Did 99% Of Our Industry Just Become Criminals - <AUTHOR> http://www.shoemoney.com/2011/01/03/did-99-of-our-industry-just-become-criminals/

<comment><AUTHOR> I've read the bill (it's only 4 pages) and I don't understand any of his concerns. It's a prohibition on underhanded selling of payment information to a third party in order to sign someone up to some other purchase when they bought something from you. That has nothing to do with upselling your own customers with your own products, or affiliate referral programs.

<comment><USER2> I think "our industry" refers to CPA style affiliates. Negative option is the same type of thing as the old book of the month club - they ship you something and charge you for it unless you stop it or send it back. What's going on is that there are (shady) setups designed basically to be a variable CPA. You rope the customer in, charge them whatever you can for the upfront product and then pass on their details to the negative option marketer. The 3rd party fulfills the first order for free (effectively the CPA charge) and then proceeds to bill you long term.

It would seem that the title is pretty inappropriate for HN, "our industry" certainly doesn't match any significant part of HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just reading what's been quoted in the blog post, this makes it so that an upsell purchase is a distinctly different transaction from a previously completed purchase.

What was possible before: 1\. Visitor enters billing information and makes a purchase 2\. Visitor is shown an upsell page 3\. Visitor clicks a link on the upsell page 4\. The item that was clicked is automatically added to the previously completed purchase

Now, step 4 isn't possible. A retailer must make it clear (by virtue of asking for billing info again) that there is a new purchase that's about to happen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Except that this isn't in the law at all. That scenario is still completely legal. There is no distinctly different transaction unless the upsell was to a different company, and involved that other company separately charging the customer.

<comment><USER3> Well, back to the drawing board, cause the scenario I was hoping they'd fix is highway robbery.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's certainly not my industry. My industry doesn't involve underhanded tactics for extracting money from customers. I don't care for regulation in general, but this is not making honest people into criminals...this is making things that ethical companies would never do anyway illegal.

</comment><comment><USER5> Bill looks good to me and won't affect our company. I think the bill should be extended though to non-internet transactions as well. I got bamboozled by magazine subscriptions that autorenew themselves even though I never consented to, the consent was in the form of an opt-out scheme.

Nothing worse than buying something for $5 and suddenly they are deducting $49.95 from your bank account every 30 days. Hopefully this bill criminalizes that practice. If as a side effect, I have to reenter credit card numbers into legit sites like amazon, that's the price I pay and its no big deal.

Regarding the companies whose schemes this bill addresses, if they all go out of business, and have their board of directors and corporate attorneys taken out and shot by a firing squad at dawn, that would be a net gain for society. (Reader's Digest, I'm looking at you.)

</comment><comment><USER6> I believe the original intent of the bill came about from companies selling you a product and then launching a pop-up ad. Consumers would then click on the ad and be billed a low, monthly recurring charge. They wouldn't be brought to a check out screen because they had just entered all of their billing information.

I forget a lot of the specific details surrounding this, but I think these sorts of things are what originally prompted this bill.

It started with good intentions and then politicians got involved.

<comment><USER7> "It started with good intentions and then politicians got involved."

Still sounds good to me.

Spammy things like ClickBank need to DIAF.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think there's anything inherently spammy about ClickBank. It's a 3rd party payment processor with a built-in affiliate program for each merchant, pretty harmless stuff.

<comment><USER7> From their "How It Works" description:

"Alan goes to work online, posting his HopLink in search engine ads, on his pet-training blog, and in the e-book review he writes for his favorite dog- training forum."

Something about the way it's worded just sounds to me like they're hinting that people should "go to work online" posting spammy 'reviews' as an excuse to post affiliate links, and otherwise post the affiliate links far and wide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't think the US needs more economic problems right now. This is a huge deal breaker for many companies, and short term, it will result in relocation of systems to emerging markets, and other established countries, like Canada, the European Union, Brazil, Russia, China, etc. Silly, silly move.

<comment><USER9> If a business relies on stealthily moving payment information from the merchant with whom the customer is dealing and a 3rd party, then perhaps a "deal breaker" is necessary. A customer should be able to expect that payment information is only handled by the merchant processing the order. Throwing "click here for your FREE OFFER" pop-ups that contain "offer terms" signing the user up for 360 months of charges, or hiding "print tickets now" links amongst huge, blinking graphics about "E Z TRIALZ" that only serve to cause credit card charges should not be recognized as good business.

Having read through the bill[1], it seems narrowly-tailored just to prevent such annoyances. A merchant needs to understand that payment information is arguably the second most precious thing given by a customer, and that information needs to be protected. Yes, customers have options, but when every seller in a particular class--I'm glaring at you, movie ticket sales websites --has taken this scammy step, the "choice" is meaningless.

1 - <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3386>:

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The guy got it wrong. If a company wants to bring ANOTHER merchant into the mix, AFTER the transaction has been concluded, it can't just send my info to them, I have to send it myself. That's what the bill says.

Amazon and ClickBank are just fine.

The question I have is, how does this affect virtual currencies and systems where I pay money to the initial merchant and they turn around and pay someone else (such as PayPal)?</comment>


What Heroku Add Ons do you use for monitoring production apps? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> NewRelic - Alerts setup for availability, Apdex etc.

Papertrail - Alerts setup for various things, either immediate or batched (e.g. send me a list of 404s each morning)

SplunkStorm - No alerts yet, much better than Papertrail for querying logs.</comment>


Flappy Bird clone written in GNU sed - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ValeriyKr/sfb <comment><USER2> What the... wow, awesome hack :-) it's been a long time since I've seen a great sed clone of something.</comment>


SELECT * can be very bad, Postgres 9...  - <AUTHOR> https://community.jivesoftware.com/community/developer/blog/2013/01/25/select-can-be-very-bad-postgres-92-index-only-scan-can-be-very-good <comment><USER2> I understand that this is about the use of index-only scans more than anything, but I think the example is a bad one, because surely you would do a COUNT rather than a SELECT to get a follower count. Can't think of many situations where you'd want to load all of the 'follower' data at once, especially as you'd likely use pagination and lots of caching for actually displaying users anyway.</comment>


Ask HN: Big software teams, how do you manage your computers? - <AUTHOR> I'm curious how big (this definition: Above 50) development houses manage licenses, installation of updates, software in general.
I've seen so many models in terms of locked down deployment, self-managed machines and I'm genuinely curious about what large software teams around the world are doing to keep themselves.. you know, legal, efficient and malware-free.
Thanks for any responses. <comment><USER3> I think most developers would quit if not given sudo access to their machines. Don't use windows and fire people who manage to install malware. Most companies use some sort of remote management app no one except IT cares about. Yes, it probably spies on employees. Software that needs licensed probably has a license server option.

<comment><USER4> On the contrary, I work at BigCorp where every machine is locked down - <USER2> administrator access, no sudo, etc. People routinely install programs to C:\ simply because it is writable. If you need admin access to install it? Forget it, open an IT ticket.

I've never heard of anyone quitting because of this issue.

<comment><USER5> Yes. BigCorp have very limited access to resources depending on their role. IF you need to install software OR require admin rights your ticket have to pass long tail of approvals with lots of justification.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Most dev shops nowadays use Vagrant to manage and provision their dev environments, making sure that all developers are on the exact same setup.

</comment><comment><USER7> What part of _git_ \+ commit-based CI/CD processes doesn't scale?

<comment><USER8> Git isn't going to manage the licences for commercial software and your operating system updates ...

<comment><USER9> This. I think people were too quick to judge the OP as an idiot. He's not talking about your applications. He's talking about physical developer hardware. The laptop sitting in front of you.

<comment><USER7> Nobody called the OP an idiot.

The consensus is that physical developer hardware is best managed by developers.

The 'problem' of managing 'large numbers' of 'commercial software licenses' is not a problem with automation; unfortunately it goes against the grain of developers managing their own hardware.

It seems the real problem in the OP's organization is management unwilling to delegate and constantly searching for centralized solutions to trivial 'problems'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I worked on a large deployment (hundreds of Macs) that used custom scripts to harvest, and backup license files. Our scripts were executed with Apple remote desktop and also used JAMF.

At the time other companies (such as google) used puppet + custom scripts to deploy their license files + other executables on their Macs whilst leaving the users with sudo access.

</comment><comment><USER11> Typically I've seen teams have a set of build-machines that use NIS/LDAP to authenticate and authorize users, but also auto-mounts an NFS home-share on something like a NetApp filer when a user logins. Developers have their own laptops and ssh/XForward to build machines.

</comment><comment><USER12> At the various banks I have worked at, PCs are all windows and locked down. You can apply for Admin access (or a more limited version via a 3rd party product like Privilege Guard) if you a developer.</comment>


User testing in the wild: he has never used a computer - <AUTHOR> http://jboriss.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/user-testing-in-the-wild-joes-first-computer-encounter/ <comment><USER3> Sometimes I think technology just leaves people behind, with no hope of catching up.

About 10 years ago, one weekend I drove up to an ATM in Upstate NY, and found an elderly couple standing there, looking confused. After a minute, I stopped the car and got out. Both were well-dressed (probably coming home from church); the gentleman was about 90; his wife was a similar age.

"Is everything OK?" I asked.

"Could you help us?", she said (he was too proud to ask for help, I guess).

"Sure! What can I do for you?" I replied.

"You see, the bank sent us this card and said we should be using it, instead of going to the teller inside. But we don't know what to do with it."

Wow. I was shocked. The bank (HSBC) had not even told them how to use the card. And I was surprised that there existed people who didn't know how to use an ATM in this country!

So I showed them where to insert the card; told him to enter his PIN (while I looked away so I wouldn't see it). I advised them about the security implications; and how to always collect the card after you're done (those ATMs kept the card for the duration, unlike newer ones where you just swipe).

I was left with a sad feeling after that, which I can still remember. If I'm ever designing software for general use, I always think about that couple and try to see it from their eyes.

<comment><USER4> I've always wondered why newer ATMs like to retain the card until after the transaction. I've left my card in an ATM two or three times while in a rush on account of that.

<comment><USER5> I believe this is a US-only problem. I haven't seen that sort of ATM in the last ten years where I'm from (India), and I was pretty shocked to see them in the US.

<comment><USER6> First, I don't believe it's a problem but merely a different procedure. Second, in France (and most of Western Europe I think), all ATM's keep your card for the simple reason that the magnetic stripe (the part of the card that's in contact with the ATM when you swipe) is never used, to my knowledge. It's the chip that is used to verify the identity, locally record the transaction and more.

<comment><USER7> Is that the reason? The chip on the card is positioned so that readers can be designed to only need the card inserted about halfway.

I think it has more to do with giving the machine the ability to not give the card back. :-)

<comment><USER5> What possible use case exists for that ability? The card's generally blocked after a set number of incorrect attempts anyway, so it's not as if it could be used anywhere else.

ATMs that keep your card for the duration of the transaction only serve to decrease trust in the mechanism.

<comment><USER7> _The card's generally blocked after a set number of incorrect attempts anyway, so it's not as if it could be used anywhere else._

Remember, credit cards originated before there was universal ubiquitous connectivity. It's still no guarantee (think of a small merchant at some outdoor festival). EMV (Chip and PIN) cards have an offline mode which an bad guy can use. <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mkb23/interceptor/>

_ATMs that keep your card for the duration of the transaction only serve to decrease trust in the mechanism._

In the past, there were modes that allowed you to overdraw your account with an ATM. I imagine this was done in consideration for unreliable communications links or banks that needed downtime in their account balances for batch transaction processing.

"Trust" is a deep and strange concept, but at the end of the day US ATM cards are only a mag stripe and a 4-digit PIN. We'd best not expect too much from them. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The company I work for produces software for users with zero computer literacy. We're a very small outfit serving a very specific niche. We produce new and highly specialized/distinct programs at a rate of about one or two per week. Our users are often subjected to very tight time requirements, so we can't expect them to develop familiarity over a gradual learning curve. They must immediately know what to do, and our software must support them, computer skills be damned.

Almost ironically, I struggle to hold our team to our own UI best practices; to ensure our interfaces and content are approachable. We're always crushed by deadlines — the time it takes to be sure we haven't made any literacy assumptions is time we don't have. It's my job to make developing this sort of UI/UX absolutely painless. Unfortunately, I get almost no opportunities to actually test with our zero-experience users. This article was a wonderful read, and gave me a very specific type of knowing satisfaction. It's a rare opportunity indeed.

As for those best practices, here are a few examples:

• Emphasize actionable items with animations, and textual and pictorial descriptions of the actions that must be taken. Instead of saying "right click", we might show a picture of the mouse with the right button highlighted, with a "clicking" animation indicating the action to be performed.

• Use iconography and terminology derived from the subject matter or real- world objects, instead of common "abstract" UI elements. For instance, a light switch (indicated as actionable, of course) instead of a check box.

• Simplify user interactions and interfaces to the absolute minimum. Reduce the actions the user must perform in order to be satisfied. Reduce the number of options presented to the user at any one time.

In many ways, designing an interface for a zero-experience user is like choosing a programming language: You want the language that lets you describe _exactly_ the program you need to make in as few instructions as possible. Likewise, you want an interface that lets your users describe _exactly_ the action they need the program to perform in as few interactions as possible.

<comment><USER9> That reminds me of one naive I was helping who had serious trouble relating the 2D movements of the mouse to the 2D movements of the on-screen cursor. That relationship seems like it'd be very challenging to explain if someone's not getting it and there's no teacher available.

<comment><USER10> It is surprisingly challenging. The mouse doesn't input position, it inputs movement, and not all movement, but movement of a specific point on a plane aligned to itself (not the screen, not the hand) and only if you slide it against a surface, and not your exact movement, due to acceleration and stopping at screen edges. And then it has buttons! And a wheel! And an ominous red light!

A good start is to just put their hand on the mouse, put your hand over theirs, and tell them to watch the cursor.

<comment><USER11> Hand-over-hand is a well-known learning technique for children and learning- disabled folks as well as it emphasizes muscle memory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Joe knew nothing about computers, so he focused on the only item he recognized: text. Icons, buttons, and interface elements Joe ignored completely_

Reminds me of my mother. She had a stand-alone word processor back in the day, w/ keyboard, monochrome screen, floppy drive, and daisy wheel. All commands were performed through the keyboard, with prompts on the bottom two lines of the screen, ala emacs.

She was real pro w/ this thing. She taught herself how to use it, and never needed any help from me.

Fast forward to her first personal computer, w/ mouse and icons, and she didn't get it. 10 years later and she still doesn't get it. In fact, it is a major source of anxiety. She doesn't explore the interface because she might get lost and won't be able find her way back to where she was. What do all those icons do? Who knows. She follows a _very_ narrow course through the 4 or 5 tasks that she's familiar with, and that's it. She's almost superstitious about it.

None of this would be terribly remarkable if I didn't know she'd been such an expert user of the old standalone word processor. But she was. And whatever it was about the old machine that worked, it didn't carry over to the new age of mice & GUIs.

[for a similar perspective, see the discussion over at metafilter: [http://www.metafilter.com/105309/You-have-to-click-on-the- te...](http://www.metafilter.com/105309/You-have-to-click-on-the-text-box)]

<comment><USER13> I personally suspect that some of the confidence garnered on the word processor might have been because it was more of an appliance, and didn't have a persistant state? When powered on, it was set to work on a specific task already, everything to interact with to change functions or settings, would be reset if you pulled the plug, or switched it off.

<comment><USER14> Like an old game console. Perhaps she'd like a computer with an OS more close to that, like an iPad?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Very interesting experience. The real issue is deciding on what assumptions you want to make about your audience. Even people who are not completely new to computers may act like people who have never used one before so making as few assumptions as possible is probably best unless you have a strong degree of confidence.

A few weeks ago, I visited a cousin who had recently bought a new fridge with "high-tech" water dispenser. I'm a big water drinker. When I went to the fridge to get some cold water, I felt really stupid for not knowing how to work a freaken water dispenser. It had a ton of buttons the real button to make it give you water looked like it was part of the door, not a press-able thing. The design could have been done better.

How many times have you been at someone's house and needed to use their microwave and it takes more time figuring out how to make the thing go than to actually heat the food? And even if you've used the exact same microwave 4 weeks ago, it still feels brand new and you feel just as lost.

Whether it's directions to a location or how to use an app/device, it may not stick.

Designing for computer illiterates but decently intelligent people seems like a worthy ideal to strive for. You may never get to a point where someone brand new to computers will feel comfortable with your app but keeping it in mind might help guide us into making small tweaks that can add up a big difference.

One example: With WordPress, you can add a search element to your site/blog. The default language of the label is "To search, type and hit enter." This is probably more clear than "Search this site" or plain "Search" but maybe not as clear as "To search, click here, type and hit enter."

Yes, it's more verbose. No, I'm not suggesting that WP should change the default text.

You have to strike a balance between being clear and not boring your audience by telling them what they already know but when in doubt, err on the side of clarity.

<comment><USER16> We have two microwaves at the office. One has two knobs you can turn. One for intensity, one for time. The other has a tons of features, multiple buttons, and only one turnable knob. Pressing the buttons can put the single knob into different modes and thus allows you to adjust time and intensity and lots of other things.

Guess which interface is universally preferred? (And I work in the company of lots of smart people here in Cambridge.)

<comment><USER17> I think the ideal microwave would have 2 buttons: one for start and the other for switching between microwave and defrost. The start button would give you 30 second increments of time. What more do you need?

<comment><USER18> I like this, but sometimes you want to defrost something for 15 minutes. I think a [plus 5 min] button would be nicer than hitting a button 30 times

<comment><USER16> I agree that you seldom want more than two different settings for the power level. But for the timing, knobs are good. They combine data presentation with input.

For power perhaps a two-state switch would work nice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> A person in 2011 who has never used a computer has far more serious issues (or "differences") to the way they approach life than you can solve by redesigning menus and layout.

This would be like approaching someone in their teens who still cannot read and trying to design a book you are writing to be more accessible to them instead of your general readership.

It's simply a matter of hand-on, over time. I've converted a few AOL users over the years to Firefox, etc. and there is absolutely nothing you can do to improve their experience beyond a very basic level. They just have to use it for a year and go through their own trial-and-error of learning.

<comment><USER20> His point was hardly that we should design interfaces for computer illiterates, but that a person who has never used a computer may provide valuable information on how humans try to approach new interfaces in general. This information can help us put emphasis on the right things: Instead of a bunch of buttons, concise text that leads the user. I imagine something like "Your first time using Internet Explorer? Click -here- to get more information." would have helped him greatly. (not in this particular situation, but if he were at home with his newly bought computer and properly invested in his pursuit of email, then yes.)

<comment><USER21> Exactly. I've, perhaps foolishly, designed mock-ups and interfaces before where I've used icons instead of text explaining what it is, and I'd often think to myself "It's ok - people will probably click around to learn what that does". That's probably wishful thinking on my part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My grandfather bought a computer in 2000 to replace his ancient word processor. When I visited him, he said he'd been using it a lot with Microsoft Works. But I couldn't find any documents on the hard drive. It was only when I found a huge drawer full of used floppies and remembered what the "save" button looked like that comprehension dawned...

<comment><USER23> Many icon sets (on Linux, at least) use a picture of a hard drive instead of a floppy [1]. Which, though more correct, still worries me. Anybody who recognizes the icon as a picture of a hard drive isn't going to be confused by the concept of saving...do we need a similar icon that uses a picture of an entire computer instead? Should it be a laptop or desktop?

[1] - [http://cshared.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Screenshot- xam...](http://cshared.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Screenshot-xampp- control-panel.desktop-.local-share-applications-gedit.png)

<comment><USER24> Why do we still need to save explicitly?

<comment><USER25> 1) because people tend to like clicking save or pressing ctrl-s.

2) to complement save-as (aka, poor-man's branch)

<comment><USER24> _to complement save-as (aka, poor-man's branch)_

 _Exactly._ Today we use save and save-as as crippled forms of versioning. We _can_ do better.

<comment><USER25> Save-as also provides the function of being able to save to different media/locations. Furthermore, it is _easy_. Power users already have their more powerful alternatives and non-power users are used to what they know.

If it ain't broke...

<comment><USER24> _Save-as also provides the function of being able to save to different media/locations._

Yeah, that too. Duplicate, or export, or copy.

 _Power users already have their more powerful alternatives and non-power users are used to what they know._

What?! Why should only "power users" be allowed the luxury of never losing important data? We _can_ make that easy too.

<comment><USER25> I have no idea what point you are attempting to make. Non-power users don't need full-blown version control, there are plenty of more straight-forward ways of making sure users don't lose their data than that. Save-as is not mutually exclusive with automated backup systems, or undo systems.

Furthermore, nobody is forbidding them from using the tools "power-users" use. The only difference between power users and regular users is what tools _they choose_ to use.

<comment><USER24> _I have no idea what point you are attempting to make._

Do you believe the solutions we have today are decent enough and cannot be improved further? I wish handling files was _so simple_ that even those you call "non power-users" ( _i.e._ pretty much everyone) could work with versioned files.

Note that I am neither saying it's easy nor that it is appropriate for every program. But it is definitely possible: <http://www.apple.com/macosx/whats- new/auto-save.html>

<comment><USER25> _"I wish handling files was so simple that even those you call "non power- users" (i.e. pretty much everyone) could work with versioned files."_

We have that already, it's called persistent undo and/or save as. Stunningly, a versioning system designed for the technologically illiterate doesn't measure up to one designed for coders.

Auto-save is a separate issue, but we have that as well...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> She should be commended for her patience and willingness to help this man. Several years ago I spent about 2 hours helping an elderly woman do pretty much the same thing, who did not get nearly this far and she gave up. The concept of a mouse moving the cursor on the screen was beyond her comprehension, yet otherwise she was a perfectly intelligent, well-read woman. It may have been my fault for not explaining it properly, but it is certainly true that modern interface design obviously takes for granted that we already know the basics. Who would have thought that 'help' offers none? And 'suggested sites' gives some bizarre privacy warning?

I wonder, however, how Joe would have fared with an iPad?

Edit: oops on the gender.

<comment><USER27> I was going to say the same thing. Touch seems so much more intuative, I have the Facebook web app looking at a photo album and I absently flick and it doesn't work... Those youtube videos of a 2 year old using an iPad also..

<comment><USER28> I have seen a 3 year-old failing to grasp how to use the arrow keys to control a character in a game, but swipe to review pictures on an iPhone spontaneously. There is one indirection less, which probably makes all the difference.

(This does not mean that touch interfaces are better, though -- just that they are more intuitive.)

<comment><USER29> My two year old managed to figure out the iPad, far better than I would have guessed. He can find games and load them himself, and uses the safety of the Home button to get out of confusing situations. He has also attempted to translate the interaction method to the PC, without much success (he recently pushed the round "off" button on a monitor, because it looks like the iPad home button).

My grandmother also figured out the iPad's UI quickly, although she has almost zero experience using computers, and struggles to work her phone. I didn't explore how much more she could do with it though.

Surprisingly though, my father in law, a doctor with some computer experience, struggled a little with his iPad, and only uses it for online banking. I think it had to do with un-learning his old habits.

What I guess from this very small sample is that a touch interface is more intuitive for novices, but could be troublesome for those with some, limited computer experience.

I'm sure there's tons of research being done into this stuff...hopefully it will be distilled into an accessible form soon [an updated Design of Everyday things say].

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Funny thing about Firefox 4 release is that it automatically hides menu bar which I thought was stupid. That's right, even help is hidden unless the user presses alt or right clicks to enable menu (Even as experienced as I was, it took time for me to understand why I couldn't find it).

However, if the menu bar was enabled, the user could go Help->Firefox Help and just at the bottom of screen without scrolling is 'Getting started with Firefox'.

Unfortunately the first video talks about bookmarking facebook, doing random searches, keeps talking about how awesome Firefox is and all fast paced and not slow at all.

<comment><USER31> Firefox "hides" the menu in the glowing orange box in the upper-left corner.

<comment><USER32> Would a new user know that there is supposed to be a menu? Why would they click the glowing orange box? Why even think it's clickable? Why is it glowing? Is that normal? They'll think: it doesn't seem to be related to what I'm looking for, so I'll keep looking elsewhere.

One thing that I have always noticed to be true (and frustrating) is that new users try to do as little as possible. They try to stay as safe as possible. They want to do one thing, and once they find a solution - any solution - <USER2> works, that's what they keep doing. They don't click on strange icons or try new things just because they can. They don't explore because they don't understand, and in my experience they usually think that something will go wrong and they will break the computer if they click somewhere they aren't supposed to. It's hard for us to imagine someone going in with no prior knowledge of how a program is _supposed_ to behave. We have certain minimum expectations, (e.g. there should be a menu bar somewhere in the top left of the screen) and knowledge (you can't do much of anything without clicking the mouse) that they lack that makes what is painfully obvious to us confusing and unintuitive to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> In these cases I've often thought it would be useful to have an "interactive" character guiding you around the application, such as a dog, or maybe a paperclip for a word-processing program.

<comment><USER34> It looks like you're writing a comment on Hacker News. Would you like help?

[x] Get upvote for the comment

[_] Just type comment without help

[_] Don't show me this tip again

<comment><USER35> You forgot clippy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I used to sell computers at Best Buy in an area that was predominantly elderly, and let me say it is quite a difficult procedure to walk someone through using a computer. Every day someone would come in that said they wanted a computer but had never used one before. I would spend hours showing people how to do things, writing up lists on how each task is performed, etc. It can be very challenging.

I found the best way to help these people is just to put them in front of a computer and walk them through the basics. Also metaphors are huge. It is always easier to understand something when you can relate to it. For example: My documents is like your filing cabinet. Everything is organized into folders so you can find where it is.

The most interesting thing was when the ipad came out. We were seeing people who barely knew what the internet was trying to buy and use one of these things. Try explaining 3G to someone who doesn't have a cell phone. Almost impossible. I remember one man who was so frustrated that he couldn't set up email that he announced that he would give $20 to the person who would do it for him.

<comment><USER37> > _so frustrated that he couldn't set up email that he announced that he would > give $20 to the person who would do it for him_

// Not _that_ frustrated then. $200 now that's more frustrated!

<comment><USER36> Haha that is a good point. I guess it was more the look of total despair on his face.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I agree with what I think Boriss' point is – that our interfaces are not natural. They require us to build a new system of patterns to match with encountered interfaces of a similar kind, in order to know what we're doing. Same is easily said of learning any new language, visual, written, or spoken.

But to suggest that iconography and buttons in general are unique to digital interfaces is inaccurate, and recounting one man's first interaction with a computer as "user testing of browsers" comes across as a sensational misrepresentation of what user testing is, and what education-by-interface should be.

Let's not show an entrenched English speaker Japanese and claim that it is the language's responsibility to immediately map to his mental model of English. Learning falls on a motivated student (which Joe, with self-proclaimed "no excuse[s]" for never using a computer, was not) matched with an expert evangelist like Jennifer Boriss, in the event of a total failure of comprehension.

<comment><USER38> Oh, but I should add that it is cool to see something headlining as "user testing" making its way up the HN ranks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> This is interesting but entirely useless. Though he's never used a computer, someone already has used this one and changed some things about it.

#1 IE defaults to a blank page in what appears to be private browsing mode, rather than Bing as it does on any new windows install. He's somehow running IE on a Mac which may be why.

#2. Someone checked out San Francisco Yelp on Chrome and as a result there's a link for it.

#3. "We shouldn't assume that new users will inquisitively try and discover how new software works by clicking buttons and trying things out." That's probably misleading for 99.99999% of your audience. Yeah, the one adult on the planet who never used a computer before might be scared to death to play around with it, but you shouldn't design with that in mind (unless you're somehow aiming a product at them, in which case good luck with that sir). Put a 7 year old on a computer and he'll figure out how to find a restaurant in 10 minutes.

<comment><USER40> Actually, I find that quite a lot of people who are even moderately unfamiliar with computers (by HN standards) tend not to explore or experiment with new tools or UI paradigms. It might be because they're afraid to break things, but I think it's just because their unfamiliarity gives them anxiety and for them it's easier and more comforting to simply turn the damn thing off and forget about it rather than plow forward and get even more lots and confused. Kids tend to be more curious, and more used to being unfamiliar with things. I wouldn't take that as representative of techno-illiterate adults.

<comment><USER41> I think that its more of a generational gap. People from previous generations were raised with the "measure twice, cut once" mentality, because when you're cutting things or drilling things, mistakes are irreversible. It's very hard for these people to get used to a "Control Z" mentality. In contrast, people from 1990+ generation have grown up with the trial and error mentality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> It seems to me that the question of the day is..what IS "intuition?" Most UI designers will create an interface that relies on typical design standards that any competent user would understand, such as home icons, menu bars, banners, footers, thumbnails etc. There are good reasons for this; namely because many interfaces target a market of experienced users.

Designing an "intuitive" interface true to the word is almost impossible. Experienced users can look at a new UI developed with standard design principles and navigate through it without frustration. But this is not called "intuition;" This is called past experience.

Now, rollover pop-up text that describes functionality may add a level of intuitiveness to a system. But why create a help menu for how to use the mouse or how to single click in a text field before you can type in it? Many of those users who aren't experienced are left behind only because it is usually not economical to market to them.

</comment><comment><USER43> Here I want to ask a question: did any of the HN users ever get helped by anything put into the "Help" menu in an application?

<comment><USER44> Yes, although not directly: on OSX, the Help menu has a search box. This searches not only various topics but _submenu items_ , and when selecting a match it opens the menu recursively until it can highlight the item.

In software with big, deep menus with an unclear logic/organization, I've used this quite a bit.

<comment><USER34> The OSX help menu is pretty cool. A friend was yesterday puzzled because she couldn't figure out how to delete someone from her Skype contacts. I am still on 2.8, she upgraded to the stupid 5.x version. So I dont know if the UI changed or she is just blind. "Just right click and choose delete." "But there is no delete, only block!"

She was just ready to google a solution, as I asked for using help menu, which indeed helped her. She used it before but typed in "remove" instead of "delete" (or vice versa, in reality it was entfernen vs löschen)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> The funny thing is that as an "advanced" user I use the terminal all day long, but we assume the mouse cursor is easier for inexperienced users. But something about that old DOS prompt was not so bad: you just learn the commands, type them, and see the result. In a lot of ways it's a more straight-forward interaction than mousing around.

<comment><USER23> As a big CLI fan, I mostly agree, especially with respect to launching programs. But as far as I see there's two big obstacles: 1) Many names are somewhat-obscure in the interest of shortness. But are therefore a bit harder to remember. Compare "ls" with "list-files". 2) Many programs (especially interactive programs)--text editors, office programs, file managers, web browsers--are, I think, more intuitive with a mouse. Want to open that link or edit that textbox? Click it. Want to move that file? Drag it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> This reminds me of my first experience when I started to use Linux (SSH, terminal only) and Vim.

<comment><USER47> The default text editor of one of my first servers was emacs. I had no idea how to exit, no idea how to access help, and no idea what program I was in! I called my nerdier brother and he figured it out and told me how to quit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> People generally say "time cures these problems" but I'm starting to wonder. Things change so rapidly, someone who is 60 now and is learning to use a mouse and keyboard might be utterly lost in 20-30 years with whatever advances have been made.

When I'm 60 in ~30 years maybe I'll be clinging to ancient things like notebooks and tablets because I know how to use them, and kids will point and laugh while they use the modern stuff.

<comment><USER49> At 60 you will be able to cope with new technologies almost just as easily as a 15 year old. The reason being you have had some interaction with technology over the years, so you have something to refer to. The 70 year old of today probably did not get to ever play with a computer.

<comment><USER50> Yeah, but his point is that something totally, completely new, like say, a direct brain interface, is going to be so radically different that he'll have a hard time becoming acquainted with it given his existing experience.

In my interactions with older relatives, the thing I find that they have the biggest problem with is that they don't try to explore how the computer behaves because the are afraid of breaking something.

So, personally, I think that Apple should advertise it's guest mode for OS X additionally as a "Learn New Things" mode where they very clearly explain that any changes they make are not going to be permanent and that by shutting off the computer, everything can go back to normal (maybe create a simulated web as well). Then there could be a series of tutorial on making significant, (normally) permanent changes to the computer's behavior.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> This sounds like how I helped my grandma with her Outlook/phone/digital photo woes. With some things (email) she was extremely successful; with others (digital photos, saving attached photos from emails) she remained lost forever.

She could have benefited from a dumbed-down interface for the things she struggled with. Picasa was as close as I could get as simple photo management, but she needed something even more seamless and simple.

It makes me wonder why there aren't more companies creating products like the Jitterbug ( <http://www.greatcall.com/> )--for those of you unaware, the Jitterbug is a cellphone with very large buttons and a presumably easy-to- navigate menu system, with concierge operator service for remedial support tasks ("I need to check my voicemail").

Maybe we have tried making extremely simplified UIs for common computing tasks, and failed (Clippy/MS Bob)? Is there an extremely simple photo management app (or something on the Mac) that I'm unaware of?

</comment><comment><USER52> The world is full of people who have never used a computer. They are called children.

<comment><USER53> Not anymore, they start out young nowadays. My 2 year old niece is a pro with an iPhone.

<comment><USER52> Well then, they're called babies.

<comment><USER54> Not even then. My kid was 6 weeks old when I first put the iPad in front of him. Babies get visual feedback right away, especially when it happens right a the point they're touching. It took maybe 30 seconds of training before he was pounding on the screen to make stuff happen.

This was even before he figured out real world things like stuffed animals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> No search engine that I could find [Google, Bing, Duck Duck Go, Dopile, Ask - though the logo is close] specifically prompts you on how to use it. For example they could say "What are you looking for?" for new users.

<comment><USER9> And?

I don't understand this kind of criticism.

I get into my car. The accelerator doesn't have "Press here to move more quickly" written on it. The brake doesn't have "Press here to stop". The horn doesn't have "Press me if the big light outside is green but the aluminium box with wheels in front of you is stationary"

If you lower your standards to silly degrees, people will mill around that lower standard. I've seen tertiary students reach for the calculator to find out what 3 x 0.2 is, simply because they can get away with not putting in _any_ effort. Naives that need more help should get specialised help to get them over the hump - normal users shouldn't have to deal with UX chaff just on the off chance some random person might choose one day to pick up a computer and try to learn it without asking anyone for any help.

No-one learns to drive all by themselves. Or cook. Or read. Or dress themselves. Would we really want pants to come with a permanently attached set of instructions on how to wear them, just in case someone who always wore skirts might one day try pants on a whim?

A UI should be constructed for a userbase, and the "have never used a computer before, ever, but am trying right now and will only do this on my own" demographic for search engines is miniscule. One wonders how such a person can get to the search engine in the first place - it's certainly not like Duck Duck Go is the default homepage for any browser.

<comment><USER56> Yet our current UIs assume you are familiar with the previous UI, and that one depended upon the one before.

Early automobile-carriages (cars) had reins! So you could operate them like a horse! But fortunately smarter people invented more direct controls suitable for operating engines.

Example: the Save button looks like a floppy. WTF?

I think there is room for a UI that is direct, not a baroque collage of every UI that came before.

<comment><USER24> _Example: the Save button looks like a floppy. WTF?_

A bit of an off-topic: the real WTF for me is that there is such a thing as a save button. I cannot fathom that most software requires us to perform an ancient ritual lest they throw away our hard work.

<comment><USER23> Both with essays and coding, there've been times when I was very grateful that there was a fixed moment in the document's life that I could easily go back to. Sometimes I start making changes and then think better of it[1]. Sometimes I edit something accidentally, and am very relieved that I'm asked whether I want to save my changes upon exiting the program. A possible solution is to have both normal saving and continuous autosaving to a backup file (as Word, Vim, etc. all do), but in practice that's a bit clunky.

[1] - Yes, I could hit the undo button repeatedly, since any editor worth its salt will have a virtually-unlimited undo. But it's reassuring to know that you've undo-ed to exactly the right point--in Vim, at least, the "+" indicating a modified file disappears once you've undone all your changes.

<comment><USER24> Yeah, working with code is interesting because a source file is rarely in a "stable" state when it is being edited. The save button in this case serves as a checkpoint marker: "this here is good." It's like doing mini-commits.

If we were to do away with the save button, the rest of the "working with files" story would have to be thoroughly rethought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> The problem is thinking that the metaphors we use are actually descriptive to outsiders.

There is no such thing as an intuitive interface that isn't learned.

I had the same encounter with my mom and although she had used a computer before the experience was just as crazy.

[http://000fff.org/anatomy-of-a-noob-why-your-mom-suck-at- com...](http://000fff.org/anatomy-of-a-noob-why-your-mom-suck-at-computers/)

Here is an excerpt from the conversation.

<comment><USER34> Good story. And guiding another person per phone around a computer is incredibly frustrating.

But it shows why the Macintosh had in the 80s/90s no hidden context menus and only one mouse button (which is still mocked today). The difference between right and left click (which is really primary and secondary click) was really difficult to grasp.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I remember the early days of my parents

"Click on the ok button" "I don't see it (x5)" "There is a gray rectangle with OK written on it, is that the OK button?"

"Double click on the icon... no click twice... yeah, like this but faster... faster... no slower than that..."

Really, its like when learning a new programming language, you just need a motivator. My mom learned it to build a genealogy tree and my dad now plays card games online.

<comment><USER58> Try to explain to them that the first click didn't count because the form didn't have focus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Would you treat a customer this way?

During the interview Joe was "stressed," "taxed," "frustrated," and "confused." He was asked to try and fail to do things the author already knew he wouldn't be able to do. Repeatedly. The author was _surprised_ that he would take failures personally, and described ending the interview as "cut[ting] Joe a break."

Really very generous, to cut Joe a break from the interview he volunteered for.

There is a serious lack of empathy on display in this post. Joe deserves an apology.

<comment><USER60> He wasn't working with a child, he was interviewing an adult who was free to leave at any time. Learning new things can be difficult. If anything Joe probably came away from this having learned something new (and is now able to receive discounts from one of his favorite restaurants). There's no reason to infantilize Joe.

<comment><USER59> I'm saying that if someone volunteers their time to help you, they deserve the same respect that you would give a client. I don't think that's infantilizing anyone.

But you're ignoring the most important part of my post.

If Joe had hired you to do an important job, and you needed the information the OP collected to get that job done, would you have gotten that information the way the OP did?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I think there are two lessons to take away from this.

First, the mall can be a great place to do user testing, if you want to reach a broad audience. Except that I would imagine that you get more male participants, because they are waiting for their female partners more then the other way around.

Second, you need to test with your actual target audience. For Mozilla that is at least people who know how to use a computer to some degree.

</comment><comment><USER62> This reminds me of those Burger King "Whopper Virgins" commercials where they tested BK and McDonald's hamburgers in remote places where no one had ever heard of either restaurant before.

It's entertaining and an interesting experiment, but I'm not sure how much it can really teach us about design for 99% of people who will be using the product.

</comment><comment><USER30> For some statistics: 2,095,006,005 or 30.2 % of the world are Internet users.

<http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm>

I couldn't find any statistics on computer use, so the number is likely higher.

<comment><USER9> "penetration", as I understand it, merely means the number of people who can access the internet if they so choose. For example, have a phone line through which they have access to dial-up. I don't believe it actually indicates the number of users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Reminds me of <http://xkcd.com/627/>

</comment><comment><USER63> I applaud the author for doing this sort of user testing. Instead of getting a focus group to come to you, bring your test to them. Besides the mall, you might have fun trying this out at your local museum as well.

</comment><comment><USER64> Reminds of finding a tribe that has never been in contact with other humans. The importance of the internet really becomes clear when reading about people who've never tried it.

</comment><comment><USER65> It strikes me that my parents could make an absolute mint volunteering for user testing.

</comment><comment><USER66> Now I went looking for the "Nightly Help" item in my browser, but I guess it only applies if you have installed a nightly build.

</comment><comment><USER67> I have several projects atm and feel a bit stressed. In my experience, laughter will help in these situations and reading about Joe's first experience with IE really made my day:

Joe: "I don't know what anything means." (Joe reads the text on IE and clicks on "Suggested Sites")

Me: "Why did you click on that?"

Joe: "I don't really know what to do, so I thought this would suggest something to me."

(Joe reads a notification that there are no suggestions because the current site is private)

Joe: "I guess not."

\</comment><comment>----

To clarify: I was laughing at our industry as a whole that expects users to be computer literate to the point where ppl like Joe have to struggle really hard to get even the most basic thing done.</comment>


Giant pumice stone floating in the Pacific could help heal Great Barrier Reef - <AUTHOR> https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/25/asia/pumice-stone-underwater-volcano-great-barrier-reef-intl/index.html <comment><AUTHOR> Actually not a giant pumice stone but a raft of small ones. Nonetheless:

 _research ... following a similar underwater volcanic event found that pumice rafts are one way that the ocean can redistribute diverse sea life_</comment>


IndexTank, a New Startup Offers Hosted Search as a Service - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2011/02/15/indextank/

<comment><USER2> I use IndexTank for my startup(pilarhq.com), and search is the single most important thing for us. Seriously, IndexTank is terrific. Not only is their product pretty fast and provides great search which you can integrate in your app in a matter of minutes, but their support is AMAZING.

In fact, I've tweeted TWICE about how great their support is. They've seriously walked me through each step with various code samples and have resolved all my issues within a couple of hours....I have only great things to say about them.

</comment><comment><USER3> We've (Gazaro - <http://www.gazaro.com>) started to use IndexTank recently and I have nothing but good things to say about Diego and his staff. Their service is super easy to work with, it's fast and reliable. We've had a couple of problems but they've been there helping us every step of the way.

Search is not easy (or at the very least time consuming to implement properly) so if you're looking for a fast scalable solution I'd recommend having a look at IndexTank.

</comment><comment><USER4> The reason why IndexTank is probably so palatable to people is that it's somewhat of an arcane art to setup and scale Solr. There are other reasons to outsource search (and the Wordpress plugin looks pretty sweet for non- techies), but if dread towards configuring a search engine is the only thing that's holding your company back from keeping search in-house, you'd do well to take a look at ElasticSearch. Lucene-based like Solr, but set-and-forget for most purposes.

Just sayin'.

</comment><comment><USER5> Intriguing -- and more evidence that a lot of startups and investors see the search market as once again being in play :-)

</comment><comment><USER6> By the way the case study on the site about how redit fixed their search is very well written and interesting. Good sample for a case study: [http://indextank.com/_static/papers/IndexTank%20Reddit%20Cas...](http://indextank.com/_static/papers/IndexTank%20Reddit%20Case%20Study.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER7> Congratulations Diego. You're doing such a great job with IndexTank. I hope the funding will expand the free plan so we can test it further, right? ;)

</comment><comment><USER8> new? They've been powering search on reddit for a while now...

<comment><USER9> Yes, I guess it's all relative. We are new to most people who have never heard of us :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Congrats! Diego.</comment>


A Surprisingly Hard Problem (Post Correspondence) - <AUTHOR> http://www.loopycode.com/a-surprisingly-hard-problem-post-correspondence/

<comment><USER2> It doesn't seem so surprising to me. The naive solution is of course to just try out all possibilities. As there are an infinite number of such, it will take infinite time.

So the first thing which comes to my mind: This is unsolveable unless there is some tricky way to reduce the problem somehow to a simpler (finite) one.

As it was proven, there is no such way in this case.

<comment><USER3> For the two examples they gave, though, there are tricks you can use to greatly reduce the number of possibilities. If the top and bottom strings are to be the same, then the number of a's in the top must match the number of a's in the bottom, and same for the b's.

Looking at a, the first tile has an excess of one a in the bottom, as does the second tile. The third tile has an excess of one a in the top. Hence, we can conclude that half the tiles in any solution must be the third. Looking at b, the first tile has an excess b in the bottom, the second has an excess b in the top, and the third is balanced. Hence, the first tile and the second tile must be used in equal numbers.

For the second example, with just two tiles (a/baa and ab/aa), note that each tile introduces an excess a in the bottom, and so it is immediate that there is no possible solution.

So, just by a counting argument in th second example, we've reduced the number of possibilities we need to exam to zero. For the first example, the counting argument doesn't eliminate the possiblity of a solution, but at least gives us some information about the distribution of tiles in any possible solution (1/4 #1, 1/4 #2, 1/2 #3).

For some sets, you can also use counting arguments on the length of strings on the tiles. For the second exampl, not that the first tile makes the bottom string longer by 3 and the top string longer by 1. The second tile extends both strings equally. Hence, any solution must consist entirely of repitions of the second tile, or the strings won't come out the same length. But the top and bottom strings aren't the same on #2, so that won't work. No solution is possible.

The second trick is to realize that in any solution, if you take the first N tiles, then either the two strings must be the same, or one of them must be a prefix of the other and the smaller string must continue with a tile that continues to match the other string. For many sets of tiles, this is a severe constraint.

For example #1, consider the first tile. The only tile for which one string is a prefix of the other is #3. Any solution must start with that tile, giving us the strings bba/bb. The second solution tile must start with an a in the bottom. Only tile #2 can provide that, giving us bbaab/bbaa. The third solution tile needs to start with a b in the top. Only #3 fits, giving bbaabbba/bbaabb. Now we need a ba in the bottom to continue matching, and only #1 provides that, giving is bbaabbbaa/bbaabbbaa, which is a solution.

I think this is what makes this problem interesting. For many tile sets, it will be easy to come up with a solution, because that prefix requirement as you extend the proposed solution will eliminate many possibilities. After you find out that this doesn't always work, the question arises under what circumstances IS the problem always solvable. Wikipedia says that if you only have two different kinds of tile, it is solvable. If you have 7 or more, it is undecidable. If you have 3 to 6, it is not known if it is decidable or not. Another intesting question would be given a random set of tiles chosen from some predefined distribution, what is the probability that the problem is solvable for that particular tile set?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _"It seems magical to me that some problems can never be solved by an algorithm."_

It always amazes me how autistic computer scientists are. But nice article.

<comment><USER5> "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss other people."</comment></comment>


A Hacked Tape Gun That Allows You to Create 3D Drawings in Real Space - <AUTHOR> https://beautifuldecay.com/2015/11/10/hacked-tape-gun-allows-create-3d-drawings-real-space/ <comment><AUTHOR> Do watch the video, which shows it nicely. While they start by concentrating on perhaps suboptimal household 'uses', this appears to be something useful.

<comment><USER2> >While they start by concentrating on perhaps suboptimal household 'uses',

They're showing its use as a design tool, so that you can see how something will fit into a space before you put it there. The point is that you can draw out that couch and desk to see if it looks good, or maybe move it around in real-space to see how it looks.

It's cool but it also makes me excited for AR kit like Hololens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Posted a few times: [https://hn.algolia.com/?query=protopiper&sort=byDate&dateRan...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=protopiper&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best Design Mockup tools? - <AUTHOR> Looking for a tool to build mockups for websites and iPhone/iPad apps. Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> Balsamiq offers both site and iX mock-up items:

<http://balsamiq.com/products/mockups>

</comment><comment><USER3> Take a look at WireframeSketcher. It's an Eclipse plugin for Eclipse, Aptana and other Eclipse-based IDEs. There is a Mockups Gallery website with templates for iPad and iPhone apps that you can make use of.

<http://wireframesketcher.com>

</comment><comment><USER4> I have been looking at mockflow as something I want people here to use instead of a scribbled, stapled pieces of paper.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you prefer working on an iPad check out: iMockups or Keynote Wireframe Toolkit

</comment><comment><USER6> Pen & Paper! BEST OF BEST</comment>


Collection of best practices for front end devs - <AUTHOR> http://molecularvoices.molecular.com/standards/

<comment><USER2> I still, after many years, do not understand why so many developers insist on using spaces instead of tabs for indenting code.</comment>


Show HN: Turn Google Slides in GIFs and Videos - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/creator-studio/haelahoanepkefienbgepgecnbkfeino <comment><AUTHOR> Tutorial: [https://youtu.be/f_3hHIgnlYY](https://youtu.be/f_3hHIgnlYY)

Unlike Microsoft PowerPoint, Google Slides doesn't offer a native option to save presentations as videos.

Creator Studio adds new export capabilities to your Google Slides and you'll be able to download your decks as animated GIFs, image sequences and HD video (with audio).

<comment><USER2> This is a great addon, Thanks for creating it.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Natural Language Generation, Emoji-To-English Translator - <AUTHOR> http://decodemoji.com/ <comment><USER2> Love the idea!

I am disagreeing with the way that you make ownership happen in some kind of RTL fashion. I think that you could get more milage out of a SUBJECT -> VERB -> OBJECT skeleton.

I'm curious what emoji sentences you tested yourself and thought that the translator made sense based on what you intended

</comment><comment><USER3> This is quite... unimpressive... None of the sentences really make sense, or at least form any "likely" sentence.

<comment><USER4> Well, it's trying to make sense of something that most likely doesn't mean anything

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The meaning of emojis are generally pretty ambiguous so not all sentences will make sense because the emojis themselves don't make sense.

There's definitely some syntactic constraints (picks one emoji for the predicate?) when decoding.

In any case, I think it's fun.

-> The loud and alarming infant drives a police car. -> Santa takes a dump on Santa. -> The ogre feeds cheese to the evil creature. -> The prawns become gluten-free. 🇯🇵🇰🇷 -> Japan infuriates South Korea.

*edit: darn, emojis don't get parsed well here.

</comment><comment><USER6> A novel, and somewhat entertaining experiment. Though probably no practical use.

It explains this: [ok hand][fries][burger][silverware]

As: "The OK gesture shares fries with the silver cheeseburger."

Made my day though.

</comment><comment><USER7> I am not sure what the purpose of this is. My experience with emojis has been people will hit a bunch of them to emphasize something. When seeing a bunch of the same emoji next to each other your application seems to try to interpret them all as having separate meanings.

Also, just simple ones don't make sense. Like a robot next to a heart eyes guy. One would assume it would be like I love robots or something but instead I got "The robot is infatuated" switching it around to be the heart eyes guy and then a robot returns "The lovestruck robot passes time". Neither make sense for what I'd use the emoji for.

Lastly, half of the time, the inserted emoji shows up as just a box instead of the actual character. It's strange that it seems to be intermittent.

I'm with @personjerry. This is kind of unimpressive...

Also, :tongue: :mouth: returns "The mouth becomes licking." I don't even know what that would mean. I would use the 2 to represent that I'm licking my lips.

<comment><USER8> I don't think this is so much a translator as a story writer. At least that's the only way the decodings made sense to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> For fun, try decoding sequences of the "police" emoji of varying length. :D

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sen...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sentences)

</comment><comment><USER10> very happy with the result of my first test:

[https://imgur.com/VbJddGr](https://imgur.com/VbJddGr)

edit: https

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for trying and leaving feedback. The purpose of this was to be able to generate grammatically correct and humorous interpretations out of any number and combination of emojis.

And yup, you can hit the decode button as many times as you want, you'll get a different interpretation each time.

English -> Emoji coming soon

<comment><USER5> It's really interesting how English -> Emoji doesn't get criticized as much as Emoji -> English.

Compare to Dango: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11870283](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11870283)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Decoding the same set of emoji multiple times gives multiple translations!

</comment><comment><USER12> I feel like (a good version of) this is the logical conclusion of progress in machine intelligence...</comment>


Google Chrome Update Damages macOS File System - <AUTHOR> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/google-chrome-damages-macos-file-system,40473.html <comment><USER2> Main discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21064663](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21064663)

</comment><comment><USER3> So... SIP is working as intended?

<comment><USER4> Many people do not use SIP.

<comment><USER5> Do you have statistics? My perception is the opposite.

<comment><USER4> Not directly, but anyone with a Hackintosh (modified PC running Mac OS) must have it disabled, and a fair number of pro users disable it for various purposes.

<comment><USER6> JFYI you can have SIP enabled on a hackintosh if you use clover to inject kexts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What was the update doing that trashed /var?

<comment><USER8> That is a good question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hackintosh killer?

<comment><USER9> I wonder why the downvotes. Hackintoshes generally have SIP disabled. Maybe all those video editing workstations were hackintosh machines.

There's very little reason to disable SIP otherwise, unless such "damage" was performed by some specialized software.

I didn't mean "google is intentionally killing hackintosh systems".

<comment><USER10> > _There 's very little reason to disable SIP otherwise_

This…is not true. It's not just Hackintoshes, it's ANY hardware that lacks a SIP-compliant driver. Avid editors use a lot of hardware, hence frequently MUST disable SIP.

But sure: blame the user.

<comment><USER9> No blame. Just curiosity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Reminder about this insanely prophetic comment on the original post: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21057937](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21057937)

<comment><USER12> How is that prophetic?

<comment><USER11> Everyone in Hollywood was convinced it was Avid. Turns out, it was actually Chrome.</comment></comment></comment>


Founders helping Founders (Potential?) - <AUTHOR>

Are startup founders interested in helping one another validate or bring awareness to their infant-level startups and ideas?
We've release an alpha version of our web app (http://www.qStartupApp.com/) and want to get the your thoughts on our concept.
Right now we simply need more startups to join to get the system going. We've gotten some advice from Dana Severson (Founder/Wahooly) and he thinks it is logical and has growth potential.
Weigh in if you'd like - thanks!
http://www.qstartupapp.com http://twitter.com/qstartupapp http://angel.co/qstartup <comment><USER2> Hey, I'd say this is a brilliant idea; we are already doing this ~ founders network is 1 year old and our tagline is in fact, "founders helping founders" tm. :) Check us out: www.foundersnetwork.com Cheers, Kevin

<comment><USER2> Correction, the only thing that was the same was the tagline. Nice app. Looks really useful.

<comment><USER3> Very cool Kevin! I just checked out the site. I think with sites like qstartupapp.com (I am biased I helped work on it :)) and companies Founders Network, people with ideas can get through the feedback loop even faster. As I am sure all of us have learned this journey can be discouraging at times and having some help does work wonders.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Hashnode – A network for software developers to learn and grow - <AUTHOR> https://hashnode.com/ <comment><USER2> Co-Founder here.

Hashnode is a place for software developers to hang out and talk programming. Rather than focusing on bugs and issues, Hashnode lets you ask opinion based questions. We want to help beginners / intermediate developers connect with experts and get helpful feedback for their projects.

Super excited to know what you guys think of Hashnode. We would love to have your feedbacks/suggestions. :)

We're also Hunted on Product Hunt today. [https://www.producthunt.com/tech/](https://www.producthunt.com/tech/)

</comment><comment><USER3> What are the advantages compared to:

\- [https://programmers.stackexchange.com/](https://programmers.stackexchange.com/)

\- [https://stackoverflow.com/](https://stackoverflow.com/)

\- [https://www.quora.com/](https://www.quora.com/)

<comment><USER4> Judging from the description I guess the main difference is that hashnode is open to more open-ended questions and opionated discussions where there is no single valid answer.

Let's hope this won't become a battlefield of endless flamewars and we'll see some quality discussions comparable to the ancient c2 wiki instead.</comment></comment>


RK-1 | a wifi Arduino mobile robot for iOS & Android devices - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mymobilerobots/rk-1-a-wifi-arduino-mobile-robot-for-ios-and-andro

<comment><AUTHOR> please support the project! More details about the robot can be found on TechCrunch: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/the-rk-1-is-an-arduino- base...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/06/the-rk-1-is-an-arduino-based-mobile- robot-you-control-with-smartphone-swipes&#x2F);

Or on RK-1's website: [http://mymobilerobots.com/rk1](http://mymobilerobots.com/rk1)</comment>


Show HN: Simple web app for teams - <AUTHOR> https://vimeo.com/87337303

<comment><USER2> How is it different than, say, Basecamp?

<comment><USER3> This app is much simpler and cleaner than Basecamp. It has a great mix of features - I really like the kanban board, achievements and time counter.</comment></comment>


A "Web Dashboard" I am working on.... - <AUTHOR> http://www.xqoob.com/dragresize/dragresize_g.html <comment><USER2> I really don't understand why you've gotten nothing but positive comments on this. This is not an original idea. If I'm wrong, what is original about it? For the use case you describe, having a saved set of Firefox tabs would do a far better job.

Let's say you do come up with some new twist on the whole web desktop thing. There is absolutely no technological barrier to entry for that market. Any of the existing products can add on your differentiating feature in a week, and then crush you.

If you're working on this as a neat hack, I'm all for it, but if you think this is going to turn into a viable business somehow, I think you're probably mistaken.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> My ultimate vision is to be able to take information from one window and combine it with info from another to create unique information sets (see how I avoid the term mashup?!).

What you may have missed is the small tab in the top right - clicking on this gives you a set of scrollers with which you scroll the page to a desired area and save that position, so like I said before you could navigate to the yahoo finance page scroll to where they show a graph of a share price and save that coordinate.

Save the layout and everytime you log on and view your regular pages for your info fix it becomes a lot easier/faster.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> natrius

you say a saved set of firefox tabs would work better but would you be able to access that from another machine other than your own?

Also I am not saying my idea is original - very few are nowadays; what I am trying to achieve is something that is "better" - easy to use, more functional, accessible, and more importantly has potential to evolve into something greater.

I realise that the only barrier for entry at the moment is lack of technical expertise (which isn't huge at all), but surely if that isn't any form of barrier why don't a bunch of guys from this forum group up together apply their collective technical knowledge and build a google killer?! - you make it sound as though a technological barrier to entry is no barrier at all.

I do not see this as my defining piece of work that will make me millions - that is exactly why I haven't jacked in my day job and pursued this full-time.

I'll be succinct on my motives for doing this:-

a) My day job as an IT consultant isn't rewarding/challenging enough

b) I don't want to join the rat race and not be able to pursue my interests due to financial burdens, ie mortgage, family, etc

c) There's no point in me dreaming up ideas in my head, messing around on my pc if I'm never going to publish it in the real world - however good/bad

d) most people never make it big with their first idea - I expect it to fail.

e) This is more of a learning process on how to get something out there, than on creating a money spinner.

At this moment in time, yes I regard this as more of a hack than a viable business solution, more precisely an experimentation of a concept.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> thanks.

Yes kind of, I first had the idea over a year ago, when I realised everytime I log on I visit the same few sites to do web-housekeeping stuff first (news, email, share-prices, etc) before I would do what I initially logged on to do. I thought it would be great to have all this at my fingertips in one place.

But it had to be easily accessible, from any machine, therefore browser-based not a desktop app, applet or anything else. I've tried to keep it really simple and focus on the technical issues to see if the idea is feasible. Therefore I'm resisting the urge to over-engineer it as much as possible (technology lust I think you call it!).

Yes netvibes, yahoo pipes, and others would be competitors I guess. But the problem with netvibes I find is that it is time intensive to set up, and you can only access "adapted content",

I want something that is easy to use and therefore accessible. more importantly be able to incorporate any kind of information published on the web (text,audio,video,graphics) regardless of whether it is an rss/atom feed or available in xml format.

I've only shown/talked about my idea to a handful of people thought I would get some wider feedback even at the risk of divulging my 'big idea'!

What are you working on if you don't mind me asking?

<comment><USER3> We're in stealth mode so we're not saying a whole bunch right now about the product itself. Technically though we're building a portal for our users. We then have different kinds of content and actions they can do from the portal. I've been modeling after Netvibes/Pageflakes/etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The idea is one step better than tabs if you can manage to get enough of the pages into each window so users can see the content. Then they should be able to click and blow up each into a full size window. What about performance? I may want to have a dozen sites on my homepage.

I know little about mobile websites, but isn't their content stripped down? Just looked at m.yahoo.com for the first time.

Good luck taking on the tabs.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> hi

an idea I've had for a while now - a web dashboard/web portal. This is very much work in progress, but the idea is that you add windows to the dashboard from the toolbox. You set the URL and size/position of the window. Each window points to a different site, and then you save the layout.

This then acts as your homepage or portal to the web where you can view your favourite/common sites at a glance. For example if you are an amateur investor with a small portfolio you can have windows to yahoo finance and get share prices/graphs of you stock. If you're a YouTube-aholic your fave videos are all laid out on one dashboard. Once saved anyone could then access it with a fixed url.

I'm moonlighting on this, lots of techy issues to resolve still but what do you reckon?

PS. to mess around with it click to top icon in the tool box to create a window enter url, drag and resize windows to create your dashboard (text boxes buttons at the top are not in use!).

Thanks <AUTHOR>
</comment><comment><USER3> Looks really good so far. We're doing something similar with our product, but for a different audience.

Do you see yourself competing with Netvibes et al?</comment>


Petition Urges Trader Joe's to Get Rid of 'Racist Branding' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/19/business/trader-joes-petition.html <comment><USER2> > "They're racist because they exoticize other cultures, present 'Joe' as this > default normal, and then the other characters — such as Thai Joe, Trader > José, Trader Joe San — falling outside of it,"

I'm confused. "Trader Joe" and "Trader José" both follow the "Trader <common name from country of origin>" pattern. So why is one "presenting as this default normal" while the other is "exoticizing"?

<comment><USER3> Logic is not required; all that is required is the accusation of racism.</comment></comment>


3-D Printing's Legal Morass - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/design/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/ <comment><USER3> If you view 3D printing as a baby-step to Trek-like replicator technology^, then you may see that its more of a moral imperative that 3D printing technology become as cheap and elaborate as possible, as quickly as possible.

The only bottleneck to providing material objects for free or next to free should be in finding raw materials that can be printed out, and as a start, there's lots of that filling up the world's landfills.

Where sharing music and movies was pretty much zero real gain for file-sharers (you can live without the latest Lady Gaga album or Transformer movie), having access to super cheap _working_ replicas of things like refrigerators, water purifiers, clothing, house-building materials, etc., can dramatically affect countless lives, especially in developing countries.

The rug absolutely must be pulled out from under the feet of the manner in which material objects are created and distributed, hopefully diminishing the number of have-nots in the world.

^ Not necessarily real energy->matter conversion, but something nearly as cheap and elaborate.

<comment><USER4> > If you view 3D printing as a baby-step to Trek-like replicator technology^, > then you may see that its more of a moral imperative that 3D printing > technology become as cheap and elaborate as possible, as quickly as > possible.

Nah, that's faith-speak. We don't have any idea if this technology will go much further beyond what is currently possible. This could be the "flying car" of the next 100 years that never fulfills its promise.

While you declare it a "moral imperative" and we bend all laws and societal rules to accomodate it, what suffers? What great technologies and solutions are killed because you (and other true believers) have decided that this is the thing we should all worship and sacrifice everything to achieve? What of our liberties go away because you have a vision?

3D printing is very cool and I see great things coming from it, but it's not Star Trek. It's not Star Wars. It's not the Matrix. It is what it is and we'll see where it goes. In the meantime, my interest is in protecting the free market principles that have consistently created the greatest good for the most people. That means respecting some level of Intellectual Property rights in other markets and not just steam-rolling some game-making company because a guy with a 3D printer wants to use this humanity-saving tool to print out some versions of legally trademarked action figures.

<comment><USER5> >This could be the "flying car" of the next 100 years that never fulfills its promise.

Although I understand your point here, I thought I'd point out that this is a weak analogy because the problem with the flying car isn't that it's not technologically possible (it is, relatively trivially these days in fact) the problem is that it's a stupid idea. People have bad enough accidents when dealing with the two dimensions on a road, there's no way to make the technology safe enough to achieve the kind of market penetration the traditional automobile has. Without that the market forces for scaling the infrastructure necessary to produce and maintain such a 'fleet' don't exist.

>While you declare it a "moral imperative" and we bend all laws and societal rules to accommodate it, what suffers?

Those that want to continue to rely on a market model that is obsoleted by shifting the means of productions to individuals.

>What great technologies and solutions are killed

Those that are not pursued because there is not enough money in them under the new system. As opposed to those that are not pursued because there is not enough money in them in the existing system.

>What of our liberties go away because you have a vision?

The ability to make a bet that your creative work will be a success without the danger of someone in a better position to make money from the idea doing so. In fact we are already seeing the beginnings of a return to the modes of commerce prior to intellectual property laws such as an artisan being commissioned ahead of time to produce something by way of tools like Kickstarter which finally attempt to solve the discrepancy between our ability to produce and distribute and our ability to communicate.

>my interest is in protecting the free market principles that have consistently created the greatest good for the most people

My interest is in creating even greater good for even more people. Now, I'm not so arrogant to claim I know these new modes of commerce are better outright, I'm just saying that we don't actually know and we should give them their fair shot. Why should we settle when we could do even better?

wow did I get off topic and start ranting or what?

<comment><USER4> > Those that want to continue to rely on a market model that is obsoleted by > shifting the means of productions to individuals.

That's a huge and unfounded assumption, both on where this technology is going and on its impact on society.

For the foreseeable future, 3D printing only reshapes raw materials. It doesn't create matter from energy. It doesn't transmute elements. It will allow people with the means to purchase 3D printers and the raw materials the ability to print new forms of those raw materials. It will be really neat to see what people do with them, but it's kind of like saying that Home Depot should have eliminated capitalism since it gave the means of production to many individuals who didn't have it before.

Plus, you have to remember that the "means of production" is a moving target since what people need to produce is relative. As the 3D printer is able to create some base consumer goods, people will find new "needs". In Africa, people talk about food as a "need". In Western countries, people talk about access to the Internet as a "need". As some base needs are taken care of through technology, more will open up. There will always be new ways for industrious individuals to satisfy wants and needs through entrepreneurialism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I get depressed whenever I read about these people who get bitten by the DMCA and then don't do the 5 minutes of internet research needed to figure out how to fight it.

It sounds to me like this guy had a clear case of DMCA abuse. If he designed the models himself, from scratch, then the best claim Games Workshop could have against him would be trademark infringement, and that's not what the DMCA is for. Therefore, all he has to do is send Thingiverse a counter-notification and, unless Games Workshop files a lawsuit (which they almost certainly won't), Thingiverse will restore the content in 14 days (they are _required_ to do this in order to receive safe harbor protection under the DMCA).

Chilling Effects even has a page for automatically generating these counter- notifications, so there's really no excuse for not protecting yourself from abuse: <http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf>

<comment><USER7> I think it would be useful to see the his models and relevant GW models side- by-side to assess whether any similarities are present. He has obviously had sight of GW models which would allow GW to argue a form of copying has taken place.

Also, contrast this story with the outcry over EA's alleged copying of GW models albeit digitally.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/s4s7f/tank_in_new_cc...](http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/s4s7f/tank_in_new_cc_mmo_is_a_baneblade_from_40k/)

<comment><USER8> _I think it would be useful to see the his models and relevant GW models side- by-side to assess whether any similarities are present. He has obviously had sight of GW models which would allow GW to argue a form of copying has taken place._

You probably should read the article. Even if there were similarities it wouldn't matter.

Physical objects can be protected by (normal) patents, which protect physical functionality or design patents[1]. Even if GW did have a design patent (which is fairly rare) then it would only protect against identical copies. The standard of proof for design patent violation is that the new object could be mistaken as the original (not "has some similar features"), so provided they weren't copies of GW models then he was probably safe.

The article says "so Valenty decided to design a couple of his own Warhammer- style figurines: a two-legged war mecha and a tank", which sounds to me like he was on very safe grounds.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent>

<comment><USER6> The article tries to imply that 3D designs cannot be copyrighted, but this is incorrect. If the design is _functional_ , it cannot be copyrighted, but if it is a work of art, it is still protected by copyright. So if you carve a statue, and I make and distribute copies of that statue without your permission, I am violating your copyright. If I alter your design, but copy substantial portions in a way that does not constitute fair use, I am also violating your copyright by producing a derivative work.

In contrast, design patents only apply to _functional_ items. The classic example is the Coca-Cola bottle. Coke's patent on that is not on the invention of a bottle, or on a useless bauble, but on the ornamental design of a functional item. If the bottle were not intended to hold liquid, but were just a pretty object, it _would_ be eligible for copyright, but not a design patent.

I think it would be hard to argue that Warhammer miniatures are functional items. Rather, they are non-functional works of art, and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of copyright. So if you make your own figures based sufficiently on those made by GW, you are creating a derivative work, and violating their copyright.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This may be a storm in a teacup. 3D printing doesn't make sense for mass manufacturing, nor in the possible future lest for at least one order of magnitude increase in speed and cost of raw materials. We're still talking of hours to build a small figurine and $50/kg in material prices. If we move out of plastic and into metal, the process is again 100 times slower (or very energy intensive) and the machines are priced in multiples of $100K.

<comment><USER10> This is dangerous thinking, IMO. Look at where we are with other media (music and movies).

Years ago, the same thinking was applied to music and movies. "Well, this isn't a big problem, because duplicating the content is expensive and time consuming." The technology advanced, and now copying digital goods is very nearly free from a time and money standpoint. Should we wait for things to get as sideways as they are with music and movies before we put some weight behind reform?

<comment><USER11> The difference is that music and movies can be translated into digital format, which makes copying effectively free. 3D printing is physical, not digital. Every copy you make will require raw materials and will cause wear and tear on the printer. That creates costs.

Those costs will probably come down over time, of course, but nowhere near as fast as the cost of digital duplication has. The price of plastic doesn't obey Moore's Law.

<comment><USER12> Music and movies used to only be available on physical media until internet connections became quick enough to be able to download files from geographically anywhere.

One could say the same for CD/DVD/Blu-Ray burners...one needs energy to run the burner and a laser to inscribe the data onto the physical media.

I think the same logic applies to 3-D printers.

<comment><USER13> _I think the same logic applies to 3-D printers._

How? In the one case, you have a situation where it is no longer necessary to have (or produce) the "thing" in order to use it. That is to say that you no longer need the CD/DVD or other physical medium in order to use the bits they carried.

Printed (or otherwise rapidly prototyped) physical artifacts are quite a different thing. Having the 3D model or CNC cutting paths of a physical thing is in no way equal, or even equivalent, to having the thing itself. If the time and cost involved in making a replica is greater than the time and cost of popping down to the shop to pick up the genuine article or of ordering it online and waiting for delivery, then printing's not at all cost-effective.

That's not to say that 3D printing (or subtractive RP) has no utility at all. One of its advantages is that it can be used as a relatively cheap substitute for maintaining parts inventories over extended periods of time—but only for some types of parts. And it is a good way of distributing low-volume decorative works, since the print price is not much higher than the per-unit price of low-volume tooling. (Or at least it will be when the resolution is sufficiently high, since most users are not likely to want to spend a lot of time chasing and filleting their print results.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A fine example of a headline editor stating one thing ("morass!") and the author stating another ("probably no morass right now, but in a corrupt congress, that could change.")

<comment><USER15> It is a legal morass, we just are only on the edges of it now.

The 3D printing battle will be bloodier than the digital copying battle, precisely because there is much more to lose.

<comment><USER16> I have my doubts. I think there's more money in selling copyrighted content than in selling the fairly narrow range of products that can be produced with a 3D printer.

Looking around the room right now, the number of objects here that could be cranked out with any 3D printer is pretty darn small. For those that could, I doubt it would be any cheaper for me to 3D-print the darn thing, even if I already had the 3D printer, than it was for me to buy the real mass-produced deal.

The article's example of "little figurines" is the only example I can think of, and the little figurine industry isn't large compared to music or movies.

<comment><USER17> The range of products that can be produced with a 3D printer today may be significantly smaller than the range of products that can be produced with a 3D printer in X years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article suggests that it is preferable to have an action under patent infringement rather than under copyright infringement because patents expire.

I think this is a gross over-simplification of the matter as if I were advising a manufacturer I would prefer to go down the route of copyright infringement as it would be a cheaper option than full-scale patent litigation.

Although this would be with the slight caveat that copyright infringement requires evidence of actual copying and will not succeed if independent creation can be shown.

I think it essentially still boils down to whether copying in this instance has actually taken place. In the instant case, I would love to see a comparison of the Games Workshop creations and the third party's creations. My guess is the third party works were inspired by GW rather than being substantially the same. In any event, it seems heavy handed of GW.

I would say overall that patent references are a red herring. In the instant case, GW will not hold a patent over each of the models of course. The focus on 3-D printing is interesting, but again it boils down to whether copying has taken place.

I would also add that under UK law, this would also be potentially dealt with under design rights law where protection is far more limited. In fact, because of mass production nature of the models, a claim would have to based on design right law rather than copyright, as they would not qualify as sculptures in my view.

</comment><comment><USER18> We've been thru all these battles before. Look for the viable/profitable solutions already achieved.

How long to "iTunes Match" for MakerBot et al? 3D-scan all your stuff, your rough scan is "matched" to an existing high-res model on an all-licensing- settled server, so you can download and "print" all the copies you want for private use.

<comment><USER19> > so you can _buy_ , download and "print".

If we're already scanning it, why not just replicate the original?

<comment><USER7> I believe in the same way as iTunes Match works, you would be legitimising your own creations to ensure that they were free from potential infringement actions.

<comment><USER20> Printing for your own use is non-infringing anyway, and a 3d model of an object is effectively a drawing of it and so therefore the creator of the drawing holds the copyright, not the holder of any patent of the object. Copyrights can be infringed, but only where there is copyrighted detail, which is usually only an issue for things like toys and fashion.

<comment><USER7> > Printing for your own use is non-infringing

This may be true in relation to fair use/fair dealing exceptions, but not as a general statement.

> 3D model is effectively a drawing of it

They may hold the copyright in it, but it can still infringes a pre-existing third party design right.

> Copyrights can be infringed, but only where there is copyrighted detail

I don't understand what you mean by this. If something attracts the protection of copyright, it will be infringed if the usual tests are satisfied - <USER2> does 'copyrighted detail' come into it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> For more details, see "It Will Be Awesome if They Don't Screw it Up: 3D Printing" by Michael Weinberg: [http://www.publicknowledge.org/it-will-be- awesome-if-they-do...](http://www.publicknowledge.org/it-will-be-awesome-if- they-dont-screw-it-up)

<comment><USER22> Also "Rule 34" by Charles Stross is a pretty good novel about some of the consequences of personal 3D printing being pushed underground by regulation.

<comment><USER23> Don't forget "Makers" by Cory Doctorow, which discusses some of the legal implications of personal 3D printing as both an attraction and as a way of cheaply producing a variety of things. <http://craphound.com/makers/download/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> the article fails to mention the food industry, despite the fact that the French Culinary Institute is very publicly developing food printers. You can imagine how Nabisco will feel when you can download the plans to print out Oreos in your own home.

<comment><USER25> How do they feel knowing that I can bake them at home right now? [http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/oreo-cookies- recipe/index...](http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/oreo-cookies- recipe/index.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think of this as more of _Patent Law's 3d Printing Morass._</comment>