What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2017 - <AUTHOR> https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2017/pre-1976 <comment><USER4> I've mused on this idea elsewhere, but it's applicable here too:

I can't help but feel today's absurdly draconian copyright laws and lengths are going to make our century a terrible cultural black hole for our future- human descendents.

The vast, vast majority of creators who produce culture--books, movies, music, visual art, etc.--don't see widespread distribution, success, or fame in their own lifetimes. This is true today and it was true in the past too.

Today, we have people like Project Gutenberg, the Internet Archive, and others, volunteering their time and energy to lovingly archive, curate, and distribute out-of-copyright works. Many of these works get a cultural second life: people today can freely discover and read a book published before 1923, whose author might have died penniless and unknown in their day. Their work, their name, their ideas, and their legacy lives on 100 years after their death, even if the world they lived in overlooked them, because volunteers can freely update and distribute those works.

Can we say the same about the vast majority of work produced today, for whose creators don't attain widespread fame or cultural influence? Everything anyone produces, from a smudge on a piece of paper to the Great American Novel, now automatically gains a copyright that can last over a century, and that has almost never failed to be extended. As one of the many everyday creators who never see significant success, how would you feel if your work was not only ignored today, but for all time too?

Our future-human descendents are going to think culture from 1923-2100 consisted of almost nothing but the 400 comic book movies, the 75 Star Wars movies, and Harry Potter. Everything else will be too unprofitable for a megacorporation to distribute, and illegal for anyone else to.

<comment><USER5> There's a reason the takedown of a good private tracker is seen like the burning of the Library of Alexandria all over again.

It was very sad to see What.CD go down recently. They had every release of every LP, EP and demo, of every obscure artist you could possibly imagine. The curation and amount of content made commercial services like Spotify and TIDAL look barren in comparison. Best of all: there was no DRM on the content and you could freely use your VPN.

I just hope enough libraries survive for the content to last.

<comment><USER6> why don't these kinds of sites distribute their database in the same way they distribute their content?

At least that way if shit goes south the information is still out there even if the curation and "updates" to it will no longer happen.

<comment><USER7> I think it boils down to the culture of those kinds of sites, which reportedly encourage an elitist secret club type of mindset over one which encourages preservation or dissemination of information.

<comment><USER8> You can try to critique the culture of What.CD but the truth is that WCD did a better job at preserving music than a community with the express purpose of 'preserving or disseminating information' would have done.

The mindset cultivated seeders with the fear of getting kicked out if one was a bad peer / leech; ratios, bounties and freeleech items created a gamification for uploading material and seeding otherwise unpopular items for other users.

<comment><USER9> Yeah but now that is all for nothing. They could release the torrent database but they're not gonna are they? There's just too much pride attached to it to let it go.

<comment><USER10> Well, the database contains data about users too... doing so would put users at risk. An interesting concept is ZeroNet [1], which allows entire websites to be shared in a peer to peer way.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wrote this on another thread a few months ago. It's in the context of paywalled science, but it applies more generally:

Copyright law is ridiculous. Nonfiction and scientific work should be treated differently than fictional works. I don't really care if Mickey Mouse goes into the public domain. But it's crazy that 100 year old scientific works can still be under copyright and illegal to distribute. These objectively have value to society, and the argument for the existence of the public domain is much stronger.

And why on Earth should copyright last last so long to begin with? How many works are worth anything after 10 or 15 years? I believe 99% of all works make 99%+ of their revenue in the first few years. Having copyright last a lifetime, let alone much longer, is just crazy. Creators benefit exponentially less for every additional year of protection. And only the very successful ones even benefit to begin with - the vast vast majority of works are just forgotten by that time.

Put a cost on renewing copyright. This is actually how it used to be. Half way through, you could pay a fee to have copyright extended. Very few people paid this fee (because most works aren't economically valuable), so most works went into public domain much sooner. Journals charge $30 to access obscure ancient papers. But I bet they wouldn't pay even $30 to keep the rights to those same papers.

Don't put everything into copyright by default. And again especially works of nonfiction or scientific papers. If the authors want that, then sure. This wouldn't fix the issues with big journals that demand it. But it still seems like a sensible idea to have copyright opt-in, not opt-out.

<comment><USER12> Rather than a renewal fee, why not basically just go all the way with "intellectual property", and start treating it as such? You can own it if you want, but please pay the property tax. Or you can always surrender it to the public domain, if the taxes get too onerous.

I'd even go one step further, and make it a progressive tax proportional to the duration the work has been copyrighted. Initial grace period of a few years is free, then a very modest rate, but after a couple of decades it starts to ramp up really high. If it's _that_ valuable, you can keep paying it off the profits as long as you want.

Same thing with estates. Inheriting a copyright? Fine - but there's a tax on that (with the usual applicable caps etc).

And said tax receipts could be specifically allocated to, say, fund libraries, free public Internet, and other forms of storing and distributing information and works of art for the benefit of all.

<comment><USER13> If you care about such things this word be a death sentence for basically all Free Software licenses like Apache, BSD, GPL, etc. -- basically everything except MIT and WTFPL since it would be progressively more expensive to maintain the requirements of the license.

<comment><USER14> Assuming a 14 year copyright that would mean gcc 3.0 enters the public domain but the current version obviously has it's own duration. I don't see why they should get special treatment. Do they really need copyright of 14 year old versions of software and monopolise it? Are they that scared that someone takes some old version of gcc and uses it for a commercial application? Also nothing stops you from taking a public domain work (even your own) and slapping a new license on top of it if all you care about is the license not the monopoly.

Also the way the current copyright system works means those free software licenses are already "dead" by your definition. It's just through pure chance that the duration keeps getting extended retroactively. The only difference between the current system and the proposed system is in the duration and the fact that in the old system all works had effectively the same duration again through pure chance because it's based on the lifetime of the author.

<comment><USER15> Reading RMS opinion, he said either 10 years or a escrow for source code (so that proprietary software really do end up public domain).

14 years seems plenty enough that its really shouldn't have any real impact on copyleft. Bugs, security patches, and plain reality changes makes 14 year old software kind of unusable. Many applications that is 14 years old won't even start on modern system and hardware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Website overloaded... here's a cache.

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttps...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fweb.law.duke.edu%2Fcspd%2Fpublicdomainday%2F2017%2Fpre-1976)

"What books would be entering the public domain if we had the pre-1978 copyright laws?"

      Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
      John Updike, Rabbit, Run
      Joy Adamson, Born Free: A Lioness of Two Worlds
      William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
      Friedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty
      Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties
      Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Politics of Upheaval: The Age of Roosevelt
      Dr. Seuss, Green Eggs and Ham and One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish
      Scott O'Dell, Island of the Blue Dolphins
      John Barth, The Sot-Weed Factor
      Jean-Paul Sartre, Critique de la raison dialectique

"Consider the films and television shows from 1960 that would have become available this year."

      The Time Machine
      Psycho
      Spartacus
      Exodus
      The Apartment
      Inherit the Wind
      The Magnificent Seven
      Ocean's 11
      The Alamo
      The Andy Griffith Show (first episodes)
      The Flintstones (first episodes)

Also listed: songs from 1960 (e.g. Elvis's "It's Now or Never"), and copyrighted scientific research from 1960 still behind paywalls (e.g. 1960 papers on the structure of hemoglobin and myoglobin).

</comment><comment><USER17> The current copyright system is probably inevitable if you view monetization as the sole valid means of creation incentivization. There are also those who want to preserve the "integrity" of their work indefinitely and avoid any risk of what they would consider degrading or inappropriate reuse. If you come at this from either the monetization or the indefinite integrity camps, the public domain is entirely a negative proposition. This is unfortunate, since from a socitial standpoint there are many overall benefits to the public domain (renewal of interest in what would otherwise be lost works and lost effort, lowered barriers to entry for those needing older work on which to base new efforts, etc.) Unfortunately, most of those gains are also net negatives to those working within (and benefiting from) the current system, and consequently the public domain is unlikely to have advocates with the resources to sway the powers that be in its favor. I suppose a sufficiently broad and strong wave of public opinion might do the trick, but I don't know what the prospects of that are (I suspect dim in the short term, more difficult to calculate in the long term if copyright terms keep getting extended indefinitely.)

<comment><USER18> The "integrity of the work" argument has always been an oddity to me. As a Brit who grew up with ska (the original and the revival) I have been aware for a long time that the island music, rocksteady, ska, reggae etc, flourished due to weak and often ignored copyright law in Jamaica.

There is a whole genre of music there, with a very strong cultural background that is historically important in Jamaica and further afield, the UK being just one of those places. Some of the best music, imo, from the 60s and 70s came from Jamaican artists "ripping off" western music to create something unique. I don't want to live in a world in which Marcia Griffiths' voice went unheard. I also want people like Marcia to get paid and live a good life. The current copyright system is not working for anyone, not for artists either I believe.

The "degrading" of work seems like an arrogant argument, as if nobody in the word could do better than the original (or even different if not better). Books require editing before publication, songs require mastering and mixing by professionals. It is reasonable to assume that any work could be reworked as something improved, as long as that reworking does not try to pass itself off as the original there ought not to be a problem. Some system of profit share where profit exists could exist.

Here's a humorous article from techdirt highlighting the absurdities of the current situation [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150503/17153830875/get-u...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150503/17153830875/get- up-stand-up-whose-rights-now.shtml) My own take on one detail discussed on the comments there is that the Marley estate probably are trying to regain the copyright because the family are mostly working musicians (at least 3 sons and one daughter of Bob Marley that I know of) and would like to perform their father's songs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The bigger problem in my mind is all the orphaned works that will never be read, seen or enjoyed again because they are still locked behind the wall of copyright for owners who no longer care about them.

<comment><USER20> Or worse, works which _could_ be used, but for which the process of actually figuring out who the holders are and tracking them down is prohibitively complicated and expensive.

<comment><USER19> Exactly.

Personally, I don't mind the idea so much of a perpetual copyright - <USER2> it requires the rights owner to frequently and actively participate in the process to keep the protections active after the initial period. (and perhaps a fee schedule to reflect the supposed value of the piece) I think its possible for a copyright bill to exist that both the EFF and Disney can both support.

<comment><USER21> this is the problem. the law dept at Disney never has any interest in weakening copyright law in any way. no matter how reasonable.

lawyers only see degrees of risk

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This comment was in reply to a now-deleted comment which ended with the statement: "The bigger problem is figuring out how to curate all of this which is more widely published than every before. Also, it's not crazy to think that today's copyright laws see some major revisions in the next few decades. The Internet has changed everything since just 1980 or so, and these are old laws that need reworking."

\---

Unfortunately I'm not sure I can feel the same optimism. Copyright law has long been beholden to corporate interests. For them, it's only fine if it keeps getting expanded indefinitely. The more restrictive the terms, the more likely that others will have to license their works and the more they can bludgeon any offenders.

Your view is really tied to the present day, but what about all these works that aren't available on computers that need to be desperately digitized? I think we already have a natural curation mechanism: something popular and important gets reproduced in some way; it gets quoted, adapted, tweaked. Those are the works that need to be prioritized, but in doing so we might miss out on undiscovered gems or things whose importance will only be apparent in hindsight. Also, storage is cheap nowadays, we can easily just keep everything, index it, and let others sift through it later. (one example is the Internet Archive, we won't know what role these stored websites could play in a few decades like the Geocities archive)

</comment><comment><USER23> Interestingly the Copyright Term Extension Act is also known as the "Mickey Mouse Protection act"

artlawjournal.com/mickey-mouse-keeps-changing-copyright-law/

<comment><USER24> AKA The Sonny Bono act [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono)

i never had any desire to leave some great legacy after my death, but I can't help but notice how I personally feel in regard to Sonny Bono because of this, and realize that I actually don't want to leave humanity worse off and get remembered for that. Quite possibly incorrectly, since I didn't track politics at all my young age in 1998, I can't shake my impression that Sonny Bono had no principles and sold us all out for his own personal gain.

<comment><USER25> The Sonny Bono act gave Disney 20 more years. I am guessing that in the second half of 2017 we will see some grumblings of yet another extension of copyright (or at least some kind of reform where copyright can be renewed eternally).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Watching _" The Silicon Valley of Hardware"_ with Bunnie Huang [0], it is obvious Shenzhen would have been a different place if the militarisation of intellectual property was enforced. So the question is the step from hardware hacking and manufacturing and sales hampered in the US?

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJ5cZnoodY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJ5cZnoodY)

</comment><comment><USER27> I wonder if there is a compromise that can be done to at least get the works out there. I get the feeling the big fear isn't really that "Steamboat Willie" would be freely available, but that the character of Mickey Mouse would be.

It seems like an extension of trademark law with continued registration and payments on the characters would be a compromise that could break lose the original book / movie.

I would imagine many would hate to give up the ability to create new, original stories or do mashups, but we won't get that anyway.

<comment><USER28> Trademark doesn't have time limits like Copyright. There is no real threat to Disney's control over the Mickey character in commerce.

<comment><USER27> Can you cite where the work in the public domain can be stopped from mashups by trademark currently. It sounds like as soon as the copyright expires people can do their own thing with the work.

<comment><USER28> Here's some more information on the subject: [http://copyright.nova.edu/mickey-public- domain/](http://copyright.nova.edu/mickey-public-domain/)

<comment><USER27> > the Court ruled that in order for trademark to protect a character in the > public domain, the character must have obtained "secondary meaning."

That's a pretty high bar, and what I suggested for a compromise was quite a bit lower.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's pleasing to know that long copyright terms provide incentive for dead authors to produce new works.

</comment><comment><USER30> [http://archive.is/e0lnx](http://archive.is/e0lnx)

</comment><comment><USER31> IP is bs. Don't care for it, don't respect it. Don't expect government - <USER3> sole protector of it - to ever change anything regarding it for the better, just ignore it.

</comment><comment><USER32> It's a shockingly transparent corruption of power that these increases were applied retrospectively. The entire rationale for copyright is to incentivize the creation of new works, which explicitly does apply to past creations. This is nothing more than rent seeking.

</comment><comment><USER33> The TPP extends copyright terms in other countries. The new president opposes that deal. So there's a bit of hope.

</comment><comment><USER34> I think the effective status of copyright is being influenced by open source and creative commons. The more we publish in open source, the more value it accumulates, and that attracts new publishing. It grows like a black hole, eating everything (or like communism, if you asked Microsoft a few years ago). Just look of what remained of the copyright protected software market after 2000. Github is the new Library of Alexandria, not What.CD, because What.CD was only free as in beer, while Github is free as in freedom as well.

<comment><USER35> Github is most certainly not free as in freedom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I would support an effort to remove the copyright protections of all works that were created before Jan 01 2001. Making all works from the last century available for not only the current generation but an actual gift for future generations. All those works no matter the idea would now be re- imagine,expounded upon, improve, and distributed wider for all peoples. There is fundamental no reason to at all to keep such works under such protection it only hinders the growth of culture,society and humanity. As well as supporting efforts to repeal these century long protections of bodies of work by many organization mention in the comment section.

</comment><comment><USER37> All this copyright nonsense is so medieval.

What we need in the 21st century is the new Universal Copyright Act which will claim the content public domain once it has 50%+1 direct democratic votes to be so.

<comment><USER38> On the contrary, in the medieval period, there was no notion of copyright whatsoever. The Order of Preachers, otherwise known as the Dominicans, would convene every year and openly share all of the technological advances they had made with the rest of the order, who would then return to their priories and implement the more effective agricultural/technological practices

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Another possibility is a service that keeps track of people who give away their copyright rights. Or similar to a renewal fee which gets exponentially more expensive with time, at the very least we could require they at least resubmit a request to stay copyrighted every year. The key is that you want some action to be taken otherwise fs no longer copyrighted by default.

</comment><comment> Flip-per Copyright could be used as litmus test to see who actually makes decisions / writes laws in a country.

</comment><comment><USER40> [https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs](https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs)

</comment><comment><USER41> it'll change for the better, i'd explain how but I'm still manoeuvring in order to potentially benefit, however, it's a very simple dialogue. granular pay per bit as to become free, don't worry about the future. the future of the future is the present, that's the future, and this thread, truly is the past as art form.

</comment><comment><USER42> I love that this website is a throwback to the 90's, complete with table-based layouts and overlapping cells.

<comment><USER43> Look at the source of HN some day :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Property rights should be preserved for as long as possible IMO.

<comment><USER45> Why? And that's even assuming that IP is property in the first place.

<comment><USER44> IP is by the very definition, property.

Edit: Why? Property rights should be upheld in perpetuity. The author's estate should continue to benefit from his works.

<comment><USER46> No, it's the exact opposite thing as "property".

I can take materials and land, and build a house. I can live in said house.

But if someone claims that the way I cut the wood was under a patent, then they can lay claim on _my_ property with make-believe property - that of which is in the mind.

It's also how we get absurd things like BRACA1 gene for breast cancer is "owned" by a company, meaning all those with breast cancer somehow owe this company for using any techniques to find it.

Or it's how we get idiotic things like "I'll sell you this shiny disk, but the software says you lose all first sale doctrine cause of copyright".

Or, with laws strengthening copyright (DMCA) say "You may have bought and own this hardware, but it's illegal for you to fix it without our approval, because of 'prevention techniques'. " Might I remind you, that only 30 years prior, companies would attach the schematic of the electronics in the back panel for easy repair.

'Intellectual Property' degrades property in every way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Sure, it sucks that none of these properly entered the public domain by now, but who really cares if you pirate the Psycho, The Magnificent Seven, Elvis's It's Now or Never nowadays?

<comment><USER48> You may be able to pirate it, but try to incorporate it into a new work and you're guaranteeing a lawsuit.

<comment><USER49> Even if you claim fair use?

<comment><USER50> Fair use exceptions are very limited in scope compared to what you may want to produce using the characters or other properties of a work.

<comment><USER49> Like a small clip from a movie to use to teach people about something in a class or MOOC?

<comment><USER50> Like making your own Micky Mouse movie.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


IPhone App Developers Threaten To Sue Apple Over Late Payments - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/30/iphone-app-developers-threaten-to-sue-apple-over-late-payments/ <comment><USER2> It's mind-boggling as to how much stuff Apple is getting away with simply because they hold the market lead. Delays in deployment, denying projects that had significant investment and a highly opaque culture that is leading to tons of unrest. It finally took going after what really matters, money, for anyone to grow some balls and take this on. Hopefully, Apple will wake up a bit after this happens. Stop spinning words in your favor (96% approval! _eye roll_ ) and start fixing the problem!

<comment><USER3> I have to say, this makes me nervous. I'm getting out of college and I was considering buying some equipment to do iPhone development. 7k is small potatoes and Apple doesn't process that in an automated fashion? 4-600 dollars isn't cheap for people in my socioeconomic bracket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can anyone on YC share personal stories? If you're afraid of being identified, maybe you can create an anonymous account.

I've been thinking of going into the iphone market myself, and more info will certainly help.

Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER5> Smells like FUD, let me guess the source...

Oh! Techcrunch! No wonder!

Just because a guy in Tonga (where there are no banks) couldn't get paid in time can't spin the fact that a billion apps were already sold and paid, flawlessly.

But that guy in Tonga, poor guy...</comment>


Android One - <AUTHOR> http://officialandroid.blogspot.com/2014/09/for-next-five-billion-android-one.html <comment><USER2> _> To help ensure a consistent experience, Android One devices will receive the latest versions of Android directly from Google. So you'll get all the latest features, up-to-date security patches, and peace of mind knowing your stuff is always backed up._

This rings a bitter note for me -- I bought a Galaxy Nexus a while after it came out and I was really surprised how quickly Google discontinued updates for it. Is it expected that "the next five billion" will also buy a new phone every two years?

To quote Google:

 _> Galaxy Nexus, which first launched two years ago, falls outside of the 18-month update window when Google and others traditionally update devices._

(I still own the phone and I have the latest Android because of Cyanogenmod, but again, this is not something that can be recommended to "the next five billion".)

<comment><USER3> *Receives automatic Android updates for up to 2 years.

[http://www.android.com/one/](http://www.android.com/one/)

I guess the poor can replace their phone every two years like the rich.

<comment><USER4> To be fair, Android One's "up to 2 years" is a huge improvement over the typical update policy in this price bracket: not in a million years.

<comment><USER5> It also happens to be the EU's consumer-warranty period.

<comment><USER6> hardware warranty does not mean software updates

<comment><USER7> The EU warranty regulations say that a device should function properly for two years. So, the scope is definitely wider than just hardware warranty.

<comment><USER8> Well, in this case, 1st/2nd generation devices do function properly with Android 2.3/3.0 - you just can't install some apps on them...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I live in Africa. When is it coming here? I'd love to have a cheap, supported android phone.

Most affordable android phones here are "tecno" (chinese samsung knockoffs), but it's notably hard to flash since not many people with the know-how own any.

By the way, if you _do_ have the know-how to port i.e. cyanogenmod to a new device please get in touch - I'll be glad to send you a few handsets, and you'd make loads of people in developing countries a solid :)

<comment><USER10> Those are all mediatek phones which they refuse to honor GPL and release the kernel sources. I suspect Android One will be the same. You can check out the CyanogenMod porting guide and pull the kernel and recovery settings from boot.img, modify clockwork mod with settings you found in boot.img to get root access then flash(most Chinese clones use fastboot to flash) CWM recovery and run a script in the porting guide they have to yank proprietary binaries off the device and attempt to fully port using the pre-compiled kernel you ripped from the boot image. I did it with a Mediatek i9300 clone from Alibaba but built and ran Replicant mod on it instead of CyanogenMod. Some things won't work like proprietary GPS and NFC but I didn't want those anyways.

If Android One Mediatek kernel is released can use it on matching Chinese clones unless it's some special kernel/chipset only made for Android One device. If we are lucky and that chipset is mass produced by Alibaba suppliers, and Google has the kernel source available we can get even cheaper phones than the One and run better software on it.

[http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Doc:_porting_intro](http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Doc:_porting_intro)

<comment> phatak-dev It's available now [http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/09/16/android-4-4-4-kernel...](http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/09/16/android-4-4-4-kernel- source-code-for-the-spice-micromax-and-karbonn-android-one-phones-available- now/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Not really a fan of Google negotiating unmetered access for Android to cellular data like this. I think Google/Apple/BlackBerry/Windows Phone/Xiaomi/random OEM should all have equal access to cellular data and let the user choose.

<comment><USER12> If everybody has to pay for updates then probably nobody will update. I'm generally in favor of net neutrality, but it does backfire at the low end.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's remarkable how much of an effort they're making to hide the screen resolution (which I suppose may vary depending on manufacturer, but doesn't appear to be part of the required spec?). The only one I could find was for the "KARBONN ANDROID ONE SPARKLE V BLUE" which is FWVGA 480*854 pixels.

</comment><comment><USER14> Colour me skeptical. The biggest problem, as I see, with all these phones is the obsoletion rate of software. If they had pledged to do their best to keep the platform running on the oldest of Android phones, all those phones would immediately be given away or sold cheaply to poor people. They don't need to port all bells and whistles to each of their previous platforms, just the minimum required to keep simple apps (not games, not multimedia) running across all devices. I have a few such "obsolete" devices myself. The only thing wrong with the hardware is that their easily replaced batteries are dead. I'd certainly give them away if they could be of much use now.

<comment><USER15> In my experience, older Android phones can be fairly useful. There are some great audio recording & guitar tuning apps which work offline, making the devices handy for capturing musical ideas. Keeping the devices in airplane mode dramatically increases their battery life. Additionally, if you want to bust out a dedicated charger, they can act as IP cameras. Great for watching your motorcycle when it's parked outside in a city.

Here's a KickStarter which aims to use old Android devices to passively collect audio in rainforests, with the aim of halting illegal logging. [1]

TLDR: If people choose to write software for these devices, they can remain useful for a long time.

[1] [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/topherwhite/rainforest-...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/topherwhite/rainforest- connection-phones-turned-to-forest-guar)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Feature phones are still the reality in a large swathe of rural India. Cheaper android phones will definitely help change that situation. I wished that android one phones came with free 2-3 months of 2G packs so that millions of people could have their first taste of 'Internet'.

<comment><USER17> >millions of people could have their first taste of 'Internet'.

Eternal September 4.0?

<comment><USER16> Had to lookup that reference. For others - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September)

However, what events do 2.0 and 3.0 refer to?

<comment><USER17> It's just my rough mental approximation of how many times such a situation has already happened (even if Usenet is to all intents and purposes dying/dead, it still applies to the internet as a whole).

Imagine a billion people with poor to no English and no previous experience of concepts even similar to the internet all gaining access at once.

<comment><USER18> If people who don't speak English get onto the Internet in droves, I would imagine they would flock to sites catering to their language, until the point where they learn enough English to join the English speaking parts (assuming they have interest in learning English, which they may not).

The Internet does have sites dedicated to other languages. I frequent reddit.com/r/de, which is reddit but completely in German.

<comment><USER19> I agree, but they probably won't go to Reddit :)

In Argentina and Uruguay we have some local communities, such as Taringa! (spanish-language community)

There's probably one or several equivalents in the locals' language :)

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

See also:

[http://www.wired.com/2012/02/st_internetoutliers/](http://www.wired.com/2012/02/st_internetoutliers/)

And, it is a pretty interesting opportunity for Indian entrepreneurs :) (and Indonesians, Pakistanis, etc :) ).

Edit: what would be the Indian, Pakistani, Indonesian equivalents of those sites?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Believe it or not the biggest barrier to adoption in those countries is not income per se as the middle class has been growing for over a decade, but trade barriers and import tariffs that make even the cheapest phone ridiculously expensive by western standards.

Compare the prices of some Chinese android phones in their home market with the prices in India. A Gionee model that went for around $230 in China sells for nearly $400 in India, almost twice the price. And is not as if the Chinese don't pay any taxes.

<comment><USER21> India is a strange place in regards to pricing! I have no idea how Apple manufactures iPhone in China, sells it for $650 in US but will sell same one for ~$900 here.

They are saving transportation costs as we are right next to China. Maybe I'm missing something important but I will never get the logic of this kind of pricing.

<comment><USER22> Import duties. Just compare Brazil against most other countries, too. 100% import tax on most things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The three phones are:

* [http://www.flipkart.com/spice-android-one-dream-uno-mi-498/p...](http://www.flipkart.com/spice-android-one-dream-uno-mi-498/p/itmdzuakgnatgyzs)

* [http://www.amazon.in/dp/B00NEFFWF6](http://www.amazon.in/dp/B00NEFFWF6)?

* [http://www.snapdeal.com/product/karbonn-android-one-blue/193...](http://www.snapdeal.com/product/karbonn-android-one-blue/1938355391)

Almost the exact same specs on all three phones.

</comment><comment><USER17> >lots of processing power

>expandable storage

>dual SIM cards

>replaceable battery

I wish we could get a phone like that in the first world...

Shame the One's specs are actually very weak...[1]

[1][http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/android-one-smartphones-launched- pr...](http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/android-one-smartphones-launched-price-specs- where-buy-much-more-1465482) \- TBFH google should be hit for false advertising calling that CPU/memory combo 'lots of processing power'. Lots in 2003, maybe.

<comment><USER24> > I wish we could get a phone like that in the first world...

I just picked up a LG Optimus L90-D415 (refurb) direct from Tmobile for $80. The non-refurb is $100.

4.7 qHD (960 x 540) IPS Display 2,460 mAh battery 1.2Ghz Quad Core CPU - Snapdragon 400 Cortex A7 Adreno 305 GPU 1GB RAM 8GB storage (with microSD slot) KitKat (4.4.2) 5 megapixel rear camera, 0.3 megapixel front

I added a 32GB sd card, I wish you could default apps to installing to sd instead of having to move them (and a couple apps don't move). Really the only bad things are:

a) no soft buttons, and the hard buttons aren't lit. b) no ambient light sensor. by default there is a setting to adjust brightness as specific times (which sucks). But a $3 app (Lux) corrects the problem by using the front camera when you unlock the phone.

<comment><USER17> >no soft buttons, and the hard buttons aren't lit

Sounds like a massive plus to me. I hate onscreen buttons; a phone that has them has about the same negative added from that as it has from not having an SD card. Sometimes I play games, or use a terminal, and don't want to have my hand accidentally brush a button to close it.

The display is a bit small (Samsung Galaxy size is perfect; anything below is too small and above gets unwieldy) and the cpu/memory a bit weak, but I guess it's good to know in case Samsung ever stop making good phones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Expandable memory and changeable batteries--these are features Google's been removing from its flagship Nexus phones, much to the consternation of those like myself who want modularity, flexibility, and open design. FM radio would be nice to have, as well. "Everything is in the Cloud" is a pipe dream. One can only hope that this South Asia phone is a worldwide trend and not just a concession to 3rd world shortages of data connections.

<comment><USER26> I was pretty surprised at microSD. Here I was, in the first world, being told that the reason microSD is being dropped from Nexus devices is that it's too difficult for software to support and users to understand. I'm a bit jealous, I could have skipped shelling out $50 for 16 GB of flash worth $5.

<comment><USER27> Android 4.4 has an entirely new external storage API, so with that, it appears that Google has now given their blessing back to microSD. IOW, I wouldn't be surprised if the Nexus 6 had microSD.

<comment><USER25> That is good news. 128GB microSD cards are around $100 currently, a shame that Nexus owners can't take advantage of these great storage options.

Data connections are getting more expensive, at least in the U.S., so the consumer needs to have the option of using local storage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The most interesting thing is to see the presence of micro-SD cards, and the tacit acknowledgement that a lot of the world actually needs this kind of thing as the network isn't good enough. Let's hope this means the Nexus line get that.

<comment><USER17> Agreed. I only ever buy phones with SD cards, because:

* Streaming wastes battery

* Streaming wastes data usage

* Streaming costs money; especially stupid when I already own my music and don't like renting data

* Streaming is useless when a car/train is in a tunnel, when on a plane, or when just out of signal

* Most streaming services lack breadth (not enough bands) and/or depth (only having a small selection of music per band) of good music

* I don't trust streaming providers with my privacy

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> FirefoxOS has a better price point, and has an opportunity, of course hard job against the Goliaths.

<comment><USER15> FirefoxOS would be able to compete more effectively if it were installable on higher end devices.

<comment><USER30> What prevents it from being installed on high end devices?

<comment><USER17> Nobody wanting it.

Android has the smartphone market for people who want a device with customisability/moddability, good software support and options for hardware and the flexibility and power of having an accessible Linux system behind the scenes, while the iphone has the locked down walled garden "make all my decisions for me" market.

<comment><USER31> This. Competition is stupid. There should be only one viable option.

<comment><USER32> Could you please wave your sarcasm sign? I won't understand that you are joking, otherwise. Because you're joking, right?

<comment><USER31> Yes, forgot my <sarcasm> tags

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I am suprised they don't mention the Motorola E ( or even G ). They also count towards budget phones and are already selling very good in India.

<comment><USER34> For really cheap phones it's hard to beat the used market.

Edit: A 2 year upgrade cycle on an original iPhone released in January 9, 2007 means people have replaced it 3 times. Toss in broken screens, work phones etc and you quickly get into the 100 million range.

<comment><USER35> Remember the used market is only workable in countries with enough previous purchase history over a long enough period, most developing economies don't reach that point for quite a few years longer than developed countries for a given technology.

<comment><USER34> Cellphones are easy to ship. Hell, used cars are resold people in developing countries all the time.

[http://www.economist.com/node/719514](http://www.economist.com/node/719514)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This will nip in the bud whatever traction Microsoft was getting in India with Windows Phone.

Between this and losing the Nokia name, it's difficult to see why many Indian consumers would opt for a "Microsoft Lumia" over one of these high quality low cost devices that come with the vastly richer Android ecosystem.

</comment><comment> shawn-butler I swear I've heard this messaging before...

[http://conversations.nokia.com/2011/02/11/mobile-phones- the-...](http://conversations.nokia.com/2011/02/11/mobile-phones-the-next- billion/)

<comment><USER37> Really brings home the weirdness of Microsoft's strategy with Nokia.

Instead of selling some Windows Phone in developed markets and lots of Series 40 in developing markets, they've ended up selling next to none in either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> The specs for these phones are basically somewhere between that of the Moto E and Moto G with removable battery. No reason it shouldn't be below $50 in a few years.

</comment><comment><USER39> The price isn't bad but you can already get slightly worse Android phones for $70 in Russia, and cheaper in China.

</comment><comment><USER40> Why wouldn't one buy Moto E instead ?

</comment><comment><USER41> does anyone know if Google will release source for Android One phones to the same level as Nexus ? I have heard that Mediatek is notoriously closed source, so I'm wondering how this works out for the community/cyanogenmod at large

</comment><comment><USER42> Most of rural India does not even have electricity. I wonder how they are going to charge their Android Ones.

<comment><USER43> Apparently 70% of India has electricity. I imagine the smartphone will sell mostly to those who have it. Though off the grid I guess they could get a solar charger in principle.

<comment><USER44> 70% of physical area or people? I'm finding it hard to get good stats. If 70% of people then that means almost no rural coverage.

<comment><USER43> I was thinking 70% of people. That figure is actually my guestimate based on:

"In December 2011, over 300 million Indian citizens had no access to frequent electricity. Over one third of India's rural population lacked electricity, as did 6% of the urban population." (Wikipedia)

Checking 2011 article "The rural-urban distribution is 68.84 per cent and 31.16 per cent respectively" (The Hindu)

Multiplying those by 1/3 and 6%, that would make it 75% had electricity around 2011 and presumably a bit more now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Isn't 'One' a protected trademark in the mobile (android) phone world?

</comment><comment><USER46> Fascinating. Barely noticed in the enthusiasm around the Apple Watch and Pay was the fact that Apple discontinued the idea of a "cheap" iPhone as a unique product. Apple will be the brand of the elite via $350 watches and Android wants to be the product of the masses.

</comment><comment><USER47> Android Zero would be great too where you would only get security updates.

</comment><comment><USER48> Is it flashable? Hope so.

</comment><comment><USER49> apart from the moto e, what other cheap smartphones are already available in the west ?

I don't have a smartphone, but I don't want to spend a lot on one.

<comment><USER50> Some Lumia hit the 99euros or 99$ price tag and are quite decent.

<comment><USER51> The 520/1 are regularly on sale for $59 and less no with no contract

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Your move Microsoft. If not now then when ?

</comment><comment><USER53> anyone know who shot the ad/video for Android One?

</comment><comment><USER51> Apparently Android one is for people under 40 only. (judging by the video)

</comment><comment><USER53> anyone know who shot the ad/video for this?

</comment><comment><USER54> Hey, looks like Apple had the right idea all along! Who knew?

<comment><USER55> What idea is that? Apple has been very successful with the high end of the market, which seems significantly different from Android One.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> No thanks Google: the next five billion already have Firefox OS.

<comment><USER16> Firefox os phones are not even available widely in retail stores in Indian tier 2 and 3 cities. Android ones on the other hand I hope will be available in remote corners as well.

<comment><USER32> They're not because they sold out on launch day. They are coming.

<comment><USER16> That's true they sold out. However, I feel they will never be manufactured in numbers compared to android one initiative for India (I hope they do though). Probably numbering few millions at best, which is a drop in bucket for the huge population.

<comment><USER32> > However, I feel they will never be manufactured in numbers compared to > android one initiative for India

Let's change that! Ask for Firefox OS phones and tell people about that: they are cheaper than Android, offer better performances and better long-term support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> YES! Let's get the next five billion messaging, emailing and browsing through the systems of one company. This will be great for freedom, privacy and competition!

</comment><comment><USER57> Plaintext for people who browse with Javascript disabled: [http://tj-markdown- paste.herokuapp.com/posts/504698](http://tj-markdown- paste.herokuapp.com/posts/504698)

<comment><USER58> Does not work; "Couldn't find Post with id=504698"

<comment><USER57> Huh! Sounds like a site I will never bother to use again. Here you go [http://pastebin.com/C2M5Ep5Q](http://pastebin.com/C2M5Ep5Q)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> So it's a high-quality android phone for $250? That's pretty freaking cool :). Open source, yay! Even if it's a NSA phone.

<comment><USER60> $250 is the monthly income bracket they target, the phone itself is on sale for Rs 6400, which is about $100.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Most important stuff to buy for survivalists? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Please read these:

[http://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep- get...](http://www.metafilter.com/78669/What-if-things-just-keep-getting- worse#2430771)

[http://ask.metafilter.com/76997/Where-to-buy-emergency- kit-i...](http://ask.metafilter.com/76997/Where-to-buy-emergency-kit-items- and-water-rations-in-Canada#1144184)

 _Don 't_ buy guns. Get first aid lessons.

</comment><comment><USER3> A former co-worker of mine who was a survivalist used to say "The only thing that matters is how many guns you have. If you have guns, you can get everything else."

<comment><USER4> This is incredibly stupid. More than half of the US owns firearms, fire fights are a stupid and dangerous way to procure resources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Water, water filtration, stove, propane, solar charger, battery bank, and cash.

Don't buy firearms unless you are committed to learning how to use them.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm starting to get the impression this outbreak of prepping threads has something to do with America and not New Zealand.

That said I'm all in favour of it. Cheapest form of health insurance you could buy really, next to a gym membership. I have some comments on MREs in the other threads.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12946111](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12946111)</comment>


Ask HN: Possibly relocating to Mountain View, what to expect? - <AUTHOR>

I've been talking with a company recently about a position I might be taking up with them. I'd be relocating from the Southwest. It's not a lock yet, but I want to know what to expect if/before I get an offer.
I'm curious what other HNers have experienced in terms of relocation packages, and what I should account for myself.
Bonus: How did the cost-of-living change affect you? <comment><USER2> _Starter_ housing is in the $1.2 million range. Gas is $4.50-ish. State income tax for high tech folks is in the 9-10% range. State sales tax is 8.25%. Welcome to Taxifornia.</comment>


In Lisp, all code is data.  In Haskell, all data is code. - <AUTHOR> http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2009/01/15/random-thoughts-on-haskell/ <comment><USER2> I was intrigued by the symmetry implied in the title, so I read the article. But there isn't any symmetry. All he means by "all data is code" is that, in Haskell, some things that look like data structures are really functions. That isn't anything like what code=data means in Lisp. Luckily, there are a few other interesting things in the article.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is symmetry, but the point of the symmetry is that it's going in a different direction. So a very broad, liberal interpretation could be this: Lisp makes everything data and Haskell makes everything a function (code). I don't know how useful this generalization is, but it's an interesting way to look at it.

<comment><USER2> Sorry, but if you say "In Haskell, data=code the way that code=data in Lisp," you're implying a symmetry that isn't there: once you read the article to see what the two language qualities being contrasted are, they turn out not to be shaped anything like each other.

I find it hard to imagine what the general case of data=code would even mean. In order for data to be code, some programming language implementation has to understand the data and be able to execute it, in which case the data was already code (or transformable into code) to begin with.

Another thing: what the article uses to distinguish Haskell from Lisp -- using functions in a way that looks like a data-structure -- is something I do in Lisp all the time. So this just isn't a distinction.

I'm not trying to pick on either Haskell (which I'd love to learn someday and which is obviously not Lisp) or the article (which makes some interesting points). It's just that most of what people say about Lisp in blog posts is kind of uninformed, and drawing this kind of distinction is harder than it seems.

<comment><AUTHOR> The fact that the order is switched implies that this isn't an equivalence relation. The word "is" has many English interpretations and doesn't adequately describe what's going on. Logical implication is probably a lot closer here. I might rewrite it as "In Lisp, code -> data. In Haskell, data -> code." This is more about the converse of a statement than the symmetric property of an operator. A statement and its converse do exhibit some symmetry.

To understand what this means on the Haskell side, you need to learn about lazy evaluation and thunks.

<comment><USER2> I know what lazy evaluation and thunks are. I work with them every day (in Lisp, as a matter of fact). The problem with your statement is it isn't true. One might call it a sloppy overgeneralization, but even the thing it's sloppily overgeneralizing isn't true (as I explained: Lisp programmers use functions to represent data structures all the time).

<comment><AUTHOR> How is it a false statement to say that Lisp allows code to be treated as data by virtue of its simple syntax, and that Haskell treats data as code because of its default to lazy evaluation implemented with thunks? That's all I'm saying. I thought this way of looking at it was an interesting contrast. I find the data structure-function half of the point less interesting.

<comment><USER2> Ok! I like your first sentence there. It wasn't at all clear to me that that was your point. I'm not sure if I was being obtuse or you were being obscure or both - normally I'd go back and check, but I don't have time right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> "Java is big like west Texas is big."..... is an interesting analogy used in the article.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't know anything about Haskell, but this article makes it sound far more attractive to me than it has in the past.</comment>


Zappos 2012 data breach settlement - <AUTHOR> http://www.zapposdatasettlement.com/frequently-asked-questions.aspx#a10 <comment><USER2> I just got an email about this settlement telling me that I've been awarded a 10% off coupon for Zappos due to this ruling. So I actually have to give them more business to recoup anything... it's almost as if this settlement is going to be good for business.

<comment><USER3> Not to mention you'd have to give your personal information to the company with a data breach again.

I'm sure your credit card is 100% safe.

<comment><USER4> > _I 'm sure your credit card is 100% safe_

Thanks for reminding me about that. Credit cards I get cancel and get new ones, but my passport data which Cathay Pacific failed to protect, this unfortunately cannot be changed and the data is floating around somewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is an absurd sum, both in the fees:rewards ratio, and in the total amount ($22,500 might as well be nothing for all of the people involved).

That said, I'm a bit surprised to see a "Rake them over the coals" attitude on HN. They leaked a DB with hashed passwords, user data, and last 4 digits of credit cards. That happens to even the most responsible websites all the time, even with seven years of best practices to build upon. I know it would have absolutely happened to the awful, framework-less PHP I was writing back in 2012.

Without letting Zappos off the hook for not taking security more seriously, it seems to me that substantial, non-ridiculous monetary punishments should be reserved for instances of deliberate recklessness, or at least clear, preventable negligence.

<comment><USER6> Their settlement ended up costing as much as a few good engineers for a year. Consequences like that will mean it makes financial sense to ignore security and just pay the settlements as they come.

Consequences should motivate companies to be secure. _i.e._ it should be much cheaper to hire a large competent security team who has a chunk of engineer time than it is to pay tiny settlements to teams of lawyers.

Data breaches aren't just necessary evils, they can be prevented, but not without a lot of extra work. Companies should consider a data breach to be an existential threat, not a cost of business.

<comment><USER7> > Consequences like that will mean it makes financial sense to ignore security > and just pay the settlements as they come.

If judgments like this were the _only_ reason to prioritize security, then sure. But hopefully there are at least some market/reputational forces at work too.

<comment><USER8> I honestly don't think the general public cares enough for reputational effects to be particularly important.

Can you think of an incident, however heinous, that materially impacted a company's bottom line?

<comment><USER9> The Ashley Madison Breach comes to mind. If the core demographic cares about not wanting their data on the platform to get out, they will vote with their feet. That said, I think this example is not the norm, and most people probably won't care for most applications. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach)

<comment><USER10> I mean wasn't it also revealed that an overwhelming amount of people on the site were male in the same breach? Id guess that would be a motivating factor more than the privacy

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The argument is that the total amount of the settlement is important as a disincentive to corporations to engage in negligent behavior, and that the disproportionate amount of money that goes towards the attorneys is necessary to convince said attorneys to take up such cases.

Of course, one could also argue that this has just created a new form of venture lawyering, with attorneys who give zero shits about their clients chasing compliance violations rather than ambulances, and businesses baking these lawsuits into their profitability calculations.

<comment><USER12> Due to health care inequalities people are talking about single payer where the government is the only payer.

However, an even bigger problem is legal inequalities. Rich people can afford top legal representation and poor people cannot. We should instead have single payer legal representation. Lawyers are required to charge a standard fee and are paid by the government for their work. They are not allowed to accept payments in addition to the standard government payment or to take contingency fees.

Doing this would ensure that the poor in America are not disadvantaged due to the rich having better lawyers.

<comment><USER13> I don't know why more people don't say this. I agree 1000%. This should absolutely be the case. Why should anyone have a lower probability of winning a lawsuit just because they're poor?

<comment><USER14> Because no one has yet come up with a better system that works.

If there exists differences in skill, then there exists arbitrage opportunity. How one can prevent that arbitrage opportunity from being used in order to keep things "fair", I do not know and have not heard of any compelling ideas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's so much wrong with settlement payouts, but one of the less talked about problems is how all of them get .com domains that look straight out of "How to Spot Phishing 101". Can someone _please_ tell lawyers to figure out how to make these not look super sketchy?

<comment><USER16> They have a formula for it and don't care one bit about it. Often times theres no SSL and many other security options are ignored.

I was shocked how much of law was simple find/replace on templates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Would this have played out differently in a country known for its government- backed consumer protection laws, maybe Norway or Sweden?

In other words - is this an "American corporate greed" sort of tragedy, or is this standard result of such a lawsuit in all major countries?

By tragedy, I mean over 90% of the proceeds of the lawsuit going to lawyers rather than individuals affected in the data breach.

<comment><USER18> yes

the legal theory is that

1) punishing the bad actor is more important than restitution. it's more important that Zappos is punished to discourage bad behavior from Zappos or anyone else, less important how exactly the punishment money is split up

2) since lawyers can get paid out of the settlement, it incentivizes independent lawyers to go after bad companies wherever they may be rather than needing regulators. so you don't need to maintain and hire a bunch of regulators and their legal teams, which will often be too many or too few.

other countries may prefer things the other way around and often do. it's easy to think of pros and cons either way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> As my lawyer friend says, a class action lawsuit is the startup of the lawyering world. Get one good one and you're set for life.

<comment><USER20> This must not be a good one, then, because $1.5M is barely enough to set one attorney up for life, let alone however many folks were presumably involved in this case.

<comment><USER19> Just like startups, class actions are a lot of risk and sometimes the rewards don't make up for it. This is basically a middling exit in the startup world.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> US legal system is broken af.

The point of legal system should be to compensate the wronged party, not to enrich lawyers.

<comment><USER22> I agree, but I think most people wouldn't agree with the conclusions.

For example - if someone is criminally wronged in a property crime, wouldn't it make more sense to leave them free but garnish their wages to make the wronged individual whole instead of putting them in prison for decades? Yet if you bring up the idea of compensating the victim instead of punitive justice, a majority of people are extremely offended by the idea.

From that point of view, it isn't surprising at all that class action lawsuits are much more about retribution than restoration in the adversarial system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> That's $22,500 TOTAL, not per plaintiff, i.e. $2,500 per plaintiff.

<comment><USER24> Per _primary_ plaintiff.

The rest of us schmucks get a 10% off coupon.

<comment><USER25> decent business model fwiw

get a little price discovery on how much data is worth while re-targeting a bunch of customers that stopped using your service sometime over the last decade

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can anyone put this in perspective for penalties for other data breaches? Honestly I'm used to data breaches having _no_ penalties other than maybe "we'll sign you up for credit monitoring" (that I don't want or need).

</comment><comment><USER27> The problem I see is that lawyers then only care to recoup enough to make their ledger work out.

If you said my settlenent is $80 I'd say go for broke. Take it all the way or go home. No but the lawyer sees a perfectly cromulent payday for themselves so they'll encourage the class to accept the deal.

</comment><comment><USER28> Is that even supposed to be considered a win for anybody other than the lawyers?

</comment><comment><USER29> I wasn't aware that there were any laws about data breach settlements from 2012. I detected a breach at Macmillan Publishers around that time[1] and have been wondering if they were still liable.

1\. [https://eligrey.com/blog/bedford-st-martins-data- breach/](https://eligrey.com/blog/bedford-st-martins-data-breach/)

</comment><comment><USER12> Don't lawyers have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act in their best interests? This is definitely not in their clients best interests. I wonder if people in the class action can bring a bar complaint against the lawyers in the case and have them disbarred?

</comment><comment><USER30> 10% coupon, really? How much of this is Amazon's legal department. It's time to make an annual cancel Prime day

</comment><comment><USER31> so I guess the previous title listing the fees and payment to plaintiffs was a little too edgy huh

</comment><comment><USER32> Think of how much more the victims would have if they just put the $1.6M in a mutual fund in 2012.

</comment><comment><USER33> Huh?

I thought that fees and expenses were generally 30%-40% of settlements.

</comment><comment><USER30> Would it do anything to boycott them

</comment><comment><USER34> at least there was more then one attorney getting that fee /s

</comment><comment><USER35> Pretty standard.</comment>


Ask HN: Is there any empirical evidence that patents do good in some industries? - <AUTHOR>

I know most people here will agree that software patents do more harm than good, but is there actual data to show that patents are good for other industries? <comment><USER2> It seems that the development of drugs is such an incredibly expensive investment that you need to grant a limited monopoly to the developer so that he can recoup on it.

<comment><USER3> Average cost to bring a new drug to market is around $1.5 billion

<comment><USER4> Drug production is (to oversimplify, please correct) to blindly create millions of combinations, test the successful-looking versions on rats, cats and people, and produce billions of the drug. I wonder how the money is split between those tasks.

<comment><USER3> The biggest expense is typically human clinical trial where you're looking at a figure in the high hundreds of millions.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What is the best way to attract your first 10k users? - <AUTHOR>

How do your attract your first 10k users especially when faced with a chicken-and-egg situation such as an ad network, for example? <comment><USER2> There are a few interesting answers in the 'Startup Traction' topic on Quora [1].

Lots of them mention having a great product that solves a real problem, having a content-rich blog to drive traffic, inviting friends and some PR. (Maybe the friends one isn't so applicable to an ad network!)

[1]: [https://www.quora.com/Startup-Traction](https://www.quora.com/Startup- Traction)

</comment><comment><USER3> For an ad network, why not set up niche websites in-house to serve on first? This involves time developing good content and ranking in search engines but could solve one side of the chicken-egg problem. You could help yourself by making a niche site specific to website owners, using it as both a seed ad server and a way to build your ad server-base.

Convincing business owners to invest in advertising that is not being served anywhere would be difficult, even if CPC-only.

</comment><comment><USER4> Good Question.

i suggest you to go and check Kilometer's blog. Kilometer is now building a new startup, and they are documenting their journey from an idea to 1000 customers. [http://www.kilometer.io/blog/](http://www.kilometer.io/blog/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Ad Network?

Contact as may publishers as you can and offer them INSANE payouts for serving your ads. That way you get some initial movement.

Then go to Affiliate Marketing Forums and promote your traffic source there. Affiliates will eat it up if you manage to get some volume.

Affiliates are eager to test out virgin traffic sources.</comment>


Data Visualization with JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://jsdatav.is/intro.html <comment><USER2> Hi Folks, Although I did not post this link to HN (and have no idea who did), I am the author of the book. As an FYI, the printed and ebook versions will be available from No Starch Press early in 2015. The online version will remain online even after the other versions are available.

Amazon preorder at [http://www.amazon.com/Data-Visualization-JavaScript- Stephen-...](http://www.amazon.com/Data-Visualization-JavaScript-Stephen- Thomas/dp/1593276052/) (that's NOT an affiliate link)

The current content is just a draft of the final version, but I'll be updating it as the book gets finalized. Significant updates will be noted via the @jsdatavis Twitter feed.

Comments, suggestions, and criticism are all welcome. You can reach me directly at firstname.lastname@example.com.

<comment><USER3> I attended your presentations at Connect.js. Looking forward to checking out the site and picking up the book. Thanks for all the hard work!

<comment><USER4> same here. Great presentation on getting graph viz working in sigma and d3.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I very much like the aim and contents of this book. There are loads of data visualization basics that this tutorial gets right, like: _In bar charts, however, it's almost always best to make zero the y-axis minimum._

Or, regarding pie charts, _humans are not particularly good at judging the relative size of areas_

Or about bubble charts, _We should never use the extra bubble chart dimensions to convey critical data or precise quantities, therefore. Rather, they work best in examples such as this example—neither the exact wind speed nor the specific classification need be as precise as the location._

The author does a great job of covering many different types of charts and graphs. There's also a good focus on getting rid of chartjunk, though the author doesn't go far enough, leaving in extraneous shadows and other elements (and I have to question the use of a library that requires so much effort to remove the default chartjunk).

Unfortunately there are a number of wider issues that obscure these valuable insights. Many the data visualization concerns are buried beneath a mound of introductory web development information that vascillates between explaining the nature of foundational technologies like AJAX, SVG and CDNs and assuming that the reader is an avid jQuery user. The last chapter is a treatise on MVC application development. I'm not quite sure who the target audience really is.

But the worst offense committed by this tutorial is the emphasis on overly simplistic charts. From the introduction: _Effective visualizations clarify; they transform collections of abstract artifacts (otherwise known as numbers) into shapes and forms that viewers quickly grasp and understand. The best visualizations, in fact, impart this understanding subconsciously._ And later (in defense of pie charts), the author advocates for a graph that epitomizes the idea of chartjunk: a 400x400 pixel circle that gives no more information than the number 22.4%.

This, I think, is where the true challenge in data visualization comes: not in producing a pretty chart to display whatever information's at hand, but to DROP the chart if it doesn't truly add value. Waste no ink producing a chart that is better left as a table of numbers (e.g. a reference), and certainly do not waste the viewer's time with a chart showing something that's more effectively communicated in prose. The answer to the question of how much of the world lives on $1.25 a day is 22.4%. A chart simply cannot illuminate a single data point.

Where data visualization gets really interesting is when you maximize the amount of information conveyed. Don't waste the reader's time producing these USA Today (or The Onion) style bar charts. A handful of numbers is best presented as numbers. Seven data points is TINY, not a _moderate size_ appropriate for a bar chart, as the author would have you believe.

Effective data visualizations demand the viewer's careful study. If a reader can completely understand a chart subconsciously, there's probably no need for a visualization at all. Effective data visualizations are information-rich: they have a data density far exceeding that of prose. Good charts are exceedingly multivariate - small multiples are probably the best example. If your charts don't meet this standard, you're wasting your time producing them, and you're wasting your reader's time forcing them to parse a visual representation of what should be simpler prose explanations. If your headline contains as much information as your chart, drop the chart.

A great example of this issue comes in the section on scatter plots. After charting the relationship between health care spending and life expectancy, the author glibly declares _In this example, we can see how life expectancy relates to health care spending. In aggregate, more spending yields longer life._ However, that's only the least interesting factoid (as in, plausible- sounding inaccuracy) you could glean from this chart. There are many interesting questions that could be asked, but of the three the author poses, only one is answered: who the heck is that outlier that spends 50% more on health care than the pack yet has a lower than average life expectancy (spoiler alert: it's the United States). After demonstrating how to highlight this one data point, the author doesn't bother to explain why it's worth plotting all the others, or how this graph explains the situation uniquely. So once again we have produced a chart with basically one piece of information: that the US healthcare system sucks. This somewhat obvious insight simply isn't worth the ink spilled.

This emphasis on overly simplistic visualizations is entrenched in the choices of libraries. This is not to pick on Flotr et. al, they're good for what they do, but what they don't is far more important. Like essentially every dedicated charting library, you are restricted to just a handful of options that the developer allows you to have. You can choose from a few preselected chart types and customize them in a few preselected ways. If you have a novel dataset that requires anything more customized or unique, you are up a creek without a paddle. Such charting libraries require that you convolute your data until it fits its own assumptions. Nowhere is this better illustrated than this tutorial series, where the differences between iterations are frequently simply a reorganization of the data structure (i.e. a waste of developer time).

Far better, then, to use a generalized data library that allows you to manipulate your visual tools with endless freedom. D3 is a great example of such a library. If you're writing a data visualization tutorial in JavaScript that uses anything but D3 you have a burden of proof to demonstrate why. This is not because D3 is the end-all-be-all of charting libraries, but rather because any tutorial based on the limited selection of possibilities afforded by anything else is simply not a data visualization tutorial. It's a charting options tutorial (also valuable, but far narrower in scope).

The author finally gets around to talking about D3 near the end of the book, but misses the opportunity to demonstrate how simple it actually is to replicate the early examples with D3. It's also worth noting how understanding these composable techniques from the start gives you significantly more power. I really wish this book started with the tutorial on D3; everything prior just seems anachronistic.

For more information on information-rich data visualization, check out the work of Edward Tufte, in particular his book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information [0] (which the author cites but seems not to have read). For more information about JavaScript data visualization with D3, read everything you can find by Mike Bostock [1].

[0]: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Visual-Display-Quantitative- Inform...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Visual-Display-Quantitative- Information/dp/0961392142) [1]: [http://bost.ocks.org/mike/](http://bost.ocks.org/mike/)

p.s. please don't make a map assuming latitude/longitude == x/y, even a really small one. A decent geographical charting library exists and is free, so just don't hack it.

p.p.s. please don't use radar charts.

p.p.p.s. d3.extent.

p.p.p.p.s. Bower isn't a part of Yeoman.

<comment><USER2> Hi couchand,

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts on the book. It's really gratifying when someone takes the time to seriously consider an author's work and then takes the additional time to compose a thoughtful critique. It seems pretty clear that the book you wanted to read was not the book that I've written, but that's actually a pretty good thing. Your comments will definitely help me clarify the goals and approaches of the book when I flesh out the Introduction. (As most everyone probably knows, the Introduction is the last section that's written. What's there now is mostly just a placeholder; I'll write the real Introduction once the editorial and technical review are complete.) If you're interested, you can check the online version in a month or so to see how effectively the book meets its own goals.

For those folks that do want a book mostly devoted to D3.js, you probably won't be satisfied with my book. (In fact, the publisher and I had quite a bit of discussion about including any material on D3 at all. We finally concluded that any book on JavaScript data visualization couldn't ignore D3, so there is a chapter dedicated to the library.) The good news, though, is that you have lots of other options. Amazon lists at least nine books dedicated to D3. As an author myself, I don't feel comfortable making specific recommendations publicly (as that might imply a negative opinion of books not recommended), but anyone is welcome to contact me privately for my thoughts. (Contact info is in a comment below.)

Stephen

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nice work! I'm becoming increasingly interested in data visualisation, so this couldn't be timed better for me.

I made a side project recently using the google charts API ([http://texas.joetannorella.com](http://texas.joetannorella.com)). This flotr library seems good though so I'll be using it on my next project.

</comment><comment><USER7> A nice topic, but it seems that along with advising some good practices and ideas, there are a few problematic things. For example:

\- usage of sequential color scales for categorical data (compare with [http://colorbrewer2.org/](http://colorbrewer2.org/)),

\- lack of interactivity (one of the main advantage of JS plots is ability to check data with mouseover; for example - which country is this particular dot),

\- in general some aesthetic considerations (e.g. [http://d3js.org/](http://d3js.org/) is not only a library, but a whole philosophy of doing nice visualizations; including small, but visually important things, like the choice of colors).

As already advised (by couchand), that after Edward Tufte and Mike Bostock, there is a high baseline level for information beauty and clarity.

</comment><comment><USER8> Minor bug; hyperlinks in the main text appear above the dropdown Contents menu (using Chromium 40.0.2193.0).

</comment><comment><USER9> d3.js/vegas as a bit of a learning curve but I don't use I could ever go back to any other libraries.

<comment><USER10> I think the OP meant D3.js and Vega [1]

[1] [https://github.com/trifacta/vega/wiki/Vega- and-D3](https://github.com/trifacta/vega/wiki/Vega-and-D3)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you don't need all the features from Flotr, you could be quite a bit better of using Morris.js[1]. I've been using it for my work and have been really impressed.

PS. I'm one of the collaborators now, since I needed some features that weren't implemented.

[1] [https://morrisjs.github.io/morris.js/](https://morrisjs.github.io/morris.js/)

</comment><comment><USER12> There is also Databench ([http://www.svenkreiss.com/databench/v0.3/](http://www.svenkreiss.com/databench/v0.3/)) if you need to drive your JavaScript visualizations with data from Python.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is exactly the kind of job JS was created for (rich documents)!

</comment><comment><USER14> There is also d3.js ([http://d3js.org/](http://d3js.org/)) which I've used in the past. Based on the examples pages for the two libraries it looks like d3.js has much more functionality:

[https://github.com/mbostock/d3/wiki/Gallery](https://github.com/mbostock/d3/wiki/Gallery)

[http://www.humblesoftware.com/flotr2/](http://www.humblesoftware.com/flotr2/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Thank you very much to the author and the HN poster. This is exactly the type of tutorial on JS plotting I have been looking.

</comment><comment><USER16> Looks cool, but only license and readme in GitHub?

<comment><USER2> Still working on that. It should be complete before the printed/ebook is available in January.

FWIW, the code for the visualizations (but not the libraries) is neither minified nor concatenated, so you can access it directly from a web inspector.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is an incredible resource. Thank you

</comment><comment><USER18> chrome 38, mac os, i get stuck (tab gets frozen) on network chart.</comment>


Asteroid the 'Size of a Minivan' Exploded over California - <AUTHOR> http://news.discovery.com/space/meteor-the-size-of-a-minivan-exploded-over-california-120423.html

<comment><USER2> It looks like Scott Adams was lucky enough to see this asteroid too!

<http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/gods_matchbox/>

<comment><USER3> For the author of this blog post:

      font-size: 16px;
      line-height: 1.5em;

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not a fan of using kilotons of TNT as a scale. The average reader has no frame of reference for this measurement.

<comment><USER5> You're right. They should use terajoules. :)

<comment><USER4> Heh.

I was going to suggest a percentage of Hiroshima explosion, but I realize this is a sensitive subject. It bothers me, however, when articles describe an explosion as "X kilos of TNT" and follow that up with "approximately X atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima." The Hiroshima part is likely what most readers will relate with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Granting the high level of speculation involved, but with any frequency wouldn't these sorts of things be quite the wildfire hazard? Or is the impact and subsequent disintegration and boring of the object negate any heat/fire? Yes, I'm clueless.

<comment><USER7> They dont have enough heat to start fires generally. They are cold from their travel through space and the outer layer that does heat up on reentry tends to ablate leaving a core that is cold to warm on impact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This happens all the time. Only a matter of time until one big enough land on earths surface.

</comment><comment><USER9> For me, Discovery is not a reliable source for science news. Way too much... sensationalist, to say the least.

</comment><comment><USER10> Must be Google's fault. I thought they would be more careful with their mining operation.

</comment><comment><USER11> Quite disturbing that there was no warning of this.

<comment><USER12> It was a pretty small meteor as these things go. They are virtually impossible to detect ahead of time.

But since it's small, it's also not dangerous. The dangerous ones are larger - and also easier to see. So that works out in our favor.</comment></comment>


iOS Design Teardown: Stretchy Table Headers - <AUTHOR> http://blog.matthewcheok.com/design-teardown-stretchy-headers/

<comment><USER2> Very useful tutorial! Thanks.

Removing the Status bar is such a no no no from a UX perspective IMO. I recall Rdio did this for some period and their app reviews went into the toilet. Undoing the misstep set them back on track.</comment>


Walt Disney's Dinosaurs: The Story of the Rite of Spring - <AUTHOR> http://www.extinctblog.org/extinct/2017/2/17/walt-disneys-dinosaurs-the-story-of-the-rite-of-spring <comment><USER2> Stravinsky was less impressed: [http://lawartscult.osgoode.yorku.ca/2011/02/the-rights- wrong...](http://lawartscult.osgoode.yorku.ca/2011/02/the-rights-wrongs-of- stravinskys-rite-of-spring/)

(4th paragraph)

</comment><comment><USER3> This is vaguely relevant at best, but I really like the crossovers of two completely different fields like this - in this example Paleontology and Disney.

</comment><comment><USER4> I won't read anything in tiny grey text on a grey background.</comment>


A Silicon Valley for Drones, in North Dakota - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/26/technology/a-silicon-valley-for-drones-in-north-dakota.html <comment><USER2> I think a serious benefit ND has, aside from the established reputation and money put in is _space_. I can't really think of somewhere in Silicon Valley (or near by) that has the lack of population, lack of airspace traffic, and lack of local / state / federal ordinances that would allow this degree of freedom.

Silicon Valley has it's strengths, but it can't be ground zero for everything.

Honestly, if the NUMI plant wasn't in Fremont, I could see the majority of Tesla being not in the bay area (one could argue the battery plant in NV is such a shift).

<comment><USER3> Nevada is closer and seems to have most of North Dakota's benefits?

I also wonder if Nevada's climate would make it a better choice too. The Dakotas have some of the most extreme weather in the US - hot summers, frigid winters, severe thunderstorms, and wind - there were _a lot_ of windy days when I lived in North Dakota. Would days with subzero high temps and 30 MPH sustained winds be a useful environment for drones?

One thing that really seemed to help the Silicon Valley get started was how _away_ it was from everything - particularly the establishment on the east coast. I do wonder if the next big thing will be started somewhere that is similarly away from Silicon Valley - somewhere no one would expect, like North Dakota.

<comment><USER4> One could argue that extreme climate swings might make for an _ideal_ development environment. Environmental extremes would better model real-world conditions.

<comment><USER5> I have sometimes wondered if where a company is based forms their products.

While wikipedia now says that Subaru has their HQ in Tokyo, i could have sworn they were initially based on Japan's northern island. And they seem to make some damn fine cars for winter roads.

Similarly both Korea and Finland gets damn cold during winter, and thus both Samsung and Nokia may have ignored capacitive touch screens since they don't work too well with thick gloves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Stupid behavior like this is the reason for which drones will find progressively more regulation and resistance:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmD3rXUR1Tw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmD3rXUR1Tw)

The supply of idiots seems limitless.

</comment><comment><USER7> The aviation school at Grand Forks, ND is well known and the article is not kidding about the number of countries it attracts. It was a natural fit to move into drone piloting.

<comment><USER8> That aviation school appears, in detail, in _Miss Pilot_ , the Japanese drama. Episodes 5 and 6 are set there.

(That drama was made with the total cooperation of ANA, and the aviation details are accurate.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Maybe Stillwater, OK with the first UAS graduate program will vie for that title.

[https://unmanned.okstate.edu](https://unmanned.okstate.edu)

</comment><comment><USER10> Embry-Riddle in Daytona Beach Florida seems far more likely. [http://daytonabeach.erau.edu/](http://daytonabeach.erau.edu/)

Also tons of near by land and open ocean, as well as NASA and government contracting engineers already co-located and a bunch of other great universities nearby or with satellite campuses in and around Orlando / Daytona.

Being able to fly 365 days a year helps too.

Realistically, the Pacific Ocean and insanely high concentration of engineers in sv seems like the most likely place for long-term drone innovation.

</comment><comment><USER11> Weren't quadcopters formerly developed by boston dynamics ?

Article is behind paywall.

<comment><USER12> To get around the paywall, tap the "web" link under the article title, then go through to the first result</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What newsletters do you read to stay up to date on the tech industry? - <AUTHOR> I've heard positive things about The Information and Stratechery, but curious what else people read? <comment><USER2> The Hustle newsletter is pretty broad, but most of the items it covers are tech related.

I can't read it everyday, but I occasionally read it once a week. I found a pretty interesting story on the whole fake review issue on Amazon last week.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find the compilation newsletters are often too far behind what I've read. Scan hacker news once a day, only look at at most 10 articles. close all tabs by the end of the day so you don't waste too much of your life.</comment>


Kubernetes Deployer and Consul Registrator HTTP API - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/psyhomb/k8s-deployer <comment><AUTHOR> With this simple HTTP API you can easily deploy services on Kubernetes and register them with the Consul service catalog, eventually all the services will be automatically available via Traefik load balancer if proper configuration is provided.</comment>


How to distinguish between tools and raw materials, and more importantly, why - <AUTHOR> http://chir.ag/201009291830

<comment><USER2> Great questions.

Success is best explained by _product x market_. So you can have great novels that languish, and massive movies that are rubbish.

The idea of "what can be easily changed" is significant, and is the basis of Parnas' influential paper on _information hiding_ : you hide the decisions that are likely to change, so when they are changed, their impact is isolated from the rest of the system. Decisions that are expected to change together are grouped together in _modules_ : [http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Design/crite...](http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Design/criteria.pdf) This is perhaps _the_ most influential comp sci paper, and it's an interesting read; no maths IIRC, and pretty straightforward.

I think "raw materials vs. tools" is not as helpful as "what can be easily changed", because the materials/tools distinction can always be made arbitrary. eg: compiler vs. interpreter for the same language. One is a "tool", the other "raw material". A difference in performance (usually); but equal difficulty in changing them (you have to rewrite your code.)

A related question is: once you have modules, with fixed interfaces between them, what if you got it wrong (different decisions need to change) and you have to change the interfaces and modules? Because "what you think will change" is a prediction. It's a hunch, or if you like, _guessing_. Your hunches improve with experience, both in a specific domain, and in general; but you will always be guessing. Or you _should_ be; because if you know the answer, you should have automated it, bought/reused a tool that automates it, or made a tool that automates it and started selling it/giving it away.

As I said: great questions. For learning, they really are more important than great answers.

<comment><AUTHOR> I completely agree with you and dasil003 about there being a better dichotomy than material vs. tool. I was making an attempt to organize my thoughts in a structured way so I could better understand my own learning process. Too often I come across articles that say DO NOT USE X or YOU MUST USE Y. I can't use node.js, clojure, erlang, web sockets, and seaside while doing AOP, 10 must todos for startups, and learn what convertible notes mean. I come here everyday and I learn more about what I still don't know than I can keep up with. So I try to absorb what I can and write my understand of it all.

The module paper looks brilliant, partly why I love compsci - in 1970s they were writing about what I am slowly learning now. Thanks for the wonderful feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think this kind of thinking can easily be scaled also to more abstract parts of projects than the code and infrastructure itself. A core part of the design process of any app is to decide what it will and what it won't do, and these kinds of decisions also involve how easily the decision can be reversed. For example, if one needs to change Twitter to allow arbitrary message lengths, that would probably be completely trivial, if done ahead of time, but since it is part of the core of what Twitter is, the message length limit is probably assumed in a lot of places in the code.

I think the most difficult decisions to make in a project is what to make reversible and what to make easily changable. Abstraction often carries a cost, performance wise or otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER4> The analogy is stretched too thin. The meaningful dichotomy outlined first is idea vs code. I think there are probably other meaningful dichotomies within the tech itself, but I don't think tools/materials is the right one.</comment>


Show HN: Register expiring domain names the instant they're available - <AUTHOR> https://backordr.com/ <comment><USER2> $99 a pop is still pretty expensive.

</comment><comment><USER3> Reminds me of park.io</comment>


What Michael Lewis Gets Wrong About High-Frequency Trading - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-01/what-michael-lewis-gets-wrong-about-high-frequency-trading?curator=MediaREDEF <comment><USER2> He doesn't get it wrong. It's a classic fraud on the market: it creates the illusion of volume when that volume is really artificial. If you were to massively buy and then immediately sell securities to make it seem as if there was a great demand, you would be indicted for violating the securities laws.

"Rule 10b-5: Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices": It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,

(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,

HFT creates the illusion of volume. As such, it is a clear violation of 10(b)(5).

Volume, as an important indicator of efficiency, has been repeatedly recognized by U.S. courts in both civil and criminal cases. Because of HFT, volume figures are no longer reliable. They no longer reflect a true, arms- length purchase and sale. This is a classic fraud on the market.

<comment><USER3> There is a class of algorithmic traders that create artificial volume via fraudulent orders. This is quote stuffing and it is already illegal (at least in the U.S.).

There is a problem with enforcement, as the regulatory agencies are so far behind the traders. The FBI has recently announced that they will be investigating this practice as a criminal matter instead of a leaving it as a civil one, so hopefully that will discourage the practice.

That said, it is a really small percentage of HFT firms that engage in this behaviour (in fact most firms would prefer more enforcement of these rules) and it has nothing to do with the practices that Lewis documents in his book or with all the publicity stops he's been on.

<comment><USER4> The thing with quote stuffing is this:

\- If a firm is posting quotes that they have no intention of honoring, then they are backing away and that's already a violation of regulations.

\- If they are rapidly posting quotes and canceling them in response to quickly changing market conditions, that's normal behavior.

As long as a firm fills an order appropriately, when someone actually hits their quote, then they are doing it right.

Of course, some exchanges and other venues view excessive quoting with minimal actual trading as a nuisance, because it taxes their infrastructure without the actual _trading_ that makes money for everyone involved. As such, many venues are charging fees to participants who have very high quote-to-trade ratios. This is also fine - it's the prerogative of the venues to charge fees for use of the infrastructure.</comment></comment></comment>


Coingen - <AUTHOR> http://coingen.bluematt.me/ <comment><USER2> I only understand how crypto currency works at a very high level, but from what I can reason with my limited understanding it seems that the ability of a cryptocurrency to limit circulation is rendered useless by the ability to create alternative currencies. It seems to me then, that the only differentiation between currencies is marketing/popularity, does it then follow that there's infinite inflation, or would that not matter?</comment>


Keep it or kill it? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN readers,
So here is the background: I'm need to get peoples opinion about an issue I'm having but i don't feel comfortable disclosing my personal information, I can load the app and ask people to engage in a discussion about my thought or experience. I can resolve my problem and connect with others without having to disclose any personal information.
So we see it as a way for people to share experiences and deep thoughts but some people see it as malicious anonymous posting, I want to know what you guys think. Should this ship sink or continue to sail?
We have the beta version of the boopoohoo published on android and ios market so feel free to play with it.
why the name? because its a place to boo and poo without knowing hoo
TLR: Crazy Australians have built an app called boopoohoo, they want HN readers input as to weather we should keep it or kill it!
Website: http://boopoohoo.org Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.eronka.boopoohoo&feature=nav_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDMsImNvbS5lcm9ua2EuYm9vcG9vaG9vIl0. App Store: http://itunes.apple.com/app/boopoohoo/id552162849
Cheers, Armin <comment><USER2> I have no idea what "Boopoohoo is a place for a boo & poo without knowing who!" means.</comment>