Florida shortened yellow lights to increase red light camera revenue [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/316418/8/10-News-Investigators-discover-short-yellow-lights <comment><USER3> This is unsafe for pedestrians.

The yellow light means "Clear the intersection," not "Slow down." The purpose is to give time to people crossing the sidewalks to finish walking over to the other side. Shortening them is a safety hazard for pedestrians like me who don't own a vehicle.

I don't live in Florida, but this is shameful and disgusting.

<comment><USER4> This is absolutely incorrect. Traffic lights are for vehicles. Pedestrians should be obeying the pedestrian signals and your cue to "clear the intersection" is the blinking red hand. Traffic lights do not switch to yellow until after the pedestrian signals are solid red hands.

This obviously only applies where pedestrian signage exists.

<comment><USER3> Obviously, you and I live in different areas. Where I live, the traffic lights turn yellow even when the yellow light has not become solid.

Then, there's also the issue that many pedestrians are still in the process of crossing when the hand turns red.

<comment><USER5> > the traffic lights turn yellow even when the yellow light has not become > solid

I'm sorry, but this sentence doesn't make sense to me. Did you mean:

> the traffic lights turn yellow even when the "do-not-cross" signal is still > flashing

If not, could you explain? If so, where do you live that the lights do this? I've never seen that behavior (although I'm the first to say I haven't lived many places).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's an inherent conflict of interest when cities, counties, and states rely on traffic tickets as a source of revenue. The all-too-tempting incentive is to maximize that revenue, either by abusing civil rights or, in this case, by endangering public safety.

<comment><USER7> It won't necessarily endanger the public if they add more delay between one light turning red and the other turning green.

<comment><USER8> If people stop harder, they're more likely to get in an accident doing so. If you don't have ABS, stopping harder increases the odds that you'll skid. Also you're more likely to get rear ended if the person behind you isn't paying attention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I work close to a fairly rare "no right on red" (in California right on red is legal unless signs prohibit it) intersection.

Without fail, near the end of the month there will be a cop car sitting under the bridge overlooking the turn for hours just waiting for someone to make the turn. Shamelessly sitting there, in the dark and under a bridge, blocking half the rightmost lane of a busy street, causing a far greater safety concern than would be caused by anyone taking a normal right-on-red at that corner.

<comment><USER10> So you sympathize with people who can't be bothered to observe posted traffic regulations?

<comment><USER9> No, I don't really sympathize with people who get caught there very much nor did I say I did. But I sympathize far less with the cop who is doing way more to endanger my safety than the other drivers are, all in the name of scoring some easy stops to meet an obvious quota.

For visual reference, this is the intersection:

[http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.917322,-117.2356...](http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.917322,-117.235688&spn=0.566608,1.056747&sll=32.934589,-117.235794&sspn=0.002213,0.004128&t=m&z=11&layer=c&cbll=32.917322,-117.235688&panoid=vBKCzKxH9ESD51CHaW- KyA&cbp=12,55.15,,0,-7.69)

The people getting popped for right hand turns are the ones to the left in this image. The cop sits under that bridge in the shadow area without any lights on, taking up over half of the rightmost (leftmost from this view) lane. The difference in brightness between daylight and under that short overpass bridge is very high.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> An appropriate partial quote of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged:

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken."

<snipped>

"But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt."

<comment><USER10> After you turn 14 you'll realize there is actually never an appropriate moment for an Ayn Rand quote.

<comment><USER12> I have never read Ayn Rand, but I have heard of her before.

Why are such quotes inappropriate?

<comment><USER13> There are several problems with Ayn Rand.

One is that her ideas were not particularly original, and not particularly well-expressed. Self-centered philosophies are far from new, and actually are pretty well-trod ground, but her work does little to address already-existing critiques and, as literature, is not particularly good (her characters tend to be one-dimensional, plots lack good development/tension/resolution, etc.).

Another is that she has become a frankly cult-like figure, with people approaching her work the wrong way around: rather than "this statement is correct, and Ayn Rand said it", too often there is a seeming attitude of "this statement is correct because Ayn Rand said it". The Objectivist movement (people who follow her work and philosophy) is particularly infamous for this, having an established history of venerating her and doing some rather extreme turns when she was alive and particular people from her circle fell out of her favor.

Finally, most of her work is easy to critique with only very basic reasoning/argumentative skills, despite presenting itself as a solid, rationally-justified framework. More realistically, Rand's philosophy consists of appeals to emotional responses, based on the idea of self-evaluation of one's own greatness and the notion that this greatness exists more or less in a vacuum (one of the famous examples is "going Galt", wherein all of the great people who produce value simply retreat and form their own separate society, to spite the "parasites" who "leeched" off their work).

To continue with the fiction theme, one of Heinlein's stories ("The Roads Must Roll", 1940) anticipated and harshly criticized the type of philosophy Rand ended up promoting. One of the asides there is to a philosophy of "Functionalism"; the founder of the philosophy advocates evaluating people -- and giving them power and prestige -- based on what "function" they can perform, and how valuable it is to society.

The result is large numbers of people who do not really make any unusually- significant contributions, but who all come to the conclusion that whatever _they_ do is the one truly indispensable thing, and if they stopped doing it the whole society would fall apart, so they should be given more power or prestige over others in recognition. As Heinlein puts it, "With so many different functions actually indispensible, such self-persuasion was easy." Heinlein also offers a description of the founder of "Functionalism" which critiques the philosophy and in many ways critiques Rand's later work as well, when he says:

 _The complete interdependence of modern economic life seems to have escaped him entirely._

(see Wikipedia for a summary of the story, or look it up -- it's been republished/anthologized: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll>)

<comment><USER12> Many thanks for providing sources and context. I'll ad this to my Amazon Wish List.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is a terrible abuse that pisses me off.

But it still struck me as funny how many of us HN's (self included) jumped to the defense of Weebly for "optimizing revenue" in the "When a Startup Sends a Passive-Aggressive Email Every Day " story that was trending earlier today (1)

If Florida's red-light system was my start-up I'd be pretty damned pleased with myself for figuring out how to drive more revenue with "no cost".

(1) <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5704860>

<comment><USER15> Slight difference, of many: Spams aren't causing traffic accidents.

<comment><USER16> Neither are yellow lights. Cross streets don't turn green until the yellow is gone.

<comment><USER15> Yellow lights don't cause more traffic accidents... _shorter_ yellow lights do. How do you think that _"Cross streets don't turn green until the yellow is gone"_ indicates that should not be the case?

<comment><USER16> Regardless, the cities are still "growth hacking."

<comment><USER15> You are not being coherent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Predictable consequence of red light cameras. Most of the revenue (over 50% in Kissimmee, FL [1]) goes to the vendor!

[1] <http://www.kissimmee.org/index.aspx?page=636>

</comment><comment><USER18> Was anyone else pleasantly surprised to find that this is a well-researched, plainly-told article -- the kind you rarely expect from local news? This should be an example on how to investigate and report impactful news.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think short yellows are dangerous, especially with loaded vehicles. US DOT should set standards for minimum yellow light times. Here is one such proposal: <http://www.shortyellowlights.com/standards/>

EDIT: Linked to proposed standard and equation

<comment><USER20> _US DOT should set standards for minimum yellow light times._

They do, through the MUTCD: <http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm#q32>

<comment><USER19> I meant actual times, the MUTCD only says you must use "engineering practices" in determining the interval. The ITE equation was included in my link -- however it optimizes for _reduced_ red-light violations, so it's no wonder it's not used in these cases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The actual video from these camera should not be admitted as they violate the rules of evidence. Out of 1,000 cases this attorney from the Ticket Clinic claims to have won all 1,000 on this argument alone. I have yet to take one to court, but I imagine I will, as an FL attorney not a violator.

[http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/learn-secret-how-you- can...](http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/learn-secret-how-you-can-fight- red-light-camera-ti/nTm8d/)

</comment><comment><USER22> So below the federal recommendation and worse, not uniformly but more often on lights with cameras leading to non standard light behaviour. Because we really want unpredictable behaviour from our traffic system... that can only lead to safer roads... like variable length steps on a stair case.

These people should be charged with public endangerment.

edit: Also as someone pointed out, less warning to pedestrians to clear the cross walk and less time to do so. Very safety conscious.

<comment><USER23> It might be surprising, actually: having significant uncertainty can be much safer than (false) certainty.

There was a town that took down all stop signs and traffic lights, and it significantly decreased traffic accidents and injuries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I can't wait for self-driving cars to become commonplace. Wonder how much of a hit these departments that rely so much on red light camera and speeding tickets will take.

<comment><USER25> It's not only that. A good buddy of mine is a criminal defence lawyer. He says that a goodly portion of his drug-related cases begin with traffic stops. By goodly portion, I mean 50+%.

We've talked about it at length. There would be major changes in law enforcement practices if automated cars obviated trivial traffic law enforcement stops.

<comment><USER26> Nah, they'll just start pulling cars over to check the firmware on your car to make sure it's up to date.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Very common: <http://www.shortyellowlights.com/>

</comment><comment><USER27> I know this has been done in Sacramento for years. Yellow Lights at large higher speed (40mph) intersections (like Fair Oaks and Howe) have the yellow light set at the CalTrans minimum safe approach speed, which is often 25 mph. This is on a double lane left turn with traffic at or above the posted speed limit.

Good luck fighting that ticket, well within the California State law.

Too bad they don't have to set the yellow light timing consistantly. That probally wouldn't give you the 2x increase in citations.

</comment><comment><USER28> I find the news article rather sensationalist, because the reductions on the yellow light timing are now based off the limit rather than the greater of the limit or average speed. While this does increase the number of ticketed incidents it

It seems reasonable to ticket those who would be impacted by this, for if the forumla is correct it should just impact speeders.

I agree with the sentiment shared by others that the all stop time should stay the same to protect drivers from the speeders.

</comment><comment><USER29> If you extract too much honey from the hive, the colony might not survive the winter.

</comment><comment><USER7> I wonder how it would be if we eliminated yellow lights altogether and instead had a countdown on the green light. At the very least it might save gas, as you could see that the green light ahead will turn red long before you could hope to hit the intersection, so you could coast in. Of course, you'd need to have an adequate "all-red" time for it to not be dangerous.

<comment><USER30> You can kind of do this by looking at the clock on the pedestrian sign. I would think it would help more with traffic flow than saving on gas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I despise these traffic cameras. They are popping up everywhere in the DFW area. So many people I know get rolling right on red tickets... it's absolute BS. It has nothing to do with safety and everything about money. There are so many instances where you can check if it's safe to make a right without having to make your wheels completely stop. I can't imagine many accidents being caused by a vehicle moving <2mph while making sure they were clear as opposed to coming to a complete stop. These photo enforced lights make me nervous as all hell, as I approach, first sign of yellow and I find myself slamming on the brakes.

[https://plus.google.com/115905827925711420560/posts/LauLtrvS...](https://plus.google.com/115905827925711420560/posts/LauLtrvS6mb)

Example of a right turned that ended in a photo enforced ticket.

Edit: fixed the link.

</comment><comment><USER32> The same thing happened in New Jersey, but the state took the matters in hand, and effectively suspended the cameras last summer ([http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/is_your_local_red_l...](http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/is_your_local_red_light_camera.html)). I was flashed in Newark, after a very short yellow light on a 55mph road where normally yellow lights are long enough so that you do not have to dangerously slam the brakes. According to another article I read, it is supposed to be 4 seconds for 40mph roads. I was flashed after what looked like at most 2 seconds of yellow light.

I never received anything, and I found out about the yellow light abuses.

</comment><comment><USER33> Surprise surprise, the King wants to squeeze thew peasantry again with another tax.

</comment><comment><USER34> I am a canadian and I've driven in cities like Vancouver and Calgary. The yellow lights in Calgary hold so much longer (maybe even double the time?). I found it much more comfortable to drive there than in Vancouver.

That said, I've been thinking for quite some time now that it might be best to just add a count-down number on the lights to show you how many seconds are left until the green light turns yellow. If you are going to beat the light, might as well speed up a bit from afar than by a lot near the intersection.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is a perfect example of mismatched incentives.

When a deterrent is working, you get very few violations. Rewarding the detection of violations is incentivizing exactly the wrong thing. You're rewarding for making things worse!

I don't know what incentives would work, in the case of red light cameras.

\- Accuracy on unmarked test cars going through the intersection? (testing is expensive)

\- Clamping the income from fines below some threshold? (the threshold might be manipulated)

\- Rewarding low accident rates relative to other intersections? (probably too unstable)

<comment><USER23> All fines from traffic incidents go into a separate piggy bank that's refunded equally to taxpayers at the end of the year and can't be drawn on for departmental or government funds.

How we get from here to there, I don't know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The problem with red light cameras is that they encourage blind obedience to rigid traffic laws, and not driving safely as dictated by the road conditions. There are plenty of legal situations where a driver might "run" a red without having done anything "illegal" or dangerous, such as getting caught in the middle of an intersection. I'm in favor of ripping them all down, as their only real function is to suck money out of the taxpayers pockets.

</comment><comment><USER37> If you think this is a way to collect money, try driving in the Netherlands. Our normal speedlimit is 130 km/h, but we have limits of 100 km/h on wide and empty 5 lane highways in the middle of nowhere enforced by average- speedcameras (so 100% chance of getting caught even if speeding by as little as 2 mph)

Oh and the fine of 10 mph (16km/h) over the limit is 174 USD... but really, this is about safety, not about the money :X

<comment><USER38> $174 USD isn't unreasonable for a 10mph over ticket in the states. I'd expect that plus court fees here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Aren't Yellow Light times determined by engineering and it becomes a public safety issue if they are shortened?

</comment><comment><USER19> Also: 6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit (2008) [http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught- shorteni...](http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening- yellow-light-times-for-profit/)

</comment><comment><USER40> I keep hearing this a lot but if I was "embroiled" in all of this, I would sue the state for entrapment.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment>

Excerpt:

Two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests. The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime. The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.

</comment><comment><USER41> I'd really love to see how a Google street car (those autonomous vehicles) would handle a yellow...in my book, yellow still means speed up lol.

</comment><comment><USER42> I haven't timed it yet, but I'm pretty sure this is happening in my town here on the central calif. coast.

</comment><comment><USER43> The emperor still has no clothes and the god's are still crazy.

(I mostly walk, thankfully. And don't live in Florida.)

</comment><comment><USER44> If they increased the "all-red" time to match, then good for Florida. They've increased their revenues, their roads are safer, and those who are running yellows are getting what they deserve. Running yellows is illegal and far too common.

If they didn't increase the all-red time they are making the roads more dangerous. People get accustomed to the length of the yellow & all-red time. But if the total doesn't change, only the relative proportions it shouldn't have an impact on safety.

<comment><USER45> How goes giving someone less time to stop before someone else goes not decrease safety? Why not shorten the yellow time to zero?

<comment><USER4> There is a portion of time where all of the lights at the intersection are red. The person you are responding to notes that as long as this portion of time is increased such that the total time that the intersection has for someone to clear it (i.e. - time that the light is yellow plus time that the lights are all red) stays the same then safety inside the intersection should not be impacted.

This says nothing about safety leading up to the intersection (e.g. - <USER2> slamming on their brakes).

<comment><USER45> You make an excellent point.

I am worried about the case where the driver, distracted, looks away from the intersection for a second. Returning their gaze to the light, they see it red. They never observed it yellow, and thus they have no idea how long it has been red and whether or not it is safe to run the light. Perhaps this is why we have yellow to begin with--as an redundant means of clocking the time until the opposing light turns green.

<comment><USER46> If they look away long enough to miss the yellow then, some might say, they deserve what's coming.

<comment><USER15> The entire fucking point of this article is that they are dropping the time yellow is displayed too low.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For those of you who didn't bother reading the article, which I assume will be all of you since this topic normally drags up the least-able critical thinkers on this site, I'll summarize it for you: the Florida DOT lowered yellow duration to a level appropriate for the speed limit on the road. The duration might not be long enough for speeding cars to stop. So in addition to being colossal asshats, people who are speeding might also be getting more tickets from red light cameras.

And in conclusion, drivers are the most self-entitled scofflaws in the world.

<comment><USER47> hear hear!</comment></comment>


Rand Paul: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans' Communications Without Warrants - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2017/03/13/rand-paul-is-right-nsa-routinely-monitors-americans-communications-without-warrants/ <comment><USER2> While this article offers the clearest presentation of the issue I've seen to date, I think the key point (which the article points out halfway in) is that the truth of Trump's claim that he was wiretapped does not depend on the presence or absence of a FISA warrant.

The system is designed to be used without warrant, so those harping on the detail of whether or not a warrant existed that had Trump in scope are not focused on the core issue.

It would be _nice_ if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case.

<comment><USER3> > It would be nice if all surveillance could be traced back to FISA warrants, > but Snowden's revelations make it clear this is absolutely not the case

You mean, since the NSA collects data on millions of Americans?

If that's the type of monitoring you mean, Trump's complaint holds no more water than an average Joe claiming "Obama ordered a wiretap on me". More like, "Obama continued policy begun by previous administrations to enable spying to protect national security.". It's the primary function of the NSA.

<comment><USER4> It's extremely disingenuous to characterize his role as "continued policy begun by previous administration" when his Vice President wrote the core legislation of the Patriot Act, he was actively working to expand those policies for 8 years, and one of his very last acts was to issue an EO further entrenching them.

<comment><USER5> Citations needed.

<comment><USER6> Here's some literature on the Omnibus, Mr. Optimus.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995)

[https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi- tech-v...](https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-voting- record/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My opinion on hn was unpopular when I spoke out against Apple during the San Bernardino affair, because the FBI seemed to have the proper DOJ signoff and I think the motivation was obvious.

However this is unacceptable. We are a society of laws, and one of them is due process. Spying likely started during the Bush years, and Obama somehow escaped scrutiny for continuing the program (even with Snowden leaks). Hopefully it finally gets shut down during the Trump administration, even if merely because the media seems far less tolerant of his transgressions.

<comment><USER8> Haven't we been spying on our own citizens since WWII? Or at least since J Edgar Hoover and thr McCarthy era?

<comment><USER9> McCarthy didn't spy on anyone. He was a Senator not an intel agent. Additionally, McCarthy has been proven right. His estimate was that there were around 20 Soviet agents that had infiltrated the US government at the highest levels. Once the USSR fell and their documents became public it was proven they had well over 200. McCarthy was right but people still tarnish his name out of spite.

Hoover was an SOB far worse than McCarthy ever could have been but is still revered by many in the intel services. His name still adorns the FBI HQ building and other than accusations of cross dressing, no ones dug in to truly uncover the evil things that man did.

<comment><USER10> McCarthy's name isn't being tarnished out of spite. It's because he started a disgusting witch hunt with blacklists, demagoguery, etc to hunt down anyone who committed thoughtcrime (i.e. communist sympathy) that ruined the lives of many, many innocent people and turned the country down a very dark path.

The fact that there were soviet agents in the government is mostly tangential. It was because he went around saying there's a secret list of enemies, and that anyone who is left of center is probably one of them, that he was so horrible. It was because he made disgusting personal attacks and aired the dirty laundry of anyone who crossed him. It was because of his deep hatred for homosexuals and anyone who wasn't right wing.

He was one of the more vile characters in US history. J. Edgar Hoover was much worse, I'll concede; Hoover was actually a traitor, the worst in US history, and should have been jailed or executed. But McCarthy deserves every bit of tarnishing he gets, and a whole lot more that he doesn't get because people have forgotten.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The problem with the press coverage of this topic is a lack of personalization. What does the government know about _me_ and why is that important? I think most US citizens would be shocked to learn that most of our personal information is accessible without a warrant. (phone records / bank account / email / web history / phone location data / Car location / Purchase history / Facebook etc....). Also, how much the government can interpret from that information.

<comment><USER12> All that is available without a warrant? Strange then that the government gets search warrants for lots of that stuff.

edit: Maybe my sarcasm/snark wasn't clear: almost the entirety of the parent comment's list of stuff available to the government without a warrant actually requires a warrant.

<comment><USER13> Would be interesting to get a comprehensive list of what is and isn't available without a warrant from a judge. For example...

"Police can get phone records without a warrant thanks to a 1979 Supreme Court case, Smith v. Maryland, which found that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply to a list of phone numbers. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) — a 1986 law that underpins much of how the government can get digital data — requires providers to allow access to real-time data with a court order and historical data with a subpoena."

[https://www.propublica.org/special/no-warrant-no-problem- how...](https://www.propublica.org/special/no-warrant-no-problem-how-the- government-can-still-get-your-digital-data)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's interesting that the article mentions then Sen. Obama's change of heart re: the FISA Amendments Act - saying he would filibuster it and then voting for it. I wonder what led to his change of heart. I haven't heard that explained.

<comment><USER15> Probably that he was running for president and wanted to appear on the side of the security services? Then when in office it clearly must be a useful tool to start build profiles of everyone and be able to mine their activities.

<comment><USER2> Exactly. I think it also underscores Obama's unprincipled, opportunistic nature. This is not a criticism of Obama, I think it applies to all presidents, and likely most elected officials worldwide.

<comment><USER16> Pragmatism is a principle.

<comment><USER2> > Pragmatism is a principle.

Sure, but toward what end? Himself being elected? Surely most politicians are of the opinion that simply by having their butt in the chair in the office, good has been done. This sort of reasoning is considered sociopathic in most other contexts.

<comment><USER16> Towards any end at all. IRL, there are no points for effort, and certainly no points for purity of intent. The proof is in the pudding.

And so, no, I don't see good/effective politicians as having some quality that would otherwise have them be considered sociopaths. I expect a competent elected leader to behave along the lines of what I'd expect from a competent co-worker.

<comment><USER2> > The proof is in the pudding.

Exactly, and while Obama promised "no surveillance pudding" he actually went into the kitchen and made "massive metadata surveillance pudding".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Where exactly does Paul stand on issues of privacy like this? You'd think we is against it, but he is also okay with ISPs selling your browsing history.

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/gop-senators- new...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/gop-senators-new-bill- would-let-isps-sell-your-web-browsing-data/)

<comment><USER18> Whether or not you agree, there is a legitimate & legal distinction between a private corporation and a publicly-funded government organization.

<comment><USER17> Line gets fuzzy when ISPs, in most part, are government-backed monopolies (I'm "lucky" because both Verion and Comcast covers my area)

<comment><USER9> He is against them being government backed monopolies. According to him, and I agree, we should be able to switch ISP's at will. If we do not want an ISP selling our data we should have the freedom to move to one that doesn't.

<comment><USER19> This sounds great for N >> 1 ISPs. But most of us have N > 1 (and N <= 2) from which to choose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Of course the other 7.2 billion people in the world are also routinely monitored, but since this is an action on foreign territory, these 7.2 billion people have no recourse against this practice.

<comment><USER21> I hear this brought up a lot but do not see how it would be an issue. This is part of the job of an intelligence agency.

Something often ignored: The intelligence agencies of other countries are likely to be doing the same thing. It has already been shown that BND and GCHQ engage in similar behavior with regards to upstream and satellite signals interception, but it seems foolish to assume that other countries are not engaging in this type of intelligence collection.

<comment><USER22> No i don't think it is the job of an intelligence agency to spy on the rest of the world's citizens and i think its a terrible idea to normalise this behaviour as such or to somehow make it sound ethical.

The everyone else is doing it defence does not change the unethical nature of the action.

<comment><USER21> I am curious how you would define "spying" though.

\- Should NGA not use imaging satellites to keep track of national disasters and environmental issues?

\- Should NGA not use imaging satellites for nuclear non-proliferation monitoring?

\- Should DoD not have digital sensors at the egress points of their networks to gather information on attacks by foreign actors?

\- Should NSA not monitor the communications of foreign adversaries to determine their intentions on the battlefield?

\- Should NSA not investigate adversarial nations launching attacks and information-gathering operations against DoD infrastructure as well as US private industry?

\- Should our military intelligence branches not monitor weapons development of adversarial nations (using ELINT measurements, imaging satellites, along with other forms of intelligence gathering to determine their offensive/defensive capabilities)

\- Should we not use SIGINT sensors and capabilities to detect an incoming attack on the USA or an ally?

\- I can add a whole lot more to this list if interested.

The act of "spying" is far more than just SIGINT collection and processing of internet data. Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with? Do you take issue with all intelligence collection as a whole, or specifically SIGINT collection, or more specifically SIGINT collection of internet data or phone records? I am curious and like to keep an open mind about these things, so am being genuine when I ask this.

<comment><USER23> Generally: false equivalence, excluded middle.

<comment><USER21> I do not understand. The question was:

> Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with?

<comment><USER23> And I'm responding specifically to that response.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I have a question about this whole government intrusion thing. Perhaps a lawyer can explain:

Suppose the government gets a warrant to wiretap some guy. He happens to get a call from his lawyer, and the government overhears that he's committed some crime.

Now there's an attorney/client privilege preventing you from directly producing the tape (is there?) so you can't just do that. But the fact that you've heard this means as an investigator you'll probably pursue this guy much more aggressively, and perhaps gather other evidence rather than give up.

How does that work?

<comment><USER25> If you gather other evidence, it's called "parallel construction" and it's A Thing. It doesn't just apply to wire-taps; all sorts of evidence would be inadmissible, but of course once investigators know something there are often other ways of figuring out a means to get evidence (or, at least, getting to the point you can justify a warrant).

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The author of this article did a poor job of refuting Susan Hennessey's statement that reverse targeting is unlawful and not practiced. Taking an excerpt of a Hayden speech and then highlighting his statement that "communications with one end in the U.S." are the most interesting doesn't really prove this.

The author would have a stronger argument by sticking to the facts. Searches of U.S. persons without a warrant are directly at odds with the language in the 4th amendment of the Constitution, full stop.

</comment><comment><USER27> Why aren't politicians and their staff using end-to-end encrypted VOIP?

<comment><USER28> The same reason you aren't. The same reason PGP has been around for 25 years and only a miniscule fraction of people ever encrypt their email.

I.e., it's because none of this privacy technology is built-in as the default into our communications infrastructure. Therefore, for the average person (and even for privacy-conscious techies), it is inconvenient and difficult, and you have to convince the party you're talking with to also install and configure something that is inconvenient and difficult for them.

I'm convinced that the question of _why_ end-to-end crypto isn't the default is a political one; i.e., there is pressure not to do it.

<comment><USER29> It's really not that hard. Mumble works quite well in TCP mode, via Tor onion service. That gives you end-to-end encryption plus some anonymity. Except for the voiceprint issue, anyway. And you get cellular-level sound quality. Latency isn't problematic if you run in press-to-transmit mode.

<comment><USER30> Mumble is not end to end encryption, at least if the setup isnt one of a party of two running a server.

<comment><USER29> It's easy to run your own server in Whonix. Friends can run clients in Whonix.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Dana Priest and William Arkin's project documents a lot of the issues w/ the intelligence bureaucract.... [http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret- america/](http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/)

</comment><comment><USER32> The world would be a much worse place without people like Greenwald.

</comment><comment><USER12> One feels that Paul doesn't quite have a full grasp of the techniques he's describing (and it sounds like he's conflating a lot of stuff that Snowden leaked), but that headline sure gets the clicks, so let's go with it. Especially since it's Greenwald, who uses Paul's jumbled mess of an explanation to burn everything down.

Doesn't even make sense what he's proposing: Instead of getting a warrant to record the American, the NSA targets the foreigner? But what if they call someone else overseas? Or call people in the US? Seems like a really suboptimal way of targeting someone. And a low-level employee could unmask the caller? Sure, and that could also lead to that employee getting fired and prosecuted. I can access lots of data at work, but I would be shown the door and possibly sued if I did so.

<comment><USER33> Paraphrasing Donald Rumsfeld, "You spy on your own people within the legal regime you've got, not the one you wish you had."

<comment><USER12> You can legally tap phones of Americans in a far less convoluted way than what Rand Paul attempted to describe.</comment></comment></comment>


Ballmer: Had To Make Windows The Center Of Microsoft's Tablet Strategy - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-had-to-make-windows-the-center-of-its-tablet-strategy-even-if-it-kills-them-2011-4?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2Falleyinsider%2Fsilicon_alley_insider+%28Silicon+Alley+Insider%29 <comment><USER2> Sad reading: "That's why the Xbox, which was meant to conquer the living room, never had a digital video recorder in it -- that function was reserved for Windows Media Center. That's why Microsoft scrapped a plan to move Office to the Web (called NetDocs) way back in 2000"

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A poster child for the Innovator's Dilemma of how traditional management excellence kills disruptive innovation: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology></comment>


Ask HN: What programming language do you recommend starting with? - <AUTHOR>

Where should a beginner who is interested in coding start?  Is there a language, like latin, that can help form the basis for understanding other languages and make learning easier? <comment><USER3> If you are serious about thinking that Latin would be a good precursor to learning other languages, then I would recommend that you learn Scheme. Scheme is a dialect of Lisp, which was one of the first programming languages. Scheme was designed to be used to teach the fundamentals of programming, and was used for quite a while at MIT in their introductory programming course. The textbook that was used for the course (Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs) is freely available online, as are quite a few video lectures that teach from the book.

There is another dialect of Scheme called Racket, that has an entire development environment intended to make it easy to learn Scheme. Racket uses another book titled "How to Design Programs", that is also freely available online.

Learning Scheme will give you a solid foundation in the fundamental concepts of programming.

If you would rather start to learn programming with a more mainstream language, Python is the programming language that MIT is now using in their introductory programming course.

For more information use your favorite search engine to look up "mit ocw gentle introduction programming" or "sicp" or "htdp".

<comment><USER4> > Is there a language, like Latin, that can help form the basis for > understanding other languages and make learning easier?

As inetsee says, Scheme is this. It will provide you with a firm basis for actually understanding how programs execute. (Theoretically, learning C will also do this, but if you want to come from that direction I recommend learning some assembly language instead, since the semantics of C are surprisingly complex). Stretching the analogy rather dangerously, Scheme is as relevant to the past, present _and future_ of other languages as Latin (though this is a conceptual rather than historical truth), as pedagogical/minimalist as Esperanto, and as expressive as English.

Also, if you find HtDP too tame or SICP too challenging (certainly possible unless you have a science/math background, though most parts requiring specific knowledge are optional), try Concrete Abstractions (<http://gustavus.edu/+max/concrete-abstractions.html>).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Pulling on the parallel to human languages I'd say c is the latin equivalent (except that c is still actively in usage). Basically, c was there first, you could and still can build anything in c and though its easier than x86 its full of pendantic features much like the latin case system. Also because c has been so successful its had a huge influence on just about every succeeding language - again much like latin. So I'd say learn c meets your requirements. Nonetheless, just learning c won't get you acquainted with many usefull features, just like knowing only english won't let you realize that common words like collegue or friend can carry gender connotations that automatically tell you if its a male or female friend/collegue (or that word order isn't important when your language has cases).

In that respect I think Java plays a role similar to say 18th and 19th century French - the post latin lingua franca. Java took a lot from c, but implemented many new concepts and design philosphies to programming and brought them to a wide audience. Although Java is kind of on the decline, and many other newer languages like Go push the envelope further, Java and java philosophies have still had a large influence on PHP, Ruby, Go, etc.

As far as what the english equivalent would be in this contrived metaphor... I'm unsure maybe we'll just have to wait, but in the meantime with c and java you shouldn't have a problem understanding just about any programming language currently in use.

<comment><USER6> I'd say the English equivalent is PHP: a mongrel language that succeeded because it absorbed everything, where you can say things 10 different ways. Most developers know enough of the language to be conversant, making it a kind of lingua franca.

From a historical viewpoint, English is just as much a weird mishmash of everything as PHP is.

<comment><USER5> I think you got it :), also PHP is kind of like the "fluent in english" requirement on every job post. While we're at it, what would the Lisp equivalent be?

<comment><USER7> Esperanto.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you enjoy watching videos, I'd recommend starting with the CS101 Udacity course (Intro to Computer Science: Building a Search Engine), which you can find here:

[http://www.udacity.com/overview/Course/cs101/CourseRev/apr20...](http://www.udacity.com/overview/Course/cs101/CourseRev/apr2012)

This courses will introduce you to the Python programming language and will also explain you how search engines work. It's a perfect course for a beginner, because it assumes no prior programming knowledge. It's also very interactive, because you often have to answer questions or to implement your own procedures in Python (you can write you code, run it to see the output and submit it for validation directly in your web browser).

Looking at the syllabus, you can get a very good idea of what exactly you will learn throughout the course:

Unit 1: How to Get Started (Your first program: Extracting a link)

Unit 2: How to Repeat (Finding all of the links on a page)

Unit 3: How to Manage Data (Crawling the web)

Unit 4: How to Solve Problems (Responding to search queries)

Unit 5: How Programs Run (Making things fast)

Unit 6: How to Have Infinite Power (Ranking search results)

Unit 7: Where to Go from Here (Exam testing your knowledge)

I took this class a few months ago and I found it extremely interesting! Especially Unit 5, where you will learn how to implement hash tables (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table>).

</comment><comment><USER9> You have a fairly good understanding already, although you have not realised it. Being able to _see_ that there are a set of core principles (Meta principles, if you will) at work behind every language is a big (and hard) step for beginners to take. Alas, you already surpassed that point. Yet, you should not waste any time learning how to _code_. Invest your time learning about patterns. Every program out there is a pattern. From the moment you start to think about how it may work, to the moment you ship it, all you are doing is thinking up patterns that aim to solve a problem. Let's take for example the following problem:

         You have to get some data from the user through
         a webpage. The pattern to do that is to include a
         form in the webpage where the user types in the
         data we want. Then the user submits the data by
         clicking on a button. Following that we receive
         the data and store it in a variable or
         array (like a  bucket, but for data). From that point
         forward we process it with things called functions
         ,which are nothing more than little bits of code that
         only have one task to complete. We then test to see
         if that data is in a condition that we can use it.
         Thus we include in the pattern a set of conditionals
         to test if the data is good to go. If its not good to
         go, then we either fix it or trash it. Our pattern
         might include some functionality to tell the user that
         the data typed in is good, and conforms to what we
         need. We may also need to return the data in modified
         form to the user. Maybe the user wanted to know
         what is the meaning of the word *perro* in English
         , so we send back the answer to the user. Perro is
         dog in spanish.

         Now, let's write a simple program that follows that
         same pattern.

         <!-- the form where the user submits the data-->
         <form action="/submit" method="post">
         <input type="text" name="search">
         <input type="submit" value="search">
         </form>
         <!-- /of form -->

         <?php
            //the following code is not secure at all.

           $input = $_POST['search']; //look up there where it says name="search".

           function translate ($input)
           {
             if($input == "perro") //does the user want to translate the word "perro"?
             {
                return "dog"; //if he/she does then give him the translation.
             }

             else
             {
                return "I don't know.";
             }
           }

            //let's use the function to test the data.

           $output = translate($input);
           echo $output; //this displays the information back to the user.

         ?>

But wait, we can also do it in python. Let's use a simple python program to show you how.

         #Python 2.7.X

         input = raw_input("What do you wish to translate?") #get the data from the user.

         def translate(input):  #the translate function.
             if input == "perro":
                 return "dog"
             else:
                 return "I don't know"

         output = translate(input) #use the function on the data gotten from the user
         print output  #display the results back to the user.

See the similarities in the programs? Notice the pattern? Even though they are two different languages (three if we include HTML), they both follow the same basic pattern to solve the problem at hand.

You must now focus of learning new patterns of how given problems are solved. For example, getting data from a website, processing it, etc. Patterns do get more complicated as you advance, even to the point of not being able to understand them. But dont feel bad, most problems are solved using the simple stuff.

From here on, I would focus on learning every possible language I could get my hands on. But learn by doing, and not by reading (read -> test and repeat).

If you need any assitance, feel free to email me. Best wishes.

<comment><USER10> Couldn't be explained better. Do you teach?

<comment><USER9> Yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is assembly language, which is the root to all higher level languages... but I would not recommend anyone start there unless they are using a micro- controller or other tiny platform.

If you aren't too savvy on computer concepts I would suggest python - <USER2> the easiest to get into and whatever platform you are on (Mac, Windows, Linux) python exists for it, has libraries for just about anything you want to explore, sound graphics, etc.

Second choice would be C - lower level than python but more understandable to the neophyte than assembly would be. C runs a lot of system functions on popular computers.

</comment><comment><USER12> > Where should a beginner who is interested in coding start?

Python is a very easy language to learn and is also very powerful.

> Is there a language, like latin, that can help form the basis for > understanding other languages and make learning easier?

Assembly language. It's a text language that corresponds one-to-one [1] with machine language, the numbers which are given directly to the CPU for execution [2].

I would _not_ recommend assembly language to a beginner, but rather to an intermediate-level programmer who's already proficient in at least one other language. The main problems with it are (1) it's not portable, (2) it's not easy to find tutorials and documentation geared toward beginners, (3) it's not easy to find programmers who are comfortable with it, and (4) it tends to produce very long, difficult-to-read programs.

So even if they know assembly language well, most programmers don't use it directly very much; there's a reason that it's mostly a dead language outside of very specific areas.

Learning assembly language immensely helps your understanding of how computers work, and gives you some idea of what operating systems and higher-level languages must do behind the scenes to provide the tools that they give you.

To summarize, assembly language is a mostly dead language, with very limited direct practical use in modern times, which, when learned, will greatly help your general understanding of other languages -- and which cannot be avoided if you want to master complete knowledge of how computer software works.

[1] Modern assemblers often provide higher-level tools like labels, macros, and linker data, so the correspondence isn't necessarily one-to-one.

[2] I originally said "used directly by the CPU", but modern CPU's, at least in the Intel world, translate the user software's machine code into a proprietary internal code that's only visible to the hardware. This is largely a workaround for the fact that the x86 is constrained by backward compatibility to be a CISC-style machine, even though we now know RISC-style machines are much simpler and faster. The extra abstraction layer provided by the translation from backwards-compatible user instruction set to the internal proprietary instruction set means the latter can be RISC, can be shuffled around however the chip designers want, can use a strange number of bits per instruction, can be tied closely to tiny architecture details which may change in next year's chip, can actually change instruction order to increase speed as long as we can prove it doesn't change the semantics of the user program, etc. And all we software people see of this is that, inside the CPU, magic happens -- which makes our programs run faster.

</comment><comment><USER13> The programming language isn't really the important thing to learn. The important thing is learning how to think and how to break large problems into smaller ones.

I really recommend against starting with C or assembly because they are hard and can discourage you. Even trying to start by making something with Ruby on Rails can be very discouraging.

The best way to start is to work from the beginning and learn the fundamentals of programming and how to think rather than focusing on a language.

I'm making CodeHS (<http://codehs.com>) to help teach beginners in the most user friendly way possible by stressing the way of thinking rather than the programming syntax.

We're providing help to beginners because we know that people can get stuck.

We're about to change our pricing, but for now, you should check out the free trial. We'd love to hear what you think.

</comment><comment><USER14> I tell the majority of people who want to dabble with programming to start with javascript, because the environment setup to make something run is so trivial, and they get positive reinforcement from making something that relates to other sites they actually use, not command line output.

If you're really looking for a latin equivalent, I agree with the previous posters (a lisp, python, and c all have merit and are worth getting to eventually).

My own early learning path was basic -> dos shell -> c -> c++

I'm glad I learned c, wouldn't really mind having missed C++.

</comment><comment><USER15> Just learn BASIC, which will give you the least frustration and the most enjoyment. Head over to basic.mindteq.com and choose a compiler (yes, compiler - they exist) and integrated development environment. You might be interested in Freebasic, which will enable you to create games or other software without having a whole lot of dependencies to download. There are versions for Windows and Linux and you can easily interface C code to create slick GUIs on both. Head to zetcode.com to find out how to mix GTK to freebasic. Head over to petesqbsite.com to find a great community and lots of tutorials.

Other nice BASICs are AutoIt (Win), FnxBasic (Win), Envelop (Win), Microsoft VB Express edition (win), Gambas (Linux), Xbasic (Linux and Windows), GFA32 (win)

After learning that language you'll be able to move on to others, even to C which has pointers because freebasic uses pointers too.You'll find a lot of tutorials on the web and a great community for almost all of those.

Lots of people are going to say BASIC is inadequate for serious computing but if you go their way you'll find that the desire to learn has left you by the time you finish reading even one text. Ultimately it's your decision, not theirs.

TL;DR: You can learn BASIC in a weekend. Great community, easy to learn, will accomplish great things, will help you understand other languages.

</comment><comment><USER16> I wouldn't approach it this way.

Instead, I would think of a project I wanted to build, pick a language well- suited for that project, and then learn that language as I got building. Learning through doing is the best way to make learning easier - far better than studying the programming equivalent of Latin.

</comment><comment><USER17> The most beautiful, well designed, programming language I have ever encountered in my 20 years of research is the equational programming language Q:

<http://www.musikwissenschaft.uni-mainz.de/~ag/q/qdoc.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER18> If I were some alien coming to Earth and asked myself what language to learn, I'd start with English, not Latin. English seems like a pretty obvious start when trying to communicate the earthling's way. Then, once I've mastered English, I'd drill a bit and find out about its roots and cousins: French, German, Latin, ancient Greek, etc. Then I would learn Chinese.

So my first question would be: What's English equivalent in programming languages? PHP? Java? C? Then, because programming languages have entered in a very fast paced evolution period recently, with new languages popping out every given month, what programming language the most prominent programmer elites are using right now? Go? Any other C variant? JS? Ruby? Etc.?

</comment><comment><USER19> Just start with Python. I don't know why some people are not recommending Python but they don't have your best interests at heart, they aren't actually thinking of the language that's quick to get up to speed and enjoyable to learn with, and instead are going with some absurd platonic ideal designed for a parallel universe in which their recommendation might make sense.

I'm specifically pointing at the highly voted posts mentioning C and Scheme.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think Lisp and C are the important languages to learn as a basis for understanding other languages, and programming in general. C is a low level language and gets you thinking about things like memory, memory addresses, and pointers. Lisp, on the other end, is a high level language with powerful tools for abstraction, like using macros to create new syntax.

However, I wouldn't recommend either language as your first. I recommend starting with Python. It's an easy language to learn, but also powerful. It's closer to the languages that are used in industry, has a lot of libraries, and you'll be able to quickly develop useful applications in it, which will make programming fun.

After a few months of Python, learn Lisp and C. Like others here, I also recommend learning Scheme, which is a clean dialect of Lisp.

</comment><comment><USER21> Java or C++. Both have great IDEs (Visual Studio, Eclipse, Netbeans) that come with a debugger and make tools, so that you can focus on learning the language before learning what a linker and a compiler is. The debugger is also a must for learning properly by trial and error.

Don't bother with anything else.

</comment><comment><USER22> Maybe go straight to functional. Check out Scala.

</comment><comment><USER23> Scheme, Haskell</comment>


Seven Tips to Engaging Your Boss Effectively - <AUTHOR> https://www.happierco.com/blog/seven-tips-to-engaging-your-boss-effectively/ <comment><USER2> Something about this pisses me off. Maybe it's because I don't really like my boss right now and think he's pretty bad at being a boss. Or maybe it's because I think it's the bosses job to make my life easier as a worker bee who does the real shit in the company? The whole blurb on this site that says "Your job is to make your boss happy" really just grates on my nerves and makes me want to stab the author of this site with a dull pencil in the eye.</comment>


Show HN: Glancee, a mobile app to meet people with common friends and interests - <AUTHOR> http://glancee.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey all,

We're a small group of hackers from Italy, Canada, and Ukraine. We just moved to San Francisco to launch our startup Glancee.

Glancee is a mobile app that makes it fun and safe to meet people with common friends and similar interests that are near you.

We'd love for you to try it and let us know what you think. Thanks!

Note: we ask you to signup with facebook. We need this to make sure your account is authentic and to populate your interests.

</comment><comment><USER2> Met these guys at a Hack and Tell a few nights ago. They seem super passionate about their product and I wish them all the best in their ventures.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is great. I organized EuroPython 2011 and I wish I had something like this to help the attendees to find each other more efficiently.</comment>