really. This was early 2016.

We sent it back because it was already starting to "set" and create a weird ridge between my wife and I, who are side-sleepers. It's not for us, but the company treated us just fine and as-promised.

$0.02

<comment><USER36> So Casper sent someone to pick the mattress up from your home? Were you required to prep or pack it up before they would take it away?

<comment><USER37> When we returned ours, Casper coordinated pickup via the nearest Salvation Army who sent a truck to our place. We did not need to pack it up at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm going to be in the market for a new mattress soon, so might as well "Ask HN": Can anyone recommend a mattress with a reasonable price that I can buy in Europe (Germany, specifically)?

<comment><USER39> All these trendy mattress companies have 100 day free trials. My advice is to try them all and pick the one that you like the best.

I have a Leesa which is good (I tried Casper previously), it's also available in Germany. [https://www.leesa.de/](https://www.leesa.de/)

Reasonable price though? Perhaps not... someone else posted a link to a DIY site though, which is probably worth trying. All these companies are basically selling you three or four layers of off the shelf foam.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Any owners here care to share what Casper's "killer app" is?

<comment><USER41> Their products are more affordable than much of their competition, they are very comfortable and easy to assemble. They only have online retail presence, no physical retail locations. The only thing I dislike about my Casper mattress is that sitting on the edge of the bed is a bit uncomfortable.

<comment><USER42> Plus they surf the 'ethical marketing' wave very big time.

e.g: If you buy a mattress from us, we'll donate one to someone in need.

TLDR -> You can only buy 2 mattresses from us and we will only give one to you, cash in the moral benefit of being 'good', possibly get tax exemption on your dollar. And btw, by doing this we don't just insult your intelligence, we also kill the competition as there _are_ people competing on the market for people in need already.

Fun hint, I remember shopping for a mattress few months ago, eventually seeing their ads following me everywhere I'd go on the internet for a few weeks. But not only that, 2 days later I received an actual letter with a 'deal' from Casper.

Long story short, casper no thanks!

<comment><USER43> Which is interesting, given this: [https://sleepopolis.com/blog/casper-sues- sleepopolis-with-fe...](https://sleepopolis.com/blog/casper-sues-sleepopolis- with-federal-lawsuit/) . Someone else posted it in this thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> good luck, there are like 10 clones out there already

<comment><AUTHOR> "It's exceptionally rare for startups to be killed by competitors—so rare that you can almost discount the possibility."

\- Paul Graham ([http://paulgraham.com/startupideas.html](http://paulgraham.com/startupideas.html))

<comment><USER45> Yes we all remember when Facebook failed to defeat MySpace...

<comment><USER46> One example is not indicative of the larger picture

<comment><USER45> App.net lost to Twitter. Netscape lost to Microsoft. Yahoo lost to Google. Ouya lost to Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Coin lost to existing payment cards...

<comment><USER47> The sentence that follows the quote is "So unless you discover a competitor with the sort of lock-in that would prevent users from choosing you, don't discard the idea.". Most of the winners in the examples you gave had insurmountable lock-in (network effects, etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> How the fuck!?

</comment><comment><USER49> Yet another little corner of life where I'm left wondering out in the dark. Absolutely not denigrating anyone's preferences - it's just that I simply don't get it: Give me a slab of foam rubber - and maybe give me a new one after five or ten years - and I couldn't be happier. Fancy mattresses range - in my limited view - from _quite on a level with foam_ down to _way too squishy_.

<comment><USER50> > _I simply don 't get it...give me a slab of foam rubber_

I drink my coffee black and my espresso unadorned. I'm not "wondering out in the dark" why some prefer a cappuccino or venti frappé whatever-the-crap. People have different preferences.

<comment><USER49> May I recommend a little more wonder and a little less hostility?

<comment><USER51> Where's the hostility?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> My inlaw family does run a mattress distribution company. They have represented many brands over the last 30 years. There is one thing that never changes, you get what you pay for. So before buying into the whole "cut the intermediaries", "mattresses have big markups", lies - yes, lies, I'd advice to do a lot of research and see what you buy.

I've run the idea of moving the family business to a similar online model to what casper, eve and others are doing, with similar prices, margins, etc. multiple times. and we always drop this idea off because it's impossible to sell in the prices these companies do and sleep well with yourself, i.e. these guys have the same margins but they sell pretty basic mattresses with a 5 years ( if you are lucky ) lifetime under regular use.

</comment><comment><USER53> I'm not convinced that a mattress is even a useful product. I have been mattress free for about a third of my life and it's basically fine.

The best argument for sleeping on a bed that I've heard is "chicks don't dig it", which has not been my experience, certainly not once you get through the door. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

<comment><USER54> What are you sleeping on instead?

<comment><USER53> Anything with about a centimetre of firm foam is fine. Yoga mats, work mats, etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Solarized is gone? - <AUTHOR> https://ethanschoonover.com/solarized/
404 for the page that I tend to visit every other month. Google does not return the page in the organic search so it must have beeen gone for a few days.
Anybody knows what happened? <comment><USER2> Wasn't it a color theme? If that's it, it lives on in many different implementations of it and will continue to do so.

</comment><comment><USER3> Now it says: "Note: SITE RESTORATION IN PROGRESS"

</comment><comment><USER4> You can still find the repo on github</comment>


Ask HN: How do App Store webviews work? - <AUTHOR>

It seems the one company that has gotten Webkit views perfect on iOS is Apple. Has the secret sauce behind how they make scrollable areas, smooth pages, etc been revealed anywhere? <comment><USER2> It's pretty hilarious how this is the "state of the art". It's basically the worst experience present on a fresh iOS device before you've added anything to it.

(Let's preface this with the following fact: I have very small fingers. These issues lie in the implementation of the software, not in my bratwurst fingers).

Here are a few problems that I've had with it:

1\. Touch-canceling doesn't appear to work in the same way as it does for most native apps; the result is that many links are followed by accident.

2\. In the Genius tab on the App Store, the tap area for the "Not Interested" button is way too small, and the touch-down feedback is too late. The result is that about 60% of the time when I'm trying to hit that button, I get sent to the page for the app that is in focus.

Now, to be fair, they've actually improved it quite a bit from what it was, it would seem. But it still dwells in the uncanny valley of unhappiness. If this is the state of the art for the sort of thing you are trying to do, than I'd recommend you doing something else.

To put it another way, if Apple, with their massive resources, cannot make a better web view experience than the embarrassing disgrace that is the mobile App Store and iTunes Store, then that may suggest that it is prohibitively difficult (if not impossible) to make web view experiences that any solid engineer can be proud of.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Even Google iOS views don't seem nearly as polished as those used by Apple. Any idea how to find out what's going on?</comment>


About 400 arrested in Wall Street protest - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/02/us-wallstreet-protests-idUSTRE7900BL20111002

<comment><USER2> Protesting on public land is perfectly fine. Doing it on private land, with the owner's permission, is hunkey-dory too. I am completely against requiring a permit to do it. You should be able to speak your mind without government interference.

However, when you walk into oncoming lanes of traffic, you are breaking a shitload of laws, endangering yourself AND the people in the vehicles, impeding the flow of traffic (which might include emergency vehicles), and of course, your behavior would be the definition of disorderly conduct. Your ass deserves to be thrown in jail.

Also, why is this happening on Saturday? All the financial institutions are closed for the weekend. Sounds to me like a bunch of hipsters from Brooklyn getting hammered and going out to have some fun.

<comment><USER3> The twitter says they were led away from the main group (likely by people who wanted them arrested) and onto the bridge, which was cordoned off beforehand, where they could be boxed in and justifiably (within the situation that the authorities created) arrested, but I don't really know because sadly, I wasn't there.

My guess is that this is happening on Saturday because there's a hardcore group who stays in the square and on the weekends, when the numbers swell with working people who feel solidarity with the cause, they march.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How dare the poor people complain! The wealthy must be protected at all costs!

<comment><USER5> From the article:

        The arrests took place when a large group of
        marchers, participating in a second week of
        protests by the Occupy Wall Street movement, broke
        off from others on the bridge's pedestrian walkway
        and headed across the Brooklyn-bound lanes.

        "More than 500 were arrested on the Brooklyn
        Bridge late this afternoon after multiple warnings
        by police were given to protesters to stay on the
        pedestrian walkway," a police spokesman said.

        "Some complied and took the walkway without being
        arrested. Others locked arms and proceeded on the
        Brooklyn-bound vehicular roadway and were
        arrested," he added

How exactly does this have anything to do with stopping poor people from complaining or protecting the wealthy?

<comment><USER6> Not sure how true it is, but the full story as claimed by many of the commenters:

> This article is misleading. It makes the protesters seem like they caused > the incident by blocking traffic. The group was led onto the bridge where > police kettled them in and arrested them 1 by 1.

<comment><USER5> Based on the story at the New York Times it sounds like what happened is something this:

1\. There was no problem as long as people stayed on the sidewalk.

2\. A small number of protestors left the sidewalk and took to the street, chanting that they were going to take the bridge.

3\. Police told them to get out of the street or they would be arrested.

4\. At some point, the police were walking in the street, and the protestors in the street were following them.

5\. People on the sidewalk farther back or not yet on the bridge saw that, and _thought_ the the police were given the protestors an escort in the street and that it was OK therefore to walk in the street.

These protestors really need to get better organized. When they decided to head across the bridge, they should have made it clear that the plan was to stay on the sidewalk. The leaders knew this, but apparently it was not communicated to the masses.

<comment><USER7> Link please?

<comment><USER5> [http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/police- arrestin...](http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/police-arresting- protesters-on-brooklyn-bridge/?hp)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Warning.js – show respect towards your visitors with this widget - <AUTHOR> https://asciimoo.github.io/warning.js/ <comment><USER2> Oh yes, scaring away users. Good luck with that.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've essentially done all my web browsing without JavaScript since about the year 2000 and frankly it's been really wonderful.

Without JavaScript, web pages load in my browser in a fraction of the time—pages just snap into action, even on slow machines. I can go days without ever seeing an ad. For me, ads are 'yesterday'—I simply don't have enough time left in my life to waste it watching junk: web pages are much cleaner looking and much less cluttered; pop-ups are a thing of the past, and I don't have to wait for all those junk links to be sent 'analytics' web servers. And that's only the beginning (and, naturally, there's increased security without JS too).

Couple my JavaScript-free-zone with a few extras such as an ad blocker, and a JavaScript 'black-lister' such as 'YesScript' (which is now a necessity since Wiki screwed up the viewing of images with an irritating bit of JS), and finally one tops it off with a user-agent scrambler. Oh, and I nearly forgot: nowadays, an overlay blocker is also an essential part of the repertoire (overlays being the most recent 'designed' atrocity.

After that, it's all singing and dancing.

(Oh, I remind you that I've not forgotten WebRTC either. Seems this mess is best concoction that these 'geniuses' could dream up to overcome/fix an already stuffed system.

Right, even people with room-temperature IQs can adopt 'the 'used car salesman approach' by just painting over rust.)

That all said, there's still the odd occasion where I have turn on JS but it's infrequent, and when I do, all I need to do is to toggle JS on with one click.

For those who question how I manage with so many roadblocks all I can say is that I don't have a problem with the types of sites that I usually visit. Occasionally, there's an odd irritation such as NASA's site but they're so few they're very manageable. The fact is I don't want junk that pops up and distracts me when I'm reading an article. Here's the well-worn paradigm: if I'm in a library reading a book then its pages don't suddenly start animating with ads and other visual diatribe. Right, I expect my web experience to be just as peaceful.

Many will say I'm a freeloader, well so be it! The way big commercial interests have completely screwed up the web in the last decade or so means that I wouldn't care less if half of them went broke because those like me refused to view their ads—don't forget they stole OUR once-peaceful web space! What truly amasses me is why people have been so tolerant of this JavaScript junk for so long. Are people really so enamored with the crap that JavaScript delivers them? If so, then it's time we developed a second internet for serious users, the kiddies can have this one to themselves (seeing they love it so much).

JavaScript is a pernicious web 'disease' that's been forced on poor unwitting users by mostly commercial interests to maximize profits, the sooner most people realize this the better for all.

Funny isn't it, that the web could be a much more secure place than it is now just by turning off JavaScript. Instead, this 'sacred cow' is so revered that most would rather put up with rotten performance—and even worse, the loss of their data—than to even broach this taboo subject.

<comment><USER4> You're _far_ more vainglorious and condescending about not running a scripting language in your browser than you should be.

<comment><USER3> OK, so a bit of hyperbole grabs attention.

1\. I've two professions: IT and engineering; putting my engineering cap on, if I'd designed a system that was so horrible, slipshod and malevolent as JavaScript, then very likely I'd be up on negligence charges (someone could be hurt or killed).

W. Wayt Gibbs said in Scientific American in an article titled 'Software's Chronic Crisis' about a quarter century* ago "Despite 50 years of progress, the software industry remains years-perhaps decades-short of the mature engineering discipline needed to meet the demands of an information-age society."

Essentially, he went on to equate the then current state of the software 'art' [art emphasized] in so-called software engineering with the profession of chemistry circa 1800 (on the evidence, he's one of many who hold this view). I'm not directly pointing at you, but the JavaScript problem is the elephant in the room that most don't want to see. Defending the indefensible is not a particularly bright course of action. The IT industry has had a quarter century to fix the problem properly but it's failed to do so—even with WebRTC, we've, at best, only a Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson—level solution.

I'd suggest software's march towards professionalism in that quarter century is nigh on non-existent. For example, look what compilation [obfuscation] did for the industry: it hid the faults, bugs, multiplied security risks many fold; gave us horrible buggy bloatware like Windows not to mention corruption (Volkswagen, etc.). [I'm mighty glad I have my fallback profession.]

2\. What I said and what I outlined above is a prescriptive solution that works well for many people (my hyperbole notwithstanding).

Basically, unless you have to live on JavaScript-ridden sites continually such as social media ones, then the solution not only works well but also there's measurable/quantitative benefits.

In other words, do the math and I'll be proved correct. (Of course, I'm only referring to the user side, owners of web sites are the losers; but then Facebook, Google, et al are already making obscene profits, the likes of which we've never previously seen the equal.)

* SciAm, September 1994; Page 86.</comment></comment></comment>